Dr. Joseph Cathey asked pacifist readers:
Suppose that a loved one (wife, child, parents) was going to be murdered - (You had no doubt of the intention of the person doing the murdering) and you had a gun – would you shoot the person?
As usual, there was much dodging back and forth and a lot of fantasy scenarios along the lines of "I'd shoot the gun out of his hand."
Jonathan Marlowe's non-answer was:
Here's a simple question: Have you stopped beating your wife? "yes" or "no?" It's a simple question; why don't you answer it?
Because it's got too many assumptions pre-packed into it.
Wrong. It's completely fair to ask pacifists (or anyone else) if they will live by the principles that they themselves espouse.
That was the point of my post on the subject. When I contemplated buying a gun, there was much holier-than-thou braying from parties that I suspected would use force to defend themselves and their families. The difference is that I was willing to admit it.
I get this same sense whenever I read Stanley Hauerwas -- incessant sniping about the evils of America, made while hiding behind the protections of that same America. The sheer pomposity of much of pacifism is deeply irritating. A more humble voice would say "I'm ashamed of it, but I'd probably pull the trigger."
In these various connected posts, there have been a number of pacifists who said outright "No, I won't use violence, period." I admire their forthrightness.
NOTE: Yes, I'm working on the MLK quote.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
As I said, Yoder has a long and direct response to this question, and I provided a link to it here. I agree with Yoder's answer, but you can't appreciate that without going through all of his reasoning. Yoder's answer, which I agree with, is, "No, Christians are not called to use violence, ever." But that only becomes intelligible once you see all that Yoder goes through.
As I also said, many times in Scripture Jesus does not answer his questioner using the same terms and framework that his questioner uses (Whose wife will she be in the resurrection? Who sinned, this man or his parents? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, etc...)
Einstein once said that you cannot solve a problem using the same framework that created it, and if you think that is the most important question for Christian disciples to answer about nonviolence, then we will not get very far past that conversation stopper.
John,
When you are ready for a gun drop me an email. I have many and can help you with your choice. I have taught classes in armed self defense.
For what it is worth, I applaud your willingness to explore this issue. Keep up the good work.
By the way, I share your disdain for Stanley Hauerwas - he makes me quite ill.
Yoder doesn't answer the question. In fact, at the end of his speech, he says:
I do not know what I would do if some insane or criminal person were to attack my wife or child, sister or mother.
Incidentally, most uses of guns in self-defense do not even involve pulling the trigger. Once you pull a gun on someone who is threatening to assault you, he is likely to have a very sudden change of plans and head elsewhere. In communities where most people are known to have guns in their homes, burglaries are rare and violent crime rates are low. Guns deter as well as defend.
Thomas Sowell
Link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/07/06/dems,_gopers,_and_blacks_ii
By the way, I share your disdain for Stanley Hauerwas - he makes me quite ill.
This is not a theological argument. I could give you a list of people who make me ill, but that would not help us discern any theological truth.
John, the sentence you quote out of context does not demonstrate Yoder's intellectual uncertainty, but rather his personal modesty.
The entire paragraph is:
I do not know what I would do if some insane or criminal person were to attack my wife or child, sister or mother. But I know that what I should do would be illuminated by what God my Father did when his "only begotten Son" was being threatened. Or by what Abraham, my father in the faith, was ready to sacrifice out of obedience; Abraham could ready himself to give up his son because he believed in the resurrection. It was "for the sake of the joy that was set before him" that Christ himself could "endure the cross."
This was written to explain what Yoder had said on the previous page:
Committed Christians see in their life of faith not merely an ethical stance in which they want to be consistent, nor a set of rules they want to be sure not to break, but a gracious privilege which they want to share. They guide their lives not so much by "How can I avoid doing wrong?" or even "How can I do the right?" as by "How can I be a reconciling presence in the life of my neighbor?" From this perspective, I might justify firm nonviolent restraint, but certainly never killing.
John, you still have not responded to my comment on my blog that explains how you depend on an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy.
That's swell. So are you ready to answer the question, or do you have more dodging to do? Or do you have more authors to hide behind and names to drop?
What is it about "No, Christians are not called to use violence, ever" that you don't understand?
What is it about "certainly never killing" that you don't understand?
Good. Now was that so hard to say? It was a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. Eventually, after you got your chance to show off how much you've read, all you needed to say was 'no' to make your position clear.
Try an economy of words next time.
John,
I find it hard to take your complaints about the "pomposity" of pacifists too seriously when I read the tone of many of your replies in the comments. You seem to have given yourself full permission to be and do everything you complain about in those with whom you disagree. So is it your position that you counter any perceived pomposity you encounter with a double dose?
Post a Comment