I consider myself a pacifist. I am not a violent person, and I'd like to think that I have sufficient self-control to maintain a stance of non-violence even if I was confronted with it. But is this position of pacifism reliant on the haven that North America has become, specifically my Canadian citizenship? We are so far removed from the threat of violence that it gives me pause.
What if someone was to break into my house? If they asked where the DVD player was, would I point out that my computer was in the other room? Probably not. In fact, I would probably be more than willing to defend myself and my property. (My property ... even the issue of stewardship/God-owns-everything can suggest that we value what we've been trusted with enough to protect it.) Dad and I were talking about this, and he told me a story about a Quaker who confronts a thief in his store. Looking at the robber over the barrel of a gun, he says, "Sir, I would not harm thee for the world, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot." (I'm assuming he didn't own the gun, maybe it was for sale in his store?) If the hypothetical Quaker can draw the line, maybe I can too.
So, here's my question: Am I okay with the incredibly gifted theologian Bonhoeffer who helped to plan an assassination plot against Hitler, or a Toronto police officer that shoots a man just before the criminal guns down an innocent?
I think I am ... and that confuses me.
Am I not leaving space for the intervention of a God I trust? He says he'll take care of me and that by loving my enemies, I'll be leaving room for him to act justly in a way that my subjectivity would never allow. What about defending those who can't defend themselves? That seems like the 'right' thing to do. I can't help but wonder if some sort of 'Offensive Pacifism' is the answer. A place where protecting the weak takes precedence over turning the other cheek ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting blog. I like how you defined "My property" as in it's not ours but we value it enough to defend it.
I sent Keith the link to this blog because he's a member at a Mennonite Christian Church where this is their emphasis - non violence. He says their emphasis is on peace, justice, simplicity, community, service and mutual aid.
He was saying since justice is an emphasis, he wouldn't say you don't defend the weak - just not with violence. If someone robbed him - he'd defend himself but "wouldn't give them my cloak." :)
He thinks you should be a Mennonite :)
"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
Acts 20:35
I actually poured over your blog for quite some time before responding. I'm stuck in a bit of a dilemma, much like you. We're told to help the weak (above)(which could mean any number of things, I realize), we're told to pray for those who mistreat us (Luke 6:28) and "if someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic" (Luke 6:29). But I live in Ottawa. It's cold here. I need my cloak and tunic!
I feel like there should be a place where protecting the weak takes precedence over turning the other cheek. I just can't seem to justify it with scripture.
Thanks Katie, the fog in my mind seems to be dissipating. My earlier confusion seems to be replaced by the idea to hold peace and action in tension, not as a compromise, but in an effort to discern balance.
As an example, I'm thinking of Jesus clearing the temple. You're talking Luke, so I'll stick with that. Chapter 19 has Jesus literally cracking the whip to clear the temple of corrupt merchants. The same man who submits to an incredibly gory (and injust) torture and death displays a measure of violent action to protect the 'wallets' of incoming worshippers; 'the oppressed' simply because they're being taken advantage of.
So, I guess I still stand in the same place, just with clearer vision.
Post a Comment