Overcome Evil With Good
30 August 2010
The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest For Political Power Is Destroying the Church by Gregory Boyd.
Because I can only share a small portion of this vital book, it is vital that you get yourself a copy as soon as possible, and read the entire book a number of times. Click on the book cover to go to Amazon.com and make your purchase.
If you have not yet read...
Today we will take a Biblical look at the concept of self-defense:
The New Testament commands us never to "repay anyone evil for evil," but instead to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17,21; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9). Jesus said, "Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" (Matthew 5:39). He also said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:27-28). The teaching seems pretty straightforward, yet this very straightforwardness presents us with a dilemma.a previous article, on 12 March 2005, Ashley Smith was walking alone from her car in the parking lot of her suburban apartment northeast of Atlanta when Brian Nichols suddenly took her hostage at gunpoint. Sixteen hours earlier, Nichols had killed three in an Atlanta courtroom and had later killed a federal agent during his flight from authorities. During her traumatic 7-hour hostage ordeal she boldly shared her faith, and read to her captor from the Bible and Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. She is credited with helping Nichols peacefully surrender to police. You can read more details here. This is a real-life example of what we have been discussing on this page. You might like to read the book she wrote detailing her experience: Unlikely Angel: The Untold Story of the Atlanta Hostage Hero.
On the one hand, we who confess Jesus as Lord don't want to say that Jesus and other New Testament authors are simply off their rockers in telling us not to resist evildoers, to repay evil with good, to love our enemies, and to pray for and bless people who mistreat us. If our confession of faith means anything, it means we have to take this teaching seriously. On the other hand, we have to admit that it's hard to take this teaching seriously when it comes to extreme situations such as having to protect ourselves and our family from an intruder. Not only would most of us resist an evildoer in this situation, killing him if necessary, but most of us would see it as immoral if we DIDN'T use violence to resist such an evildoer. How can refusing to protect your family by any means be considered moral? Isn't it more loving, and thus more ethical, to protect your family at all costs?
How do we resolve this dilemma? It helps somewhat to remember that the word Jesus uses for "resist" (antistenai) doesn't imply passively allowing something to take place. It rather connotes resisting a forceful action with a similar forceful action. Jesus is thus forbidding responding to violent action with similar violent action. He's teaching us not to take on the violence of the one who is acting violently toward us. He's teaching us to respond to evil in a way that is consistent with loving them. But He's not by any means saying do nothing. Still, the teaching is problematic, for most of us would instinctively use violence, and feel justified using it, to protect our family from an intruder.
The most common way people resolve this dilemma is by convincing themselves that the "enemies" Jesus was referring to are not OUR enemies — for example, people who attack our family (or our nation, our standard of living, and so on). Jesus must have been referring to "other kinds" of enemies, less serious enemies, or something of the sort. We tell ourselves that when violence is justified — as in "just war" ethics — Jesus' teachings do not apply. This approach allows us to feel justified, if not positively "Christian," killing intruders and bombing people who threaten our nation — so long as we are nice to our occasionally grumpy neighbors. Unfortunately, this common-sensical interpretation makes complete nonsense of Jesus' teaching.
The whole point of Jesus' teaching is to tell disciples that their attitude toward "enemies" should be radically different. "If you do good to those who do good to you," Jesus added, "what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same" (Luke 6:33). Everybody instinctively hates those who hate them and believes they are justified killing people who might kill them or their loved ones. Jesus is saying, "Be radically different." This is why Jesus (and Paul) didn't qualify the "enemies" or "evildoers" He taught us to love and not violently oppose. Jesus didn't say, "Love your enemies until they threaten you, until it seems justified to resort to violence, or until it seems impractical to do so." Enemies are enemies precisely because they threaten us on some level, and it always seems justified and practically expedient to resist them, if not harm them when necessary. Jesus simply said, "Love your enemies" and "Don't resist evildoers." Note that some of the people He was speaking to would before long confront "enemies" who would feed them and their families to lions for amusement.
The teaching could not be more radical, and as Kingdom people we have to take it seriously. At the same time, what do we do with the fact that most of us know we would not take it seriously, let alone obey it, in extreme situations such as our family coming under attack?
As with all of Jesus' teachings, it's important to place this teaching in the broader context of Jesus' Kingdom ministry. Jesus' teachings aren't a set of pacifistic laws people are to merely obey, however unnatural and immoral they seem. Rather, His teachings are descriptions of what life in God's domain look like and prescriptions for how we are to cultivate this alternative form of life. In other words, Jesus isn't saying, "As much as you want to resist an evildoer and kill your enemy, and as unnatural and immoral as it seems, ACT loving toward him." He's rather saying, "Cultivate the kind of life where loving your enemy becomes natural for you." He's not merely saying, "ACT different from others"; He's saying, "BE different from others." This is simply what it means to cultivate a life that looks like Jesus, dying on a cross for the people who crucified Him.
How does this insight help address our dilemma? A person who lives with the "normal" tit-for-tat kingdom-of-the-world mindset would instinctively resort to violence to protect himself and his family. Loving his attacker and doing good to them would be the furthest thing from his mind. As with the Jerusalem that Jesus wept over, the "things that make for peace" would be "hidden from [his] eyes" (Luke 19:41-42). Indeed, from this kingdom-of-the-world perspective, Jesus' teaching seems positively absurd.
But how might a person who cultivated a nonviolent Kingdom-of-God mindset and lifestyle on a daily basis respond differently to an attacker? How might a person who consistently LIVED in Christlike love (Ephesians 5:1-2) operate in this situation?
For one thing, such a person would have cultivated a kind of character and wisdom that wouldn't automatically default to self-protective violence. Because he would genuinely love his enemy, he would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any nonviolent alternative to stopping his family's attacker if one was available. He would WANT to do good to his attacker. This wouldn't be a matter of him trying to obey an irrational rule to "look for an alternative in extreme situations," for in extreme situations no one is thinking about obeying rules! Rather, it would be in the Christlike nature of this person to see nonviolent alternatives if they were present. This person's moment-by-moment discipleship in love would have given him a Christlike wisdom that a person whose mind was conformed to the pattern of the tit-for-tat would would not have (Romans 12:2). Perhaps they'd see that pleading with, startling, or distracting the attacker would be enough to save themselves and their family. Perhaps they'd discern a way to allow their family to escape harm by placing themselves in harm's way.
Not only this, but this person's day-by-day surrender to God would have cultivated a sensitivity to God's Spirit that would enable him to discern God's leading in the moment, something the "normal" kingdom-of-the-world person would be oblivious to. This Christlike person might be Divinely led to say something or do something that would disarm the attacker emotionally, spiritually, or even physically.
For example, I heard of a case in which a godly woman was about to be sexually assaulted. Just as she was being pinned to the ground with a knife to her throat, out of nowhere she said to her attacker, "Your mother forgives you." She had no conscious idea where the statement came from. What she didn't know was that her attacker's violent aggression toward women was rooted in a heinous thing he had done as a teenager to his now deceased mother. The statement shocked the man and quickly reduced him to a sobbing little boy.
The woman seized the opportunity to make an escape and call the police who quickly apprehended the man in the park where the attack took place. He was still there, sobbing. The man later credited the woman's inspired statement with being instrumental in him eventually turning his life over to Christ. The point is that, in any given situation, God may see possibilities for nonviolent solutions that we cannot see, and a person who has learned to "live by the Spirit" is open to being led by God in these directions (Galatians 5:16-18).
Not only this, but a person who has cultivated a Kingdom-of-God outlook on life would have developed the capacity to assess this situation from an eternal perspective. Having made Jesus her example on a moment-by-moment basis, she would know — not just as a rule, but as a heartfelt reality — the truth that living in love is more important than life itself. Her values would not be exhaustively defined by temporal expediency. Moreover, she would have cultivated a trust in God that would free her from defining winning and losing in terms of temporal outcomes. She would have confidence in the resurrection. As such, she would be free from the "preserve my interests at all costs" mindset of the world.
Of course, it's possible that, despite a person's loving wisdom and openness to God, a man whose family was attacked might see so way to save himself and his family except to harm the attacker or even take his life. What would such a person do in this case? I think it is clear from Jesus' teachings, life, and especially His death that Jesus would choose nonviolence. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had thoroughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same.
At the same time, I have to confess that I'm not sure this is what I'D do. I honestly admit that, like most people. I don't yet quite see how it would be moral to do what I believe Jesus would do. Yet I have to assume that my disagreement with Jesus is due to my not having sufficiently cultivated a Kingdom heart and mind. If I felt I had to harm or take the life of another to prevent what clearly seemed to be a greater evil, I could not feel righteous or even justified about it. Like Bonhoeffer who, despite his pacifism, plotted to assassinate Hitler, I could only plead for God's mercy.
What we must never do, however, is acquiesce to our worldly condition by rationalizing away Jesus' clear Kingdom prescriptions. We must rather strive every moment of our life to cultivate the kind of mind and heart that increasingly sees the rightness and beauty of Jesus' teachings and thus would naturally respond to an extreme, threatening situation in a loving, nonviolent manner.
Silent Night. This fact-based World War II story set on Christmas Eve, 1944, finds a German mother and her son seeking refuge in a cabin on the war front. They are invaded by three American soldiers and then soon after three German soldiers, and after much resistance the mother manages to convince the enemy soldiers to put aside their differences for one night and share a Christmas dinner. The Germans were planning to kill the Americans, but eventually they and the American soldiers shared their rations to make a proper Christmas dinner. Throughout the night the Americans and Germans befriend each other despite the fact that they will eventually have to return to the war. Faced with a very violent situation, the mother pursues, and even demands, the path of nonviolence. This film is well made, well acted, and feels realistic. It's a great video — you won't want to miss it! You might also like to read an interview of one of the real-life characters in the story.
I also cover the issue of Christians and violence in two previous articles: Christianity and Violence and Yeshua and Violence.
Tomorrow in the seventh and final article of this series — Two Peas In a Pod — we analyze the material presented in the previous six articles in light of Your Islamic Future.
You can send comments to me privately at: firstname.lastname@example.org
There are no reader comments for this blog entry. Why don't you be the first to write one?