Whoa! What a deluge of response/reaction to my last blog: 'Is Violence, Ever The Will of God?' http://wwwpaulmundey.blogspot.com/2017/04/is-violence-ever-will-of-god.html?spref=fb I answered in the negative -- but perceptive bible readers noted: though scripture prohibits believers from wielding the sword -- scripture does not prohibit the State from striking out; so...the U.S. or any other nation-state is very much within Biblical boundaries to use conventional/worldly weaponry to eradicate evil.
Right? -- well, yes and no.
First, yes. Romans 13 does indicate that the State (governing authorities) does "...bear the sword.." (Romans 13:4) and are "...agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer..." (Romans 13:4). Such mandate does not rule out a military/'violent' response by the State.
But (here's the qualified 'no') -- the metaphor of the sword, as John Toews points out, "...has many meanings in Greek literature. It can be a symbol of authority. For example, the police officers who accompanied Roman tax collectors were often called 'sword bearers' to legitimate the tax collecting function." (John Towes. Romans. The Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale: Herald Press, 2004, pp. 315-316) And so as J.B. Phillips translates Romans 13:4, Phillips assumes Paul is referring to the State's policing role. "...The officer is God’s servant for your protection. But if you are leading a wicked life you have reason to be alarmed. The “power of the law” which is vested in every legitimate officer, is no empty phrase. He is, in fact, divinely appointed to inflict God’s punishment upon evil-doers." (Romans 13:4, Phillips).
And so, in sum, the State can wield the sword, but primarily in a defensive position - primarily with the goal of not killing criminals and evil folk -- but arresting and containing them. In fact, recent events have confirmed, that when the police or the military do use violent, 'killing' force, it is often, counter-productive and esculating.
For example, the military's dropping of the MOAB (mother of all bombs) last week in Afganistan, resulted in definite damage: the death of 94 militants (at last count) and the collapse of at least a portion of a strategic tunnel system. But when one considers the cost-benefit ratio of such an intervention -- the results are less impressive. Sure, 94 enemy causalities; sure, the collapse of strategic tunnel system -- but -- at a cost of 16 million for one MOAB -- (with development cost/s @300 million. Not accounted for: deployment expenses, e.g. plane, crew) (Helene Cooper and Mujib Mashalapril. U.S. Drops ‘Mother of All Bombs’ on ISIS Caves in Afghanistan, New York Times, April 13, 2017 -- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html
Conservatively speaking, that's about $170,000 per militant killed. No wonder John Paul Vann, the often quoted Army military operative and advisor during Vietnam noted, that the best way to fight guerrillas (e.g. militants in both Vietnam and Afganistan is through a more precise intervention.
The rise of police violence seems to confirm the wisdom of this approach. For in recent years, any number of U.S. cities have 'boiled over,' because of sharp, lethal altercations between law enforcement and citizenry.
Now please don't misunderstand: not all instances of police violence are illegitimate. As a bearer of the 'State-sword' -- police, on occasion -- must use force, even deadly force. But deadly force should be rare, and, of last resort. For police officers are in actuality peace officers (an early, oft-used title), called to model another way of resolving conflict, and containing evil. And so, Seth Stoughton purports in The Atlantic:
Now any number at this juncture are murmuring: "...that's all laudable -- but it's also so unrealistic and so naive..." But with over 700 fatal encounters between police and citizenry in 2016 -- we must find a more humane way to corral 'the bad guys' -- without -- using the 'bad guys'' methodology (e.g. deadly force). For as we inferred in last week's blog: violence just fuels more violence.
But beware: as you advocate in this direction, you will, be thought of as naive. Even foolish. But remember Paul's words:
Now, again, don't misunderstand: the State does have greater liberty than believers, to wield the Sword. But even the State is called to wield the Sword in a manner that decreases the necessity -- and frequency -- of deadly force.
For deadly force solves nothing. Nothing. It just kills someone. Someone like you -- and someone like me -- in most cases.
One of the great ironies of the State's premier sword-event -- war -- is the 'wake-up call' that occurs between enemies after the killing ceases: they discover they haven't killed an enemy -- they've killed a human being -- just like them.
The oft-cited example is Union and Confederate soldiers reuniting in comradeship, finding their true selves, at the 50th and 75th anniversaries of the battle of Gettysburg, after the Civil War. But a seldom cited reference is British soldiers and German citizens finding their true selves after World War I. In fact, during the British occupation of Cologne following the 1918 WWI armistice, 700 British soldiers married German girls over the course of the next year! And for good reason: they discovered that the Germans were not 'bad guys,' (e.g. bad girls), after all, but folks with whom they shared a common lot. To that end, a Scottish corporal observed:
But the vast majority of 'the enemy' are persons very much worthy of a relationship -- rather than a sword. Thus, the challenge, to find ways of settling conflict -- and stopping evil -- without the mass slaughter of human life. As both believers -- and the State -- dream the foolish dream of God, that someday...
First, yes. Romans 13 does indicate that the State (governing authorities) does "...bear the sword.." (Romans 13:4) and are "...agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer..." (Romans 13:4). Such mandate does not rule out a military/'violent' response by the State.
But (here's the qualified 'no') -- the metaphor of the sword, as John Toews points out, "...has many meanings in Greek literature. It can be a symbol of authority. For example, the police officers who accompanied Roman tax collectors were often called 'sword bearers' to legitimate the tax collecting function." (John Towes. Romans. The Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale: Herald Press, 2004, pp. 315-316) And so as J.B. Phillips translates Romans 13:4, Phillips assumes Paul is referring to the State's policing role. "...The officer is God’s servant for your protection. But if you are leading a wicked life you have reason to be alarmed. The “power of the law” which is vested in every legitimate officer, is no empty phrase. He is, in fact, divinely appointed to inflict God’s punishment upon evil-doers." (Romans 13:4, Phillips).
And so, in sum, the State can wield the sword, but primarily in a defensive position - primarily with the goal of not killing criminals and evil folk -- but arresting and containing them. In fact, recent events have confirmed, that when the police or the military do use violent, 'killing' force, it is often, counter-productive and esculating.
For example, the military's dropping of the MOAB (mother of all bombs) last week in Afganistan, resulted in definite damage: the death of 94 militants (at last count) and the collapse of at least a portion of a strategic tunnel system. But when one considers the cost-benefit ratio of such an intervention -- the results are less impressive. Sure, 94 enemy causalities; sure, the collapse of strategic tunnel system -- but -- at a cost of 16 million for one MOAB -- (with development cost/s @300 million. Not accounted for: deployment expenses, e.g. plane, crew) (Helene Cooper and Mujib Mashalapril. U.S. Drops ‘Mother of All Bombs’ on ISIS Caves in Afghanistan, New York Times, April 13, 2017 -- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html
Conservatively speaking, that's about $170,000 per militant killed. No wonder John Paul Vann, the often quoted Army military operative and advisor during Vietnam noted, that the best way to fight guerrillas (e.g. militants in both Vietnam and Afganistan is through a more precise intervention.
"This is a political war, and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife...The worst is an airplane. The next worse is artillery...War requires careful calibration in the application of violence, lest excessive firepower kill lots of innocents and drive more recruits into the enemy’s camp..." (Max Booth. "Sound And Fury." The New York Times. April 14, 2017). - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/opinion/sound-and-fury.html"...Careful calibration in the application of violence..."? Not much margin for error. And so -- with those odds -- why not a careful calibration in the application of non-violence?
The rise of police violence seems to confirm the wisdom of this approach. For in recent years, any number of U.S. cities have 'boiled over,' because of sharp, lethal altercations between law enforcement and citizenry.
Now please don't misunderstand: not all instances of police violence are illegitimate. As a bearer of the 'State-sword' -- police, on occasion -- must use force, even deadly force. But deadly force should be rare, and, of last resort. For police officers are in actuality peace officers (an early, oft-used title), called to model another way of resolving conflict, and containing evil. And so, Seth Stoughton purports in The Atlantic:
"[Police] officers must also be trained to think beyond the gun-belt...[shifting] from the 'frontal assault' mindset and toward an approach that emphasizes preserving the lives that officers are charged with protecting. Earlier this year [2014], officers took just that approach in Kalamazoo, Michigan, relying on tactics and communication rather than weaponry to deal with a belligerent man carrying a rifle. As a result, a 40-minute standoff ended with a handshake, not an ambulance..." (Seth Stoughton. "How Police Training Contributes To Avoidable Deaths." The Atlantic,, December 12, 2014.) https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/
But beware: as you advocate in this direction, you will, be thought of as naive. Even foolish. But remember Paul's words:
"...God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of the world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are..." (1 Corinthians 1:27-28, emphasis added).And so whether believers or the State -- we are called to foolishnesses -- in order to nullify 'the things that are,' e.g. an eye for an eye mentality that, if not modified, will, in the words of Gandhi -- leave the whole world blind.
Now, again, don't misunderstand: the State does have greater liberty than believers, to wield the Sword. But even the State is called to wield the Sword in a manner that decreases the necessity -- and frequency -- of deadly force.
For deadly force solves nothing. Nothing. It just kills someone. Someone like you -- and someone like me -- in most cases.
One of the great ironies of the State's premier sword-event -- war -- is the 'wake-up call' that occurs between enemies after the killing ceases: they discover they haven't killed an enemy -- they've killed a human being -- just like them.
The oft-cited example is Union and Confederate soldiers reuniting in comradeship, finding their true selves, at the 50th and 75th anniversaries of the battle of Gettysburg, after the Civil War. But a seldom cited reference is British soldiers and German citizens finding their true selves after World War I. In fact, during the British occupation of Cologne following the 1918 WWI armistice, 700 British soldiers married German girls over the course of the next year! And for good reason: they discovered that the Germans were not 'bad guys,' (e.g. bad girls), after all, but folks with whom they shared a common lot. To that end, a Scottish corporal observed:
"I have been four and a half years out here and have lived in France and Belgium and Germany and I can tell you the people I feel nearest to are these. They are honester and cleaner and somehow I feel I understand them better." http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/422689/Meeting-the-enemy-Tales-of-extraordinary-camaraderie-between-British-and-German-soldiersPlease hear me: this is not to say there are not 'Hitlers.' There are! There are persons incapable of any sense of relationship, who are evil, evil -- and must be halted, contained and isolated. Period!
But the vast majority of 'the enemy' are persons very much worthy of a relationship -- rather than a sword. Thus, the challenge, to find ways of settling conflict -- and stopping evil -- without the mass slaughter of human life. As both believers -- and the State -- dream the foolish dream of God, that someday...
"...[Humankind] will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid..." (Micah 4: 3-4)
No comments:
Post a Comment