Terror and the Christian Response (PRT 1)

With the anniversary of 9/11 in a few days it comes in the wake of ISIS beheading American journalists and sparking fears of more terrorism.  Not to mention many people around the world (especially Christians it seems) are currently enduring it.  This has raised the question, all around the web, how should Christians respond to such horrors?  We tend to act like our options are either hide from it or (more common) annihilate it.  For those who have read my previous posts this may seem reminiscent of what I have said on other topics (nationalism, peacemaking, death penalty etc), but rest assured I will bring something “newish” to the table.

            Common sense or natural reaction says when you are attacked you defend; when people become intrinsically violent (such as ISIS, other terrorist factions, or any number of violent hate groups) people say they cannot be changed and that justifies our destroying that kind of evil.  Let me first suggest that there are three inherent problems with this.  The first is that we are taking any future hope of God doing a work of change and redemption in those people’s lives off of the table as if that is our choice.  Don’t forget that the Apostle Paul was not much different than a terrorist before his conversion.  Should early Christians have killed him?

Second, the idea that we are going to eradicate violence by using violence is a flawed logic.  You will not eradicate a particular evil through the means of becoming that evil.  Yet, Christians have gone along with this even when we do not employ this reasoning to other places in our lives.  I mean, I am not going to fight fornication by encouraging others to go out and have more sex… that’s absurd!

Thirdly, (and perhaps what needs less explanation) is that Jesus said the exact opposite to all of this and yet we continue to sidestep his words to justify our desire for revenge.  Even my atheist friends can tell me that Jesus refuted the eye for an eye mentality that was endemic within the first Covenant. They know that Jesus tells those who are going to “follow him” to not resist the evil doer or hate their enemy, but rather they are to love their enemy, turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile with them  (Matt. 5:38-48).

 

To our shame, Christians have actually tried to twist Jesus’ words to refute that he ever meant this emphatically. One faulty example is when some say yes, you should love your enemies except when… (Insert your excuse) and follow it up with a Psalm about praying for your enemies violent destruction.  The problem with this is Jesus not only neglected to give exceptions to his statement, but the context he was speaking into was that of oppressive Roman rule and Jewish zealots who wanted him and his followers dead.  I think it is safe to say that Jesus was speaking of an enemy-love more radical and endemic than many are willing to accept.   

Yet, others then try pointing to the instance of Jesus running the money changers out of the synagogue (Matt. 21:12) saying “that is a case for Jesus promoting violence.”  But, I hardly find this to be a convincing argument since no animals or people were actually hurt in the process (a few egos maybe).  We cannot confuse non-violence with passivity because they are not the same thing. Jesus could have enlisted the crowds following him to go through and violently wipe those greedy people out.  In this case, however, Jesus was enacting a non-passive prophetic statement against Israel’s behavior toward God. 

The other argument for Jesus promoting violence comes from the passage when Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords (Lk. 22:36) as if the only reason for people to ever buy swords is for killing enemies.  Again it is not a convincing argument because, to the modern reader at least, it is an extremely vague verse that does not give a reason for their buying swords.  However, we do know what happens when Peter uses it for violence. Jesus tells him to put his sword away; those who live by the sword die by the sword. As if that is not enough, Jesus then does the unthinkable and heals this man Peter cut; a man who was there to bring Jesus in (Lk. 22:50-51; Matt. 26:51-52).

Why then would Jesus even suggest a non-violent approach to building God’s Kingdom?  To put it “simply,” Jesus (who is “God with us”) shows that God was always working to restore life by first restoring people.  At the end of the day, the Jesus-like picture of God shows us that destruction and violence was, is and will always be opposed to God’s purpose because it is the broken aspect of our human desire.  This broken desire, as Jaques Elull has suggested, has its own pattern that blocks any inroads specific to God’s healing and restoration and takes humanity further away from God.  Ellul proposes this:

1. Violence by nature falls victim to an unhealthy continuity in which one act of violence leads to another act of violence (i.e. violence begets violence).

2. Violence creates sameness as both parties acting it out are reduced to the same level.

3. Violence leads to desperation that goes to any length to justify itself.

4. Violence has a close link to hatred which is again opposed to peace and life.[1]  

 

To sum this up, God desired that those who would take up their cross and follow him could no longer be “normal”. Even when outcomes may appear uncertain, God desires his people to faithfully work against the status quo as agents who will reverse those broken patterns. Yet, that also requires us to not only remove violence and coercion as tools in our arsenal, but we have to overcome them in new ways. We must now embody God’s love, ethic and character that does not hide from violence and evil nor does it destroy the people linked to it, but will willfully face it and risk the self to correct it.  How concerned are we for the brokenness and welfare of both the victim and the perpetrator?

---

[1] Jaques Ellul. Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective (New York: Seabury Press 1969), 92-105.