the greatest threat
I recently received a very abrupt email from a person who did not like something I wrote or said. This person wanted to tell me very candidly that what I wrote or said was not in agreement with his or her belief. Therefore, this person, in an angry and defensive tone, told me what he or she believed. Then before closing the email got in a good one liner about my appearance or character – or maybe both as I am trying to forget the nasty comments (yet now I write about it?).
This is not the first time I have received mean spirited emails from people. I have been confronted by people in parking lots outside of church buildings. I have been called all sorts of names (if you really want to know my top five email me). I have been accused of siding with one group or another. I have received phone calls from angry people about this or that. This is not the norm, but it does happen.
Over the years I have begun to see a pattern emerge. That being, the greatest reaction from people is when an idea is presented that is contrary to their own. Mind you, it is not when I or anyone vehemently attack their position and say it is wrong. Simply articulating a thought or an idea that is not in agreement with their's gets the blood pumping. Asking a penetrating, open-ended question that causes them to encounter their own belieds can cause all sorts of responses.
The greatest threat it seems is not a frontal assault. Rather, it is engaging a new or different idea or asking new or different questions. It is taking a good hard look at the unknown and walking straight into it.
I have to be honest when I say I am not sure why this is. Perhaps because we as a people have been told the answers our whole life, and told we are never to question them. New thoughts, ideas, or questions can do just that. I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are on why this is. Feel free to comment.
This is not the first time I have received mean spirited emails from people. I have been confronted by people in parking lots outside of church buildings. I have been called all sorts of names (if you really want to know my top five email me). I have been accused of siding with one group or another. I have received phone calls from angry people about this or that. This is not the norm, but it does happen.
Over the years I have begun to see a pattern emerge. That being, the greatest reaction from people is when an idea is presented that is contrary to their own. Mind you, it is not when I or anyone vehemently attack their position and say it is wrong. Simply articulating a thought or an idea that is not in agreement with their's gets the blood pumping. Asking a penetrating, open-ended question that causes them to encounter their own belieds can cause all sorts of responses.
The greatest threat it seems is not a frontal assault. Rather, it is engaging a new or different idea or asking new or different questions. It is taking a good hard look at the unknown and walking straight into it.
I have to be honest when I say I am not sure why this is. Perhaps because we as a people have been told the answers our whole life, and told we are never to question them. New thoughts, ideas, or questions can do just that. I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are on why this is. Feel free to comment.
shalom, salaam, peace part 3
This is an urgent topic. This group calls violent jihad the most “urgent topic.” While it is urgent – is it really the most urgent?
What about the global water and sanitation crisis that is killing millions every year – far more than violent jihad? What about the AIDS pandemic that is killing millions every year – far more than violent jihad? What about famine and hunger that is killing millions every year – far more than violent jihad? What about extreme poverty that forces over a billion people to live on less than a dollar a day?
Maybe the solution to violent jihad could be bound up in solving these very things. Colin Powell, a decorated United States General said, “The war against terror is bound up in the war against poverty.”
If we as Christians put our efforts into loving this world things may look a little different. If we are serving people with no strings attached will they really want to threaten us? If are giving the thirsty clean, cold water will they want us dead? If we are empowering women to care for the children, thus seeing a drastic reduction in the infant mortality rate, do we need clandestine evenings to speak about our security?
Much of this conversation is about being right, not being loving. Much of this conversation is about strength, not about being broken. Much of this conversation is about the God of Abraham being on one side or the other. But we cannot forget God is with us if we are with him, and he is a God of peace.
The Kingdom calls us to a difficult place. It calls us to give up our sense of entitlement to what we believe are our rights, and pursue the cause of peace. This does not mean roll over and accept our fate – it means actively loving our enemy. Feeding them, clothing them, caring for them as people – as we would a brother or a sister – as we would a fellow child of Abraham. Maybe in this we will find shalom, salaam, peace.
shalom, salaam, peace part 2
My question of those sons of Abraham who are Christians comes out of a letter I recently saw sent to privileged undisclosed recipients. The letter was sent by a Christian organization at the behest of the organization’s leader inviting a special group to an almost clandestine dinner. Their featured speaker has a world of military, law enforcement, and security experience. The evening is to address, in their words, “… the threat of violent jihad.”
The letter goes on to state that the most basic values that we hold dear will be threatened if we do not act intentionally and swiftly. They are calling on U.S. citizens to come together to address the most “urgent topic” pressing on us today.
As a Christian I find this all a bit interesting on many levels. I could speak about the fact that this is a Christian organization that put out a letter that speaks of “radical Islam” and its affect on the “United States.” Keep in mind, this letter comes out of a Christian organization that has no official affiliation with the United States Government. Yet they set up the tension to be between Islam and the United States.
Is it possible that we should be addressing this issue from the posture of the Kingdom of Heaven and not the United States? Certainly, nations and governments have their responsibilities and policies. But are we not called first, foremost and exclusively to pledge our allegiance to a blood stained cross, and not the flag of any nation?
If we approach this discussion with a Kingdom perspective we are introduced to quotes like:
“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” (Coals were a symbol of purification not torture).
“Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing …Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.”
As a son of Abraham I am called to seek peace. As a son of Abraham I am called to bless the violent jihadists. As a son of Abraham I am called to love all people without preconditions. As a son of Abraham I am called to pray for those who hate me and wished I were dead. As a son of Abraham I am called to pursue peace.
Maybe we speak about this at a "national security" level because it is easier then to navigate around these ideas that run deep in the Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe we do all we can to objectify our “enemy” because then we can live with our security and their destruction a little easier. Maybe we speak of country rather than faith because then we can detach ourselves from the radical teachings of Jesus who preached the Kingdom not a country.
The letter goes on to state that the most basic values that we hold dear will be threatened if we do not act intentionally and swiftly. They are calling on U.S. citizens to come together to address the most “urgent topic” pressing on us today.
As a Christian I find this all a bit interesting on many levels. I could speak about the fact that this is a Christian organization that put out a letter that speaks of “radical Islam” and its affect on the “United States.” Keep in mind, this letter comes out of a Christian organization that has no official affiliation with the United States Government. Yet they set up the tension to be between Islam and the United States.
Is it possible that we should be addressing this issue from the posture of the Kingdom of Heaven and not the United States? Certainly, nations and governments have their responsibilities and policies. But are we not called first, foremost and exclusively to pledge our allegiance to a blood stained cross, and not the flag of any nation?
If we approach this discussion with a Kingdom perspective we are introduced to quotes like:
“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” (Coals were a symbol of purification not torture).
“Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing …Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.”
As a son of Abraham I am called to seek peace. As a son of Abraham I am called to bless the violent jihadists. As a son of Abraham I am called to love all people without preconditions. As a son of Abraham I am called to pray for those who hate me and wished I were dead. As a son of Abraham I am called to pursue peace.
Maybe we speak about this at a "national security" level because it is easier then to navigate around these ideas that run deep in the Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe we do all we can to objectify our “enemy” because then we can live with our security and their destruction a little easier. Maybe we speak of country rather than faith because then we can detach ourselves from the radical teachings of Jesus who preached the Kingdom not a country.
shalom, salaam, peace part 1
When I was young we used to sing a song that made little sense. The lyric was …
Father Abraham had many sons,
Many sons had father Abraham,
I am one of them and so are you …
Then you would have to wave an arm, a leg, spin around. It was about as meaningful as the Hokey Pokey. Recently, however, the phrase “sons of Abraham” has taken on new meaning, not just for me, but globally. For it is the “sons of Abraham” that represent the three largest monotheistic religions. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
It is well known that there has been mounting tension in recent years between the sons of Abraham. The religions themselves have been cloaked under the banner of nations. Israel. The United States. Afghanistan. We use other words to minimize the religious overtones of the conversation. Words like terrorist, military, security. This has become a conversation about politics, national security, and war.
But underneath it all there are the “sons of Abraham.” Staring each other down, guns locked and loaded, all ready to defend or attack in a moment’s notice. The passion behind this tension is more than political. It goes to the very foundation of life for billions of people worldwide. It goes to religion.
As I view this religious hostility being played out on the world’s stage under the banner of nations, I have been interested in the Christian response. This is because I am a son of Abraham, I am one of them, and so are you … I am a Christian. Admittedly I do not know the breadth and depth of the Muslim faith and tradition, nor the Jewish faith. I do however, know a little about the Christian faith and our tradition.
It is my scant knowledge of the Christian tradition that has led me to write about the Christian response to all of this. And, since we are all sons of Abraham, I ask those of Jewish faith and Muslim faith if we can once and for all lay down our guns for the pursuit of shalom, salaam, peace.
I am not so naïve as to believe that I have the perfect answer to the tension that exists that will once and for all solve the problem. I do however, believe that systemic change begins one person at a time. And so for me, I wish to take the first step.
Father Abraham had many sons,
Many sons had father Abraham,
I am one of them and so are you …
Then you would have to wave an arm, a leg, spin around. It was about as meaningful as the Hokey Pokey. Recently, however, the phrase “sons of Abraham” has taken on new meaning, not just for me, but globally. For it is the “sons of Abraham” that represent the three largest monotheistic religions. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
It is well known that there has been mounting tension in recent years between the sons of Abraham. The religions themselves have been cloaked under the banner of nations. Israel. The United States. Afghanistan. We use other words to minimize the religious overtones of the conversation. Words like terrorist, military, security. This has become a conversation about politics, national security, and war.
But underneath it all there are the “sons of Abraham.” Staring each other down, guns locked and loaded, all ready to defend or attack in a moment’s notice. The passion behind this tension is more than political. It goes to the very foundation of life for billions of people worldwide. It goes to religion.
As I view this religious hostility being played out on the world’s stage under the banner of nations, I have been interested in the Christian response. This is because I am a son of Abraham, I am one of them, and so are you … I am a Christian. Admittedly I do not know the breadth and depth of the Muslim faith and tradition, nor the Jewish faith. I do however, know a little about the Christian faith and our tradition.
It is my scant knowledge of the Christian tradition that has led me to write about the Christian response to all of this. And, since we are all sons of Abraham, I ask those of Jewish faith and Muslim faith if we can once and for all lay down our guns for the pursuit of shalom, salaam, peace.
I am not so naïve as to believe that I have the perfect answer to the tension that exists that will once and for all solve the problem. I do however, believe that systemic change begins one person at a time. And so for me, I wish to take the first step.
the capacity of love
I spent time with a good friend this morning who was talking about Martin Luther King, Jr. He quoted a piece of a sermon given by Dr. King. I later found the sermon to which he referred and read it in its entirety online ... Below is an excerpt that sermon entitled "The American Dream" that was give at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, on 4 July 1965.
History is the long story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges without strong resistance, and they seldom do it voluntarily. And so if the American dream is to be a reality, we must work to make it a reality and realize the urgency of the moment. And we must say now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to get rid of segregation and discrimination. Now is the time to make Georgia a better state. Now is the time to make the United States a better nation. We must live with that, and we must believe that.
And I would like to say to you this morning what I’ve tried to say all over this nation, what I believe firmly: that in seeking to make the dream a reality we must use and adopt a proper method. I’m more convinced than ever before that nonviolence is the way. I’m more convinced than ever before that violence is impractical as well as immoral.
If we are to build right here a better America, we have a method as old as the insights of Jesus of Nazareth and as modern as the techniques of Mohandas K. Gandhi. We need not hate; we need not use violence. We can stand up before our most violent opponent and say: We will match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you.
We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws, because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good, and so throw us in jail. We will go in those jails and transform them from dungeons of shame to havens of freedom and human dignity.
Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities after midnight hours and drag us out on some wayside road and beat us and leave us half-dead, and as difficult as it is, we will still love you.
Somehow go around the country and use your propaganda agents to make it appear that we are not fit culturally, morally, or otherwise for integration, and we will still love you.
Threaten our children and bomb our homes, and as difficult as it is, we will still love you.
But be assured that we will ride you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we will win our freedom, but we will not only win freedom for ourselves, we will so appeal to your heart and your conscience that we will win you in the process. And our victory will be a double victory.
Oh yes, love is the way. Love is the only absolute. More and more I see this. I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate myself; hate is too great a burden to bear.
I’ve seen it on the faces of too many sheriffs of the South—I’ve seen hate. In the faces and even the walk of too many Klansmen of the South, I’ve seen hate. Hate distorts the personality. Hate does something to the soul that causes one to lose his objectivity. The man who hates can’t think straight; the man who hates can’t reason right; the man who hates can’t see right; the man who hates can’t walk right.
And I know now that Jesus is right, that love is the way. And this is why John said, "God is love," so that he who hates does not know God, but he who loves at that moment has the key that opens the door to the meaning of ultimate reality.
the success of the church
There has been a lot of talk about successful churches as of late. One can attend conferences to learn what is it that makes a successful church. There are books written about what makes a church successful. There are many who are looking out for a the silver bullet. The are many who want to know the one thing that will make a church successful.
The problem with this train of thought is that there are many different opinions about what makes a church successful. One common denominator seems to be church growth. The bottom line, for some, is, “How many people are showing up on a Sunday morning?” Perhaps there is a better way to think about this.
After spending a week in Dominican Republic, I was reminded of something that I experienced when I spent time with several churches in Mozambique. When we sat with the pastors and asked them, “What do you need?” and “How can we support you in what you are already doing?” The immediate response was to tell us about the communities they were in.
In DR, the Haitian pastors told us about the refugee villages, and the high level of HIV/AIDS among those who live there. We were told about the needs in the slums of Puerta Plata. We were told about the need for proper documentation for Haitians so they can work and be enabled to feed their families.
Their focus is serving those who are in a bad spot – the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. Thinking about this for a time, I then asked about success. They then spoke of those who had new homes built – homes that would not flood after a rain. They spoke about support coming to them so that refugees could get documents that would allow them to work. They told stories of healing.
On Sunday we gathered with our brothers and sisters at the church’s building. A few showed up. Yet as I sat and listened to songs sung in Creole and Spanish I knew that I was with a successful church. Which reminded me of a statement Jesus made.
John the Baptist sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one to come. He was sending his disciples to Jesus to find out if he was Messiah, if he had come to establish his kingdom. Jesus’ response is simple. He says, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” Jesus does not just say “yes.”
He tells John’s disciples – “Yes, and this is what the kingdom looks like.” The kingdom is here now, and the Church is to be the embodiment of that kingdom. When we think about success then, maybe we should measure it against this. Maybe we should ask, “Is there healing, renewal, love, and hope?”
What would it sound like to answer the question, “What does success look like in your church?” with the answer – “The hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the poor are seeing justice, the sick are being healed, the prisoners are being visited, the thirsty are receiving clean water …” That sounds like success, but only because it sounds like the kingdom.
The problem with this train of thought is that there are many different opinions about what makes a church successful. One common denominator seems to be church growth. The bottom line, for some, is, “How many people are showing up on a Sunday morning?” Perhaps there is a better way to think about this.
After spending a week in Dominican Republic, I was reminded of something that I experienced when I spent time with several churches in Mozambique. When we sat with the pastors and asked them, “What do you need?” and “How can we support you in what you are already doing?” The immediate response was to tell us about the communities they were in.
In DR, the Haitian pastors told us about the refugee villages, and the high level of HIV/AIDS among those who live there. We were told about the needs in the slums of Puerta Plata. We were told about the need for proper documentation for Haitians so they can work and be enabled to feed their families.
Their focus is serving those who are in a bad spot – the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. Thinking about this for a time, I then asked about success. They then spoke of those who had new homes built – homes that would not flood after a rain. They spoke about support coming to them so that refugees could get documents that would allow them to work. They told stories of healing.
On Sunday we gathered with our brothers and sisters at the church’s building. A few showed up. Yet as I sat and listened to songs sung in Creole and Spanish I knew that I was with a successful church. Which reminded me of a statement Jesus made.
John the Baptist sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one to come. He was sending his disciples to Jesus to find out if he was Messiah, if he had come to establish his kingdom. Jesus’ response is simple. He says, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” Jesus does not just say “yes.”
He tells John’s disciples – “Yes, and this is what the kingdom looks like.” The kingdom is here now, and the Church is to be the embodiment of that kingdom. When we think about success then, maybe we should measure it against this. Maybe we should ask, “Is there healing, renewal, love, and hope?”
What would it sound like to answer the question, “What does success look like in your church?” with the answer – “The hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the poor are seeing justice, the sick are being healed, the prisoners are being visited, the thirsty are receiving clean water …” That sounds like success, but only because it sounds like the kingdom.
nonviolence, part 2
Jesus points to another way. Something beyond retaliation, fighting, or violence. Jesus proclaimed a gospel that was nonviolent. We see it in his teaching, throughout his entire life, and, above all, the way he faced his death. He saw nonviolence as connected to the nature of God and the new reality emerging into the world from God.
The perfect display of this was when Jesus was going to his death. One of his disciples cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest with a sword. Jesus tells him to put the sword away. Jesus puts down the sword and picks up the cross.
It is interesting to note is that Jesus demands the same thing of those who follow him when he calls his disciples to take up their cross. His call is about living a life of sacrifice. His call is about putting down the sword, giving up entitlement, and having the same attitude of Christ Jesus.
This idea was embraced by the early Christians who refused to pick up the sword. Those who were a part of the early Church refused to fight under the Banner of any nation. They recognized that the banner of Jesus was the banner of peace, love, and nonviolence.
Throughout history there are many examples of men and women who have resisted evil, in all forms, in nonviolent fashion. Today, we celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. He led a movement that was rooted in nonviolence, and he led a movement that changed the course of a nation.
More recently the Velvet Revolution overcame oppression and a communist regime in Czechoslovakia. The movement was started by students who staged a peaceful demonstration. Through diplomacy they led a movement that caused the collapse of a rigme. Ghandi faced down the British Empire without a shot being fired. Sister Milar Rocco faced down Philippine soldiers with sandwiches, kindness, and conversation.
The question of nonviolence asks, “What is the preferred outcome in conflict?” Our knee jerk response is often to want to win. If we are honest, our desire is not just to win, but to vanquish our opponent and send them into oblivion. This is the voice of violence that is within us. But Jesus calls us to another way.
The preferred outcome of nonviolence is the peace, redemption, and wholeness of everyone involved. It is not the easy way – in fact it is the way of greater strength. It is easy, even normal, for a person to retaliate when another acts against them with violence. It takes great strength to turn the other cheek. It takes great strength to put down the sword and pick up the cross.
Years ago in Auburn New York, white supremacists organized a Neo-Nazi rally. As one would expect there was vitriolic rhetoric, hateful slogans on banners, racism everywhere, and hundreds of men and women bent on violence. One would think that the situation could not have gotten any uglier, until a crowd of about 2,000 began a protest of the Neo-Nazi rally.
The protest and the protest of the protest quickly turned violent. The crowds began to chase down the white supremacists who were fleeing the scene. Stones, bricks, bottles, and other objects were thrown at them as they sped away in their cars. One woman who was a skinhead was struck in the face by one of these objects, and the crowd closed in on her and began to kick, stomp and beat her.
There is this skinhead. A woman who believes that Whites are the supreme race. A woman whose life is defined by violence. There she lay bloodied and beaten. In the midst of the melee an elderly Jewish man fought his way through the crowd to get to her. When he finally got to her, he did not act violently. Rather he threw himself on top of her, and took the kicks for her.
Jesus taught that God loves everyone, even those who make themselves God's enemies. Jesus even says that we are to bless our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Paul says if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him; if he is thirsty, we should give him something to drink.
The Kingdom of Heaven is a realm in which violence, so common to our world, is superseded. The Kingdom calls its citizens to put down the sword and pick up the cross. Nonviolence is a quality of the Kingdom.
For more on nonviolence I suggest the following articles/books:
Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way
The Myth of Redemptive Violence
The Power of Nonviolence
Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea
The perfect display of this was when Jesus was going to his death. One of his disciples cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest with a sword. Jesus tells him to put the sword away. Jesus puts down the sword and picks up the cross.
It is interesting to note is that Jesus demands the same thing of those who follow him when he calls his disciples to take up their cross. His call is about living a life of sacrifice. His call is about putting down the sword, giving up entitlement, and having the same attitude of Christ Jesus.
This idea was embraced by the early Christians who refused to pick up the sword. Those who were a part of the early Church refused to fight under the Banner of any nation. They recognized that the banner of Jesus was the banner of peace, love, and nonviolence.
Throughout history there are many examples of men and women who have resisted evil, in all forms, in nonviolent fashion. Today, we celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. He led a movement that was rooted in nonviolence, and he led a movement that changed the course of a nation.
More recently the Velvet Revolution overcame oppression and a communist regime in Czechoslovakia. The movement was started by students who staged a peaceful demonstration. Through diplomacy they led a movement that caused the collapse of a rigme. Ghandi faced down the British Empire without a shot being fired. Sister Milar Rocco faced down Philippine soldiers with sandwiches, kindness, and conversation.
The question of nonviolence asks, “What is the preferred outcome in conflict?” Our knee jerk response is often to want to win. If we are honest, our desire is not just to win, but to vanquish our opponent and send them into oblivion. This is the voice of violence that is within us. But Jesus calls us to another way.
The preferred outcome of nonviolence is the peace, redemption, and wholeness of everyone involved. It is not the easy way – in fact it is the way of greater strength. It is easy, even normal, for a person to retaliate when another acts against them with violence. It takes great strength to turn the other cheek. It takes great strength to put down the sword and pick up the cross.
Years ago in Auburn New York, white supremacists organized a Neo-Nazi rally. As one would expect there was vitriolic rhetoric, hateful slogans on banners, racism everywhere, and hundreds of men and women bent on violence. One would think that the situation could not have gotten any uglier, until a crowd of about 2,000 began a protest of the Neo-Nazi rally.
The protest and the protest of the protest quickly turned violent. The crowds began to chase down the white supremacists who were fleeing the scene. Stones, bricks, bottles, and other objects were thrown at them as they sped away in their cars. One woman who was a skinhead was struck in the face by one of these objects, and the crowd closed in on her and began to kick, stomp and beat her.
There is this skinhead. A woman who believes that Whites are the supreme race. A woman whose life is defined by violence. There she lay bloodied and beaten. In the midst of the melee an elderly Jewish man fought his way through the crowd to get to her. When he finally got to her, he did not act violently. Rather he threw himself on top of her, and took the kicks for her.
Jesus taught that God loves everyone, even those who make themselves God's enemies. Jesus even says that we are to bless our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Paul says if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him; if he is thirsty, we should give him something to drink.
The Kingdom of Heaven is a realm in which violence, so common to our world, is superseded. The Kingdom calls its citizens to put down the sword and pick up the cross. Nonviolence is a quality of the Kingdom.
For more on nonviolence I suggest the following articles/books:
Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way
The Myth of Redemptive Violence
The Power of Nonviolence
Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea
nonviolence, part 1
On Friday night my wife and I saw the movie Gran Turino. The movie deals, in part, with the subject of nonviolence. This can often be a controversial subject, and, interestingly enough, often engenders a violent response from its critics. The idea of violence is such a part of our culture that we have been seduced into only thinking in terms of violence.
From the earliest age we are taught that if there is a bully on the playground that hits us, we should hit him back. This idea is everywhere. Many feel that to do nothing in the face of violence is to only invite abuse from those who are violent. To defeat violence we must return violence.
The problem is that the violence returned will keep going unless one side exerts greater force. The spiral of violence will continue upward until one side commits an act that ends the fight. This can get ugly quite quickly.
What is interesting is that when one side is declared a victor there is no change in the side that has been defeated. I have never seen a fight in which a bloodied, defeated person (or people) walk away recognizing that they were wrong, or walk away feeling the fight is over. More often the defeated only walk away to plan their revenge on the victor. Typically their revenge is more and greater violence.
Violence can never bring peace. The idea that it can is a myth that has been told and retold for centuries. Walter Wink speaks of this false idea in an article titled, The Myth of Redemptive Violence. In a humorous paragraph he describes a famous cartoon that he says describes the myth of redemptive violence:
“In a typical segment, Bluto abducts a screaming and kicking Olive Oyl, Popeye’s girlfriend. When Popeye attempts to rescue her, the massive Bluto beats his diminutive opponent to a pulp, while Olive Oyl helplessly wrings her hands. At the last moment, as our hero oozes to the floor, and Bluto is trying, in effect, to rape Olive Oyl, a can of spinach pops from Popeye’s pocket and spills into his mouth. Transformed by this gracious infusion of power, he easily demolishes the villain and rescues his beloved. The format never varies. Neither party ever gains any insight or learns from these encounters. They never sit down and discuss their differences. Repeated defeats do not teach Bluto to honor Olive Oyl’s humanity, and repeated pummellings do not teach Popeye to swallow his spinach before the fight.”
Violence only breeds more violence. We can live with the attitude of, “You punch me and I will punch you back.” Then what? If the person you are punching back is living by the same rules then you are bound to get punched a second time. Then, you will punch back … and so it goes.
It seems that there is only one way to stop the cycle of senseless violence in which we are entrenched, that being nonviolence. This attitude says, “You punch me and I will turn the other cheek.” It does not pursue vengeance, it pursues peace. It pursues the wholeness of one’s enemies. It seeks the best for all involved.
This way of living seems impossible in our world. Many critics of nonviolence ask questions of how one should deal with violent regimes, or how one should respond if loved ones are threatened with violence. One friend even commented, “If we live a nonviolent life then we would just get killed.”
All of this is true. But where has violence gotten us? Maybe there is a better way.
From the earliest age we are taught that if there is a bully on the playground that hits us, we should hit him back. This idea is everywhere. Many feel that to do nothing in the face of violence is to only invite abuse from those who are violent. To defeat violence we must return violence.
The problem is that the violence returned will keep going unless one side exerts greater force. The spiral of violence will continue upward until one side commits an act that ends the fight. This can get ugly quite quickly.
What is interesting is that when one side is declared a victor there is no change in the side that has been defeated. I have never seen a fight in which a bloodied, defeated person (or people) walk away recognizing that they were wrong, or walk away feeling the fight is over. More often the defeated only walk away to plan their revenge on the victor. Typically their revenge is more and greater violence.
Violence can never bring peace. The idea that it can is a myth that has been told and retold for centuries. Walter Wink speaks of this false idea in an article titled, The Myth of Redemptive Violence. In a humorous paragraph he describes a famous cartoon that he says describes the myth of redemptive violence:
“In a typical segment, Bluto abducts a screaming and kicking Olive Oyl, Popeye’s girlfriend. When Popeye attempts to rescue her, the massive Bluto beats his diminutive opponent to a pulp, while Olive Oyl helplessly wrings her hands. At the last moment, as our hero oozes to the floor, and Bluto is trying, in effect, to rape Olive Oyl, a can of spinach pops from Popeye’s pocket and spills into his mouth. Transformed by this gracious infusion of power, he easily demolishes the villain and rescues his beloved. The format never varies. Neither party ever gains any insight or learns from these encounters. They never sit down and discuss their differences. Repeated defeats do not teach Bluto to honor Olive Oyl’s humanity, and repeated pummellings do not teach Popeye to swallow his spinach before the fight.”
Violence only breeds more violence. We can live with the attitude of, “You punch me and I will punch you back.” Then what? If the person you are punching back is living by the same rules then you are bound to get punched a second time. Then, you will punch back … and so it goes.
It seems that there is only one way to stop the cycle of senseless violence in which we are entrenched, that being nonviolence. This attitude says, “You punch me and I will turn the other cheek.” It does not pursue vengeance, it pursues peace. It pursues the wholeness of one’s enemies. It seeks the best for all involved.
This way of living seems impossible in our world. Many critics of nonviolence ask questions of how one should deal with violent regimes, or how one should respond if loved ones are threatened with violence. One friend even commented, “If we live a nonviolent life then we would just get killed.”
All of this is true. But where has violence gotten us? Maybe there is a better way.