(Crossposted on Street Prophets)
I haven't written anything to this blog in a while now, for some good reasons. Not excuses, but reasons, I tell you!
For one thing, at the writing of my last blog I had been mulling over things, trying to get a handle on where we are, and where I stand. I had been wondering whether or not we Christians should work for political change, and I asked the question of why our humanitarian efforts couldn't be just as effective for God under any form of government, whether it be democracy, communism, or fascism.
I have solidified my beliefs on this. I do believe that the form of our government is not our primary mission, and that we very well may be the salt of the Earth regardless. So I, personally, choose not to be involved in politics. I am leaving that up to God.
What I will work for is to promote peace and harmony. I will preach peace to any who will listen. Peace is a big topic, however, and will probably take me to places I might not anticipate, like economics, ecology, and even the proper care of animals. Peace is not only an external concept, but also is to be sought on several internal, personal, and spiritual levels. Before we can get to the practicality of peace, however, we must examine the disease (or dis-ease) that seeks to squelch peace.
These are my thoughts on the disease of violence.
VIOLENCE
Violence is never constructive, and is always destructive. I use the term 'violence' instead of 'fighting' because there are many types of 'fighting' - even to including negotiations, which is inherently good and peaceful. Violence breaks out when negotiations break down. Violence never meets needs, it instead makes it harder to meet your needs, because there is always 'payback'.
OF WAR
In my conversations with others on the matter, the example of our revolutionary war has come up as a possible example of how violence could be good. I disagree, for the following reason. The example of our revolutionary war being instrumental in the creation of the United States is because the violence of war created a void, in which we were able to install our fledgling government. If England had not eventually chosen to stand down we would still be at war with them. I am sure that the British decided it was in their best interests to retreat and let us have our country. War always is destructive, and is always when diplomacy breaks down or is not employed.
A peacekeeper must convince those who would resort to war or violence that nothing is ever built or constructed by destructive means. It is only when people decide to stand down from the violence that they can then turn to constructive efforts. When people tire of violence they turn to diplomacy anyways in the formation of treaties and the like. So why not just cut out the violence and go straight to the treaties?
OF TERRORISM
Violence in the form of terrorism never produces the effect that the terrorist desires; it always produces the exact opposite. The suicide bomber that blows up a bus or a nightclub never succeeds in winning people's sympathy, but does succeed in alienating people from his cause. The only time that violence can even come close to being used as a tool is if you can blame some other entity for the violence, so they get the backlash. Remember the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" when they trashed the jock's car and blamed it on the rival
school?
Illegally imprison and torture people using (abusing) a loophole in the Geneva convention, and you do not gain good intelligence, you alienate any who hear of it, or any who see the pictures of it on the internet like I have. What is accomplished, but loathing of those who do such deeds? Was that the real purpose, to pour more fuel on the fire?
I like the movie V For Vendetta, but terrorist activities like the bombing of buildings in the movie would never win people's sympathy for whatever cause the terrorist is trying to promote. Here's how it would go in the real world- The terrorist detonates a bomb, and instead of making people understand him and sympathize with his cause, the violence turns it around backwards and there is alienation rather than sympathy. So although I like that movie I -completely- disagree with its premise.
The movie I do recommended is Changing Lanes, with Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson. It's a great movie and I highly recommend it. It illustrates that the only way to stop the downward spiral of destruction from a violent feud is for at least one of the parties to CHOOSE not to fight, even if it means they give up. Violence is always destructive, no matter how much the characters involved think it could be constructive to their purposes. This is amply demonstrated in this must-see movie.
DIPLOMACY AND NEGOTIATION OF CONFLICT
When a nation has a neighbor that it is having problems with, it is similar to a failed marriage in many ways. In a messy divorce, who benefits from all the fighting and ill-will? The lawyers. But who bears the burden of grief? The families. In a war, who benefits from all the fighting and ill-will? The corporations. And who bears the burden of grief? The families. As an amicable divorce saves everyones dignity and there are no casualties of grief, diplomacy and negotiation save everyones dignity and do not result in casualties and grief.
WHEN NEGOTIATION BREAKS DOWN
What happens if someone tries to punch you and their fist meets yours? You will both be hurt! We need to find alternatives to terrorism or war, because our needs will not be met by those
methods. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. I would amplify this by saying that compassion is not an emotion. Exercise compassion on your opponent.
Morihei Ueshiba, founder of the martial art of Aikido, said the following: "To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control agression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace."
He also said, "In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally. Let attackers come any way they like and then blend with them. Never chase after opponents. Redirect each attack and get firmly behind it."
Is persuing peace for the cowardly? No. Taking unfair advantage of your opponent by violence is cowardly. Apologizing, tearing down the defensive walls, and resisting the inner protective instinct to erect those defensive walls is only for the very brave. I won't lie to you, this path is dangerous because peaceful overtures may not be returned by the other party. It takes great courage to agree to talk, or even to ask your opponent for a talk.
The brave path of peace is a path of sharp stones, but it leads to the brook.
LET'S PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Isn't there -any- situation where violence might work for good?
What about removing a diseased appendix, or amputating a gangrenous leg? I would have to answer that the disease or infection was the real source of the violence, the essence of the conflict. Removing the offender does not result in the loss of life, but the exact opposite, the saving of life. And surgery of this nature is not done from a motivation of agression.
If the above is true, what about executing criminals? I don't believe that capitol punishment is civilized, although I do believe that the Bible says we should expect this from governments. But what is accomplished? What is built? For instance, how did killing Stanley 'Tookie' Williams help anybody at all? Are victims ever returned to a state of pre-victim-hood? No. What is destroyed is any chance of the convict turning around, and making right with God.
What about the military use of a 'surgical strike' in a foreign country? This is another one of those 'live by the sword, die by the sword' scenarios that the Bible says we should expect from governments. This is a situation that requires great wisdom, and a grave obligation to do right, and underscores our need for leaders of great moral stature. And this is one of those situations that should weigh on their minds for years afterwards, requiring them to examine their motives.
What of freedom fighter guerrilla warfare, to overthrow a disfunctional and unhealthy government? Is violence then justified? No. I don't believe that is Biblical. Jesus said we are to take up our cross and follow him. He did not try to overthrow the Roman government, and we are NOT called to overthrow ours. He was executed for speaking the truth, promoting love, and caring for the needy. Should we expect anything less, for ourselves?
Was the violence against Jesus (or another martyr) constructive? Yes and no. It sure didn't have the effect that the perpetrators intended! (which is what we're talking about)
SUMMARY -- VIOLENCE 'IN A NUT SHELL'
To bring this to a conclusion, once more I will state that the disease of violence is always destructive, and never acheives the goals that the perpetrators of violence intend. Violence breaks out when negotiations break down. And when violence has run its virulent and meaningless course and exhausts itself, negotiations will again begin where they left off before the violence broke out, making the violence worse than meaningless. If meaningless violence is not a trait of pure evil, I don't know what is.
