OK, I admit it, I used the word “donkey” so I didn’t begin with the word I really meant… “ass.” But, when someone comes out as a pacifist, or if they say they are exploring pacifism, the following is usually the conversation. This eventually leads to the pacifist calling the tormentor an “ass” or vice versa.
(Key: P=Pacifist, NP=Non Pacifist)
NP: So, you’re a pacifist?
P: Well, yeah, I’m pretty sure this is what God expects of us.
NP: So what would you do if someone were holding a gun at the head of someone you love?
P: Well, I guess I’d be upset.
NP: You wouldn’t shoot them?
P: I don’t have a gun, and I doubt spitballs would do much good in this situation.
NP: OK, you have a gun.
P: Well, I’d expect the person would break in without much warning and I wouldn’t have time to grab the gun even if I wanted it.
NP: OK, forget about how it happens, but you have a gun, and someone is threatening to kill someone you love.
P: Am I a good shot?
NP: Yes…a very good shot.
P: OK, that’s easy…I’d shot the gun out of the criminal’s hand.
NP: You’re not that good…
P: How do you know…have you ever seen me shoot a gun?
NP: No…but that’s not the point…Why wouldn’t you just kill the criminal?
P: Because it never works that way. If I shot, the criminal would shoot at the sound of my shot, and then we’d have 2 dead people.
NP: You’re being impossible. OK…if you shoot, the criminal can’t. If you don’t shoot, the criminal will.
P: Oh, well you’ve made it easy. I know exactly what I’d do. I’d dance.
NP: Dance? Why would you dance at a time like this?
P: Have you ever seen me dance?
NP: Well, no…but what does dancing have to do with this situation?
P: A lot! I can clear a room if I start dancing. The criminal couldn’t stand seeing my gyrations that he/she would have to leave. Trust me, my dancing should be outlawed!
NP: That’s stupid. That’s not how the scenario goes.
P: Why do you get to make up how it goes? Are you going to break into my house?
NP: Of course not…I’m just trying to prove that…Ugh…You know, you’re being a smartass!
P: Well, that’s because you’re being a dumbass!
The problem with the above conversation is that it implies there are only 2 options. Kill the criminal or the criminal kills the loved one. But, I’ve never heard of a situation working like that…ever! Criminals don’t enter with much warning, so unless one keeps a gun on a holster at all times, the chances of getting to the gun would not be great. Even if one could get to the gun, what if it scares the criminal into killing the loved one? And then, come to think of it, aside from very few instances, I’ve never heard of a home invasion where the sole purpose was to kill one person. Most home invasions are to steal goods or money.
So, while the above may be someone’s vain attempt to “prove” that someone can’t be a pacifist, the logic and flow of events is quite unlikely. It fails to prove anything. The problem comes when the pacifist agrees to fall into the trap of this conversation by allowing that it “could happen” just this way. In that event, many pacifists will admit they would kill to save a loved one. But, we must remember that the logic of that conversation (and most like it) is flawed and inaccurate.
The Donkey Conversation #2
If one who claims to be a pacifist “wins” conversation #1, the following conversation usually ensues…assuming that the non-pacifist doesn’t mind being called a “dumbass,” doesn’t storm off, or doesn’t bring severe bodily harm to the pacifist (thus challenging how passive the pacifist truly can be).
NP: OK, what if our country was invaded by some other country?
P: That would stink.
NP: What would you do?
P: Probably try to be somewhere safe, or at least as far away from the battles as I can get.
NP: You mean you wouldn’t defend your country?
P: I didn’t say that…
NP: Not directly…but you said you’d get away from the fighting.
P: Why do I have to be near gunfire to defend my country?
NP: You’d have to shoot the opposing army.
P: I don’t have a gun, remember?
NP: What if you did?
P: Well, if I were to use a gun (which I wouldn’t), I doubt a shotgun or hunting rifle is going to match up to military weapons.
NP: OK, fine…You have a machine gun…or a grenade launcher…or….
P: You mean they’re just handing those things out to anyone? And we’re worried about an invading army? It seems we have other issues to worry about now.
NP: The nation needs defended, so the government is giving weapons to people to defend it.
P: What if one of those weapons is given to the person who came into my house to shoot my loved one?
NP: What does that person have to do with this conversation?
P: Well, if that person is so deranged to invade my house just to kill a loved one or to be killed, what would stop that person from doing it in a time of war?
NP: Because that person is now defending the country…like you should be doing.
P: Why does this person hate me so much? And what happens if the country is successfully defended? Would that home invader come back?
NP: You’re being a smartass again!
P: Well, you’re being…oh, never mind.
NP: So you wouldn’t defend the nation?
P: I didn’t say that…you did.
NP: OK, so you would?
P: I would defend freedom and fight oppression.
NP: So you would fight?
P: Of course I’d fight (assuming the invaders were oppressors – come to think of it, what if they were just lost, and people started shooting at them, and they started shooting back…what if it’s not an invasion at all but a misunderstanding?).
NP: I’m going to ignore that and just ask how you’d defend the country.
P: By fighting the oppression.
NP: So you’re not a pacifist? Gotcha!
P: Yes I am…Pacifists fight.
NP: How? Are you going to throw stones at the invaders?
P: That would be violent…I doubt I’d do that.
NP: So, what would you do?
P: Fight.
NP: How?
P: Speaking out, protesting, creating disturbances to the oppressors, you know…stuff like Gandhi did.
NP: Well, that stuff is illegal under the invaders.
P: And shooting them isn’t?
NP: Well, of course it is…but at least shooting would work.
P: Not necessarily…what if the shooters on our side are bad at aiming? Or we have inferior weapons?
NP: We don’t…don’t you see that we have the best military in the world?
P: Well, then why aren’t they defending the country?
NP: They are...they just need our help.
P: If they need our help, then technically they wouldn’t be as good as the invaders.
NP: OK, fine…you’re really irritating me…they don’t NEED us, but to be patriotic you’d have to fight.
P: I already told you I would and how I’d do it.
NP: But your way won’t work!
P: First of all, how do you know? And second of all, why is your version of success the only acceptable success in this event?
NP: We don’t want them taking us over!
P: Right! So that’s why I’d speak out, protest, etc.
NP: How can “fighting” that way work?
P: Well, I guess a lot of that has to do with God. What about “turning the other cheek,” “loving our enemies,” “blessed are the peacemakers,” and other stuff like that?
NP: You’d love our invaders?
P: Well, I’m probably not going to marry any of them…my wife wouldn’t approve anyway. I certainly wouldn’t like what they’d be doing, and I probably wouldn’t want to have tea and crumpets with them, but yeah, I’d love them the way I love all of God’s creation. It’s not perfect love, but I’d try none the less.
NP: So now you’re bringing God into this?
P: I didn’t bring God in…God’s always been in.
NP: Not in this scenario…
P: How is God not somehow involved in everything?
NP: OK, fine, God is involved, but God wants you to shoot the enemy.
P: You talked to God??? You mean you actually heard God say that???
NP: Of course I didn’t talk to God…well, I pray…but…you know…you’re very difficult…I guess I just can’t talk sense into you.
P: You’re probably right. You can’t talk sense into me. And, didn’t Paul say something about God using the foolish to shame the wise?
NP: I really want to hit you now!
P: If you do, I’ll turn the other cheek, but you’ll have to look me in the eye when I do.
NP: Ugh!!!! (Storms off).
When countered with biblical evidence against killing (“Turn the other cheek,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” etc.), it is hard to claim that it is God’s will to wage war. The Book of Joshua may be thrown in as “counter-evidence” to defend killing. If that happens, we have to take a close look at what Joshua is really about. Is the killing a true genocide? Does it symbolize “killing idolatry?” Aren’t those people also God’s creation? And, even if it does condone killing, notice that the killing is directed solely by God. Never does a person decide whom to kill.
Conclusions:
1. 1. It seems that God desires pacifism even in the face of danger. One can do a long detailed study, but there are enough small anecdotes that prove this. Heck, Jesus even yelled at Peter after he cut off the guard’s ear…the same guard who was arresting Jesus. Then, if that wasn’t enough, he put the ear back on the guy.
2. 2. People often say pacifism won’t work. That depends on what the definition of success is. By not killing, a person succeeds at not having blood on his or her hands. If the definition of success is winning an intended goal, there are examples such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi who never fired a shot, and both of them succeeded.
3. 3. There is still the question of “duty of care.” If we had a time machine and could kill Hitler to save all those he killed, would it be ok to kill? That is a tough question, but also an impossible question. There is no way of knowing if by killing anyone (including Hitler) if the intended results will prevail. What if one of the other Nazis came into power after Hitler’s death and was more brutal? This does not mean caring for the weak or those who can’t defend themselves is forbidden. But, look at how Jesus defended the woman caught in adultery. She was supposed to be stoned. He got in the middle and said whoever hasn’t sinned could cast the first stone. He put himself at risk while still defending the woman. Each scenario is different, but there is always a non-killing option.
No comments:
Post a Comment