In the midst of many thoughts, one has risen to inspire me to be proactive rather than reactive. Many people have reacted to the War in Iraq, negatively. They've argued that war causes injustices for the people who live in that country. The American sentiment can be that war is good because war is the only thing that will fix the injustices that have already taken place. Others argue that war only adds to the injustices that have already happened.
I never heard of anyone going to help people in Iraq before the wars took place. Whether you think war will resolve, worsen, or maintain the injustices that exist, the war first got my attention back in the 90's as a teenager. Regardless of any injustice, if it takes a war or a rally of protesters to attract attention or to fix an injustice, we've already failed.
I don't think I'm a pacifist, but I don't think war trumps love either. But as a man, I am attracted to war and violence. John Eldredge talks about this in his book Wild at Heart. It's why I like to wrestle and box with my son. There's something more about the way God made men and women differently.
You see, if I can resolve an injustice before protest or war, then I become proactive. But let's say it comes to being reactive and strangely we all agree that some kind of war or violence is the only solution, can a war be fought in love?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=78576e72-80f9-4467-9dfe-dbde664a2861)
I think there is evil in the world. Sometimes it is merciful to come to the aid of a helpless people, free them from oppression and do it out of love. From the stories I have heard from friends who have been in Iraq, they have talked about helping the Iraqi people and are serving them to win over their hearts.
ReplyDeleteI think war for power is wrong as is war to get something that can not be legitimately gotten. I also think war to protect a nation from oppression or aggression is legitimate. Convince me otherwise...I am willing to be swayed.
Thanks for your comment Dusty. You make good points.
ReplyDeleteWhere does loving our enemies and praying for those that curse us come into a discussion of war and violence?
ReplyDeleteFor me personally, I think using violence to answer violence is wrong. It's using the means of the world to achieve an end, and even if that end is good, using the world's means is still succumbing to the world.
When Jesus says, "My Kingdom is not of this world," to Pilate, there's a follow-up statement that He makes where he says, "If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36) What Jesus seems to be saying there is, "My Kingdom is not achieved by the means this world uses to achieve its kingdoms. My Kingdom has a different ethic."
So "tough love" is a buzz word you don't like?
ReplyDeleteLove can be tough without being violent.
ReplyDeleteWe may have to define violence.
ReplyDeleteI love the scene in Second Hand Lions where Robert Duvall whoops all those young punks and then has a good long talk with them. It's Love and Violence at it's best - I grant you it is a movie, but fitting example.
Frankly, I have nothing against two guys going out back and beating each other to a pulp to resolve there differences, because I know they'll likely move on and be friends after the fact.
War and death: That's a bit different.
I think violence can be defined as anything that causes harm to another. So violence can be physical, emotional, spiritual, maybe even financial.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we're supposed to be followers of the Prince of Peace, shouldn't we try to emulate that?
It's hard to argue with that. You're making my brain hurt. This is a tough topic.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a lot easier if we just went out back, gave each other a bloody nose, and called it the day.
I think Jesus would get a kick out of that.
I don't think you can define violence as "anything that causes harm to another." Harm is a relative term.
ReplyDeleteWhen a parent punishes a child, the child sees it as harm but the parent sees it as a necessary means to an end. Likewise, when Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, the sellers probably interpreted that as financial harm... either the Prince of Peace interpreted it differently, or He wasn't exactly peaceful in the worldly sense.
Interesting point Jeff. I suppose you could also say Jesus picked a fight or two with the Pharisees. He may have ruined many of them without throwing a punch.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good reminder that there's more to peace than just the absence of war.
Jesus showed compassion to just about everyone, except the religious people who were using their positions as religious leaders to exploit their positions of power for their own benefit and not the people.
ReplyDeleteThe other time that Jesus could have used violence to his advantage (in the Garden of Gesthemane), He told Peter to put away his sword and actually healed Malchus' ear.
If we are called to be ministers of reconciliation, as Paul say in 2 Corinthians 5, how can we go about doing that using violence?
Now, there is a deep difference between pacifism and non-violent resistance. Pacifism is inaction against injustice. Non-violent resistance is action without violence, an infinitely harder choice than either violence or pacifism, because you have to be able to stand your ground without retaliating. But where that non-violence has been used, it can be successful, MLK Jr. and Gandhi for two examples.