Have you heard that "Hootie & The Blowfish" song Take My hand? I was listening to that this evening, and I've always thought he was saying "tear the world together" and I looked up the lyrics to see if I was right. But I was not right. I was wrong. Shock and awe and pandelirium! He was saying "Take the world together."
Anyway, I think the song would be better if he said "tear the world together" (the upside of course is that I get to use this term like I coined it myself). Because that's really the task of reconciliation - there is nothing peaceful about it. In fact, there is nothing peaceful about "peace" at all.
To many people, peace implies passivity. However, NOTHING could be further from the truth (well, I suppose something could be; don't press me on it). There is nothing so violent to the present human condition as peace. If you want people to be at peace, for God's sake pull the Ak's out of their hands. Guess what? You might have to make them play nice, and it might be violent. Then you can go about the long and arduous task of teaching them to like it (don't leave that out or you'll just have gun control).
The problem with pacifism is that it so often becomes "passivism." For instance, let us take that old hypothetical situation- a robber has a gun and he wants to harm your family, you have a gun what do you do (or more towards the spirit of the question: what would Jesus do?) My answer is that there is nothing noble about refusing to protect your family when a robber comes around because you "don't want to hurt him." In fact, I would say that inaction in this circumstance is a form of violence. By refusing to take action you would not be doing anyone a favor. You are allowing someone to complete a sinful and violent act, and also neglecting your God-given duty as protector of the family.
N.B. - When I say "For God's sake" I'm not taking God's name in vain. I really mean it literally. That is literally the reason you should take people's guns away from them if they're not playing nice. Also, I say "them" as a sort of nebulous "whoever is at war with each other" sort of thing.
Beerbohm
6 years ago
I have you as saying:
ReplyDeleteIf you want people to be at peace, for God's sake pull the Ak's out of their hands. . .You might have to make them play nice.
I assume that Ak refers to an implement of destruction that I hear boys talk about frequently. So, to remove these weapons from "them," we have to pry the guns out of their fingers. We must force peace upon them, coerce them into submission. But how can we end violence with more violence? Do we offer peace at the end of a sword?
What I'm saying is a paradox. Peace runs contrary to the post-fall human condition. Put two humans in a jar and it won't be long before they are fighting. That's just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteBeating swords into ploughshares isn't a peaceful thing. It involves forcibly changing metal designed for violence into something completely different.
We aren't going to get anywhere by simply laying down our weapons and walking away. Someone is just going to pick it up and attack us with it. We have to change its nature, beat the violence out of it. This isn't "peace at the end of the sword." That's thinking too physically. Love's a weapon too you know.
In other words, tear the world together. Nothing's going to happen if we just leave it be.
just a side note: When I first read the title, I thought it was describing how the world can grow closer through tribulation. Men who suffer together increase in love. This is my favorite sense/meaning of the phrase, but since you coined it, I guess you have definition rights.
ReplyDeleteback to the issue: I agree with "love as a weapon", but I'm not sure about "changing swords into ploughshares by beating the violence out of them." Do we bring peace to the world by ripping the AK-47's out of their hands? Or do we transform their hearts and lives by preaching the Gospel of Christ the Prince of Peace?
How else do you suggest changing swords into ploughshares?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would say that you've offered a false dilemma. I think those two acts follow each other in succession. First, we take the proverbial weapons out of their proverbial hands so that we don't get proverbially SHOT. Then we preach to them.
What we have to do is uphold the doctrine of peace, while rejecting the doctrine of pacifism. Pacifism is a very attractive ideology to me, I'll admit. But it is problematic in many areas. Not least of which is this: what do we do with all the violent imagery in the Bible? What about Spiritual warfare?
That's just the thing: SPIRITUAL warfare. The weapons of our battle are not carnal but mighty in God. We fight with love. We wage war with the Gospel. The sword coming out of the mouth of Christ is the Word. The armor that we wear is truth, righteousness, the preparation of the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, and the Spirit. The devil can have the world and its idea of power (the Gentiles lord it over them). He is the the prince of the power of the air, ruling over the city of man.
ReplyDeletesomething I should have said at the very beginning of it all: I need to admit that (1) With all likelihood, I am extremely influenced by Mr. Pope; I spend eight hours a week under his tutelage and have probably absorbed some pacifist tendencies. (2) I am only beginning to explore these issues. As you might have noticed, my opinions on the matter are largely unformed and shaky. (3) If put in the situation where protecting my family would involve shooting someone, I would most certainly do so, whether or not my head agreed with it. But the real question is, as you noted, What Would Jesus Do?
You solve nothing by removing the guns from 'their' hands, because I guarentee you that the majority of guns used to create violence and commit violent crimes, are not owned by licensed gun owners. Yet that is who is going to get their firearms taken away. If you disarm the 'good guys', in a sense you are giving more opportunity for violent crimes to happen. If someone breaks into your house with a weapon, yet you, being a law-abiding citizen, are not allowed to own a gun, then what are you doing except leaving room for disaster?
ReplyDeleteFelons are not legally allowed to purchase firearms, but still they gain posession of them all the time. Do you think that would stop after America was disarmed? It didn't in Europe.
Being a Christian does not allow for a pacifist attitude. What did Jesus do, when he saw that his father's temple had been turned into a 'den of theives'? He did not stand by and watch it happen. He put an end to it, and though I believe we are tasked to show the love of Christ to all, I do not belive that that must include the laying down of our firearms.
Ashley,
ReplyDeleteAmen. Thanks for commenting.
Yep, those are good arguments against gun control and I agree. In fact, you took the words right out of my mouth. I can't tell if you were arguing against me or if you were writing a comment just stating your agreement.
If it's the first case (as it would appear to be), that's fine but just know that we don't really disagree and I don't think anything I said in that post contradicts anything you said. My intention was to argue against pacifism while still affirming the desirability and ultimate goal of peace; and I tried to make it clear that I'm not for gun control. If the latter, thanks.
Either way, it's good to hear from you.
I wasn't arguing against you, I was simply standing beside you upon your soap box. Because after all in the end, guns do not 'cause' violence, just like spoons do not 'cause' people to get fat. It all depends on which hands these 'weapons' fall into.
ReplyDelete