what you believe
I’ve been thinking about violence a lot lately. Not really a topic I enjoy thinking about, but I’ve been pondering it anyway. I hesitate to even bring it up in this forum, to be honest with you. I really don’t want to get into anything that even remotely resembles political commentary here.
But the thing is, the topic of violence and its possible application isn’t a political topic at all. Hang with me here—it’s really a question of belief.
What is the most powerful human action? Is it violent intervention or is it love? “God is love,” James tells us (4:8) and the apostle Paul says that Jesus’ moment of triumph was his moment of sacrifice: “He canceled the record that contained the charges against us. He took it and destroyed it by nailing it to Christ's cross. In this way, God disarmed the evil rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross of Christ,” (Colossians 2:14-15). Sure, the New Testament also pictures Jesus as a warrior king (in Revelation), but you’d be hard pressed to make any solid theological argument that this is the dominant picture of the Good Shepherd.
Over and over again, scripture speaks of the power of God’s love—from the Psalms to the prophets right on into the writings of Paul. It is God’s “steadfast love”, not God’s military might, that is so impressive and so alluring. Yes, he is powerful and he can be destructive, but it is his grace and mercy that not only pull us toward him but also change us in the process.
We don’t end up living out the transformation Paul talks about in Romans 12:1-2 because God scares the hell out of us but because we begin to understand that “nothing can ever separate us from his love. Death can't, and life can't. The angels can't, and the demons can't. Our fears for today, our worries about tomorrow, and even the powers of hell can't keep God's love away. Whether we are high above the sky or in the deepest ocean, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Romans 8:38-39).
Indeed, nothing is more powerful than love.
If you believe that, and it is a question of belief, then you cannot support violent action as a solution to any serious problem, if for no other reason than this—it simply isn’t the strongest possible response.
The world is aching right now in the aftermath of hatred unchecked. How can we affirm that hating our enemies back will solve anything? Isn’t it time, in these days of extreme suffering and pain, that we counter with the most powerful offensive possible? We have no strategic counter-strike at our disposal with more explosive potential than love.
It pains me to see so many of my fellow disciples ready to see more violence in response to violence. As if this cycle could ever bring about resolution, much less redemption. I do not believe this is what we have been called to.
No, I believe we have been challenged to defeat hatred with love. I only hope we will find the courage to answer the call…
3 Comments:
I whole heartedly agree. You and I seem to be thinking along the same lines lately. My question is why is pacificism always precieved as political issue rahter then a way of life?
8:09 AM
Because we remove the element of belief. And we do this, not intentionally, but by default.
We don't believe that love is the most powerful force humanity can apply to any given situation. We believe that guns and bombs are stronger than love and that, because they kill and death brings with it an element of finality, the solution provided through violence will be permanent. At least for a while.
We regard violent response as a necessary evil, never bothering to consider that our prayer should be for God to "deliver us from evil" of all varieties. Instead, we ask his blessing on the evils we have decided are necessary.
We just don't believe. If we believed in the raw power of love—both to transform and to defeat—then we would never turn to violence instead of love. Our problem is that we do not believe.
8:25 PM
Interesting that the above anonymous poster would accuse you of hate and gossipping in a public post on your blog where he does exactly that.
Anyway, on topic, I think you raise a great point, but I don't think I entirely agree, while at the same time admitting I don't have a real solution figured out. Let me explain that nonsense:
1. We know the command to love is absolutely paramount for a Christian. But nations are not Christian. Christians must turn the other cheek and not defend themselves, but nations do not. In fact, nations are to uphold justice, and Paul even refers to their divine right to "carry the sword". We certainly know from the Old Testament that God can and does use nations and war to advance His purposes.
Like you, I am speaking in generalities, so please don't take this to be a defense of any current policy of any current nation. It's not. But there are times when I do believe that a nation can and must justly go to war.
As Christians, there does have to be a disconnect between supporting that course and also loving people, especially those that could be considered our enemies. We can support the right course of political action while also mourning the suffering caused by it and actively involving ourselves in the process of healing and restoration.
Unfortunately, too often Christian do get caught up in all the flag-waving and do see other people as "the enemy" contrary to Pauls reminder that "our battle is not against flesh and blood". As a Christian, we should see no man as our enemy, but we should see every man as a victim of sin, and we should have compassion and mercy motivated by love.
2. If pcifism were to be embraced as a national calling rather than merely a personal one, what would it mean to "respond in love" as a nation? It sounds good, but what would it really look like at a practical level.
In some cases this would be fairly easy as it could be demonstrated in many humanitarian ways. But what about when one nation attacks another or even invades it? How does the non-agressor respond in love? And if it continues to pursue a course of non-agression in the face of attack and agression, has it abandoned it's responsibility, which, according to personal interpretation may even be God-given, to defend its citizens?
1:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home