EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
What has always been striking to me is the fact that the first children (Cain and Abel) mentioned in the Bible resulted in the first recorded murder. Cain kills Abel in cold blood. It's clear, unmistakable, evil, and violent. What is also clear is that in recent decades, we have argued and debated not simply our rights to have firearms, but also the rights to go to war. Violence seems to be something naturally a part of fallen humanity and something that seems to be here to stay.
Despite the increased violence found in public schools, the 'right to bear arms' is defended to an almost fever pitch. And more than this, let's simply reflect a bit behind the headlines. Since September 2001, terrorism has been in the news almost daily, the threat of nuclear war seems to also be creeping back into the mainstream mindset with the recent summit meetings with Russia and sanctions against Iran. And yet, there has been a rise in violent video games and horror films the likes of which we haven't seen in quite some time. Either the world is indeed becoming more violent or violence is simply surfacing as an integral part of what it means to be worldly. So far this year, 113 people have been killed — matching the death toll of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the same period.This article actually challenges me to wonder if pacifism and non-violence really is the Christian or most Biblical way to counter the violence wrought by our own collective hearts. To have more murders in a calendar year than two wars says something striking about our own sense of community. Many of us aren't really living life with a vision of something new or better or different, many of us are simply surviving life, hoping the next paycheck will come in and hoping we'll be alive to spend it on something more than our food, lodging, and transportation. Yet, the conservative crowd is clamoring not for gun control, but for gun rights. This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't we have a deeper, broader, and more comprehensive vision of life? Shouldn't we invite people to a better life and not just a life of survival? Charles Darwin, perhaps as well as anyone, articulates our struggle as he lives with the tension of his own words. On the one hand, Darwin says,
And on the other hand, Darwin predicts that,
So, which is it? When will we learn from past mistakes to the point that we usher in a new era of civilization that isn't so 'savage'? Of course, the irony runs thick as Darwin seems to label some people 'savages' and those who will 'exterminate' them, I guess are civilized. But, you see the tension. How do we fight violence without giving in to violence? I think, then, of the legacies of Mother Theresa, Mohatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., the Buddha, and of course, Jesus Christ. And despite the fact that not all of them would claim to be evangelical, they all decided not to enter in to the violence that so easily and so readily flows from human hearts. They decided to fight violence with non-violence; hatred with love; and war with peace. I wonder if we need to rethink what it means to fight our fallenness and simply wage war not on one another, but on that which so easily flows from a heart that is so often conflicted and confused. This healthy distrust of our own violent means may push us further into uncharted waters. And we may indeed be strong, courageous, and in praise of pacifism in a time when violence seems to hover all around us. Perhaps, pacifism isn't simply a non-violent means to advocate for peace, but it's also a bold stance against our own fallen nature. -bo |
A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some and disapproving of others.
