Ministry

December 27, 2009

Peace, Love, and Violence Reverend Don Vaughn-Foerster

On the calendar of the church year, Childermas falls three days after Christmas:  December 28.  That is tomorrow.  Childermas also is known as The Feast of the Holy Innocents.  As the legend goes, it marks the anniversary of the slaughter of all  young Bethlehem males two years of age and under by King Herod after he learned from the Wise Men that a “new” king of the Jews had recently been born. 

This, obviously, is a story that grew up around the birth of Jesus to give him the same kind of credentials that Moses had by being placed in the bulrushes.  The Pharaoh had ordered all midwives to kill all male Hebrew babies upon their birth but Moses escaped that fate by being placed by his mother in the bulrushes along the Nile.  It seems that in the ancient world the murder of young male children sometimes occurred when the ruler or the ruling class thought they might be a threat.  Such measures prevented threats to political power and were entered into with an amoral mater-of-factness that dumbfounds most of us looking on such events in retrospect.

The striking fact of Childermas is that it is the supposed anniversary of the deaths of ancient children whose only crime was that one of their number might someday have taken over the established order.  As such it stands as a reminder of the naked, unqualified, amoral violence to which the state may resort when it feels threatened.  The matter-of-factness with which it was slipped into the Christ story well symbolizes the way in which we continue to accept violence as an expedient in human affairs – as when we so easily pass over the continual daily news reports of bombs, bullets, and torture chambers inflicted by warring nations and groups on one each other.  In spite of its widespread use, we have not yet discovered that attitude which will enable us to deal with such day-to-day, largely uncontested violence. 

A large part of the problem stems from our usual desire to treat violence itself too idealistically.  Either we see human nature through rose colored glasses and think that, by trying to live by peaceful virtues, violence will be left aside; or, we see human nature through blood red glasses and think that people will always be bestial and it is to our advantage to rely on and to systematize human violence for supposedly beneficial ends, whatever they may be.  Many today have adopted such an attitude, as the presence of a strong affirmative in the recent debate on torture showed.  As a result we do not see violence realistically but only through eyes of ideology and fear.  We tend to see it as a natural aspect of the world we live in.  Otherwise, the saying where I come from that“violence is as American as apple pie” would have no bite.  Apparently, some of this attitude has slipped into the minds of some Canadian leaders as well. 

Somewhere in my library I have a small book that clears up for me a considerable amount of confusion on this issue.  It is simply entitled Violence and was written by Jacques Ellul, a French Christian lay theologian, who had been a member of the French underground during World War II and became professor of Law and Government at the University of Bordeaux.  Ellul concludes that physical violence can only be confronted effectively by what he terms a “violence of love” – a spiritual violence that for him is based on faith in Jesus Christ and implemented in all contexts in an uncompromisingly nonviolent way (a la our reading from the Quakers this morning.)  I disagree with some of the theological aspects of this book, but I am indebted to it for the most cogent analysis of violence itself that I have run into.  I do agree with its premise that we must not let our idealisms determine our conduct until we have looked at things in their reality and have grasped thoroughly the facts as they are and until we know clearly what we are doing.  For me, this principle lifts the whole issue out of theology and places it squarely in the realm of the human intellect making ethical sense of things. 

Now “the facts as they are” seem to me to include the reality that violence is a practical necessity.  It exists everywhere and at all times.  It is a necessity because we necessarily must encounter it.  We cannot avoid it.  For instance the state maintains itself by the systematized violence of police power.  It deals militarily and diplomatically with other states on the basis of their comparative violent resources.  Also, economics, as it is usually practiced, is based on an aggressive order of competitive violence.  Most often, the weaker, more moral, more sensitive (less violent) persons almost necessarily lose in the competition for profit.  The same is true between social classes although, here, violence becomes less physical or material and more psychological.  Those, who have attained positions of power in society, exert a psychological and physical violence on others to inculcate submission and a servile attitude.  This is, perhaps, the most insidious violence of all because it undermines the individual’s concept of worth and selfhood.  You might call this the violence of peace. 

Furthermore, looked at from the strictly realistic point of view, violence itself is amoral.  It is only an illusion to think that it can be brought under moral judgment.  The person who practices violence may try to (but actually cannot) pretend to be acting in a moral way or in the name of some value.  And for an outsider to pass moral judgment on that violence would be meaningless.  It may be a hard bite to swallow but violence is like falling bodies. There is no sense in asking whether gravity is a good thing or a bad thing or whether life surviving by the violence of feeding on itself is right or wrong. 

Ellul continues: as a pervasive reality, there are several characteristics of violence. Firstly, it has an inevitable continuity.   Once you start using violence you can’t get away from it.  It is an easy habit.  It simplifies things so that one doesn’t have to try to understand complex situations, one has only to control them.  Also, violence is reciprocal.  Jesus said it: “All who take up the sword will perish by the sword.”  There is no distinction made here between a good sword and a bad sword.  The person who uses violence, whether it is physical or psychological, should realize that a reciprocal relation is being entered which is capable of being renewed indefinitely.  And there is a sameness about violence.  It is impossible to distinguish between justified and unjustified violence or between that violence which liberates and that which enslaves.  The people we kill in defense of freedom are just as dead as those killed by freedom’s attackers.  Furthermore, every violence is identical with every other violence, whether it is physical violence, economic violence, or psychological violence.  A fourth characteristic is that violence can beget only violence – nothing else.  Violence is the paramount lie when used for other ends because it serves only itself.  No matter how noble the goal for which violence is undertaken, it can never attain that goal.  In fact, violence on behalf of the “right” side automatically gives the “right” side the characteristics of the “wrong” side. 

Finally, a prime characteristic of violence is self-justification.  The person who uses violence always tries to justify both himself or herself and it.  Most people seldom are honest enough to fight simply because they hate or are greedy or fearful.   They want to think it is because they love something so dearly that they must use violence to attain or protect it.  The result is always an appealing to ideals that have nothing to do with the violent acts they undertake and which, in fact, are made unattainable by those acts – as love, caring, and peace are made unattainable by the destruction of others.  Violence is not a means of establishing love or peace or justice.  It is only a means for perpetuating itself in ever new violent responses.  As a means of creating and maintaining peace, violence is about as useful as a parachute that opens only on impact. 

Regrettably, violence is a natural, unavoidable part of our existence.  We cannot escape it no matter what our wishes are.   Nor can we use violence for other than violence’s own ends.  We cannot use it to advance “higher causes” without destroying the humane aspects of those causes.  We can only use violence as a negative means:  to destroy (at the risk of our own destruction) or to suppress (at the risk of our own suppression.)  

What does this have to say about the view of violence we must take if we are to attain the kind of peace we must have in order for human beings to thrive in this world?  Basically, it means that we must clearly understand that violence cannot produce the kind of world we want.  Especially do we have to make a separation between violence and peace, for they have little to do with each other.  Peace and war may be opposites but the true opposite of violence is harmony – the human ability to act in concert, the human ability to perceive and develop common interests, the human ability to feel positive affection for others and to base relationships upon this affection.  Violence invariably destroys what it touches and perpetuates only itself.  We cannot expect violence to create a world at peace with itself.  It is harmony that does that. 

But this is not to say that we can reject violence, which is a trap into which we fall easily.  We think we can turn our backs on it, become pacifists and act with pure motives, even though the world continues in abusive ways.  The sobering fact is that, try as we will, we still will treat others in violent fashion.  Even when we don’t attack other persons physically we, still, often try to dominate or cut them down psychologically.  We direct words at them that cut, disparage, and demean.  We are like vegetarians who abjure killing but occasionally cannot avoid biting into a worm in an apple or a bug on the lettuce.  The reality is that there is no way to live without injuring or destroying other life.  Life, in order to exist, feeds on itself in a continuing violence of biting teeth and digestive juices.  There is no escape from violence and it is best that we not fool ourselves into thinking there is. 

The more realistic approach is to admit that, as long as people disagree and are aggressive, there will be need for systematized violence in the form of police power to maintain social stability.  As long as other nations believe their self interests are served by attacking their neighbors, our own nation will need a standing army.  As long as our country believes the same thing, other countries will have to do likewise.  And, individually, as long as the other person finds ways to punch us in the nose (either physically or economically or psychologically), we will have to defend ourselves.  But these things are to be done with one major proviso: all this in no way leads to real peace.  At best it preserves a shaky, negative status quo.  Pursuing peace with violent means is like playing Russian roulette with a single shot derringer. 

This leaves us with the realization that, although violence may be necessary (i.e. unavoidable) in primitive or extreme circumstances, the world of human beings, for its own preservation, has gotten to the place where violence simply has to be kept to a minimum.  Only as it is kept at the lowest possible level shall we make real headway toward more positive harmony with one another.  And, after all, it is toward that which humane beings should work.  Rather than fighting, so that we, eventually can stop fighting (which, frankly is not the way fighting works), our greatest need is to find positive ways to develop harmony among people. 

So, it seems to me that the realistic view to take toward violence is that we must necessarily endure it – and even at times use it.  But it does not create harmony.  We cannot use it to create a human-affirming peace.  Peace, ultimately,  comes from more positive and life-affirming forces within us.  At this stage in civilization we are caught in a complex interlacing of ideals and realities, loves and hates from which we can extricate ourselves only by minimizing the violence we use on one another and maximizing the harmony that binds us together. 

Admittedly, this requires a great deal of self possession and self restraint.  It means respecting and using the techniques of healthy compromise.  It means finding ways to cooperate when it looks like cooperation is not a likely possibility.  It means looking for ways in which differing parties supplement and complement each other to mutual advantage.  It means being civil with sometimes obnoxious or threatening people. 

How are we to be civil?  Let me quote something I ran across in the Sarasota, Florida newspaper, Herald Tribune, when I was serving an interim ministry in that city.  It was an article by Orlando Patterson, a prominent professor of sociology and it puts the matter as succinctly and clearly as it can be put.  He said, “What matters is that I behave with civility and tolerance, obey the rules of social interaction and am sincere about it.  The criteria of sincerity are unambiguous:  Will I keep my promises?  Will I honor the meanings and understandings I tacitly negotiate?  Are my gestures of cordiality offered in conscious good faith?” 

This says basically what I believe.  I believe we must relate to one another in ways that respect the integrity of others while protecting our own integrity.  It means making peace by seeking harmony.  It means treating others lovingly before ever we love them. 

Given the story of Childermas, this may not be the conclusion you expected.  But, if you will look closely at the biblical account you will see that Herod’s killing of the children was neither condoned nor condemned.  It was simply accepted as the way the world is – as the way a person in power may act when threatened in some way.  It was saying: “This is the violent way of the world.”  And then the story quickly goes on with the account of the life of a man who was thought to have brought a new possibility of harmony to the world.  Violence was simply noted and the building up of harmony gotten on with. 

And this is the viewpoint we need today:  to admit violence, to take it in our stride, but to know that it promotes none of our humane values.  What is needed, whenever we are confronted with violence or threats of violence, is first to look for ways to establish harmony.  Unless we do that, we shall forever live in a state of war or incipient war, nationally and personally.  We shall remain trapped in the illusion that our values are worth killing and dying for when, in truth, they can only be preserved by living them. 

As we move into a new year, let us be realistic about the unavoidability of violence, but let us be wise enough to know that the only way we will ever free ourselves of violence is to find ways to live in harmony.  This whole process has been described by the Chinese sage, Lao Tse, who taught that, if there is to be peace in the world, we must begin by affirming the world the way it is and then find ways to harmonize ourselves with it and it with us.