The Necessity of Violence
I am a pacifist at heart. I would like to imagine that all Christians are...that we merely disagree regarding whether there are exceptions to pacifism as a general rule and how many such exceptions exist.
I am also committed to justice. That, too, is derived from my faith. God has revealed Himself as a just God and has called His people to walk justly with each other before Him. Again, I would like to believe that all Christians are so committed...and that we merely disagree on how justice is to be defined and applied in particular situations.
So there are my (and your?) two ideals--peace and justice. Unfortunately, I can't have them both at the same time. You see, if I am to practice peace, I must end up tolerating some of the injustice of this world. I cannot use force and violence to subdue the oppressor. If, on the other hand, I would seek to justice in this world, I am likely to need the power of the state to accomplish it.
And the power of the state is rooted in violence. P.J. O'Rourke put it well when he applied the "elderly mother" test. Any public policy, any act of societal justice, requires that the state force people into compliance, either to fund the act or to obey it. If people don't comply, the state has the power to use violence against them, even little old ladies on modest incomes. The test question, in short, is this: Is a particular public policy worth shooting his mother to accomplish it?
Is justice worth shooting someone? If not, then we have pacifism but we do not have perfect justice. If so, then we may get closer to justice but we do not have peace. We may choose one or the other, or arrive at some compromise between the two, but we will never in this life enjoy both in full measure at the same time.
It's another reason to live in anticipation of the eternal reign of Christ.
I am also committed to justice. That, too, is derived from my faith. God has revealed Himself as a just God and has called His people to walk justly with each other before Him. Again, I would like to believe that all Christians are so committed...and that we merely disagree on how justice is to be defined and applied in particular situations.
So there are my (and your?) two ideals--peace and justice. Unfortunately, I can't have them both at the same time. You see, if I am to practice peace, I must end up tolerating some of the injustice of this world. I cannot use force and violence to subdue the oppressor. If, on the other hand, I would seek to justice in this world, I am likely to need the power of the state to accomplish it.
And the power of the state is rooted in violence. P.J. O'Rourke put it well when he applied the "elderly mother" test. Any public policy, any act of societal justice, requires that the state force people into compliance, either to fund the act or to obey it. If people don't comply, the state has the power to use violence against them, even little old ladies on modest incomes. The test question, in short, is this: Is a particular public policy worth shooting his mother to accomplish it?
Is justice worth shooting someone? If not, then we have pacifism but we do not have perfect justice. If so, then we may get closer to justice but we do not have peace. We may choose one or the other, or arrive at some compromise between the two, but we will never in this life enjoy both in full measure at the same time.
It's another reason to live in anticipation of the eternal reign of Christ.
posted by A.L. Blair | 11:07 PM
2 Comments:
violence is a neccesary yet moderated tool that is needed due to human nature to permit any order in a given state
It is a very interesting topic, but you make a few assumptions that affect your conclusions.
First, you assume peace is merely the absence of war. In fact, this scenario is defined as negative peace, and tolerates the injustice you mention. What you really seek is positive peace, which is the absence of war and injustice. Put another way: no one is restrained from reaching their full potential.
Second, you assume that war is the only way to achieve justice. In reality, there are many more diplomatic ways. For an example, please see the end of apartheid in South Africa, brought about largely by an international economic embargo that forced SA to change their policy.
Of course, I realize this post was written nearly four years ago, and I would be curious if your thoughts on the topic have changed in that time.
Post a Comment
<< Home