Violence
God hates certain kinds of people. Among those are people who love violence (Ps. 11:5). In fact, God once destroyed the world because it was full of violence (Gen. 6:11-13).
While most Christians rightly reject pacifism, we should remember that violence always comes with a cost. Scripture clearly indicates that some instances of violence are necessary. On certain occasions, God Himself commanded the destruction of both property and life (1 Sam. 15:1-3). On occasion, God pronounced judgment over someone’s failure to destroy property and people according to His command (1 Sam. 15:10-23). A righteous person may even discover a kind of joy in the skillful prosecution of justified violence (2 Sam. 22:35; Ps. 144:1). Even when it is justified, however, violence alters the way that God perceives people who employ it, even to the point of restricting their freedom to serve Him (1 Chr. 22:7-8, 28:2-3).
Consequently, Christians who live in violent times and places are forced to confront an unfortunate dilemma. On the one hand, sometimes violence can be contained only by opposing it with violence. Most Christians have argued that the state may rightly employ violence in response to crime, most have supported some form of just-war theory, and most have accepted that self defense is a right or even a duty. To cite only one example, the Westminster Larger Catechism, commenting on the Sixth Commandment, prescribes the duty to “preserve the life of ourselves and others by…just defense thereof against violence….” While it recognizes that the commandment forbids all taking of life, it makes exception “in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense,” and it forbids “neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life,” which would include weapons necessary for public justice, just war, and self defense.
If the catechism is correct, then magistrates sometimes have a duty to employ violence against criminals. Nations sometimes have a duty to go to war. Individuals sometimes have a duty to defend their own lives and the lives of others. Duties always imply the necessity of preparation to fulfill them. Magistrates cannot bear the sword if they are unskilled in its use. A nation cannot pursue just war if it has no army. Individuals cannot defend themselves or others if they lack either the weapons or the skill. A duty to engage in certain forms of violence implies a duty to prepare for that engagement. In those times and places where violence is rife, God’s people may find themselves devoting considerable attention to becoming proficient in asserting violence against violence. Christian police officers and Christian soldiers will become skilled in the use of arms. In times and places where magistrates fail to contain civil destruction, even private Christians may be forced to become proficient in arms.
All of the foregoing is one side of the dilemma. The other side of the dilemma is that God still hates those who love violence. That being the case, the question is whether Christians can become skilled in the techniques of violence without loving violence and bringing blood-guiltiness upon themselves.
Thomas Aquinas considered this question in his Summa Theologiae, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 64, where he asked about the legitimacy of killing in self defense. Thomas based his answer upon Exodus 22:2, a verse that authorizes the taking of life in defense of property. In considering the application of this verse, he noted that a single action may result in more than one effect, and that the legitimacy of the action depends upon the legitimacy of the intention. Violence (such as the taking of a life) may proceed from more than one intention. If the intention is to kill, then the act constitutes a violation of the Sixth Commandment. If the intention is legitimate, however (such as the intention to preserve innocent life, including one’s own), then the killing may actually be unintended (though of course it is not unforeseen). Nevertheless, Thomas qualified this assessment by noting that the act must be proportioned to the intention—if one can safely preserve innocent life without killing, then killing is immoral.
Of course, Thomas was talking about ultimate intentions. It would be ridiculous to deny that, at one level, a soldier’s immediate intention is to kill the enemy when he pulls the trigger. His intention to kill, however, is wrapped within the larger intention of the just war, and it is the just war that legitimizes the act of killing. In the same way, people who defend themselves know that when they pull the trigger someone is likely to die, though what they intend is not the death of the assailant, but the removal of the assault. The same considerations would apply to mastering skill with weapons: what does the individual intend to use those skills for?
In other words, if the majority of Christians are correct, then preparing to meet violence with violence does not by itself constitute love of violence. The use of violence against violence does not bring guilt as long as it is proportioned to the righteous intention of halting aggression against the innocent. A Christian can, in principle, become a highly skilled police officer or soldier without in any sense betraying his faith.
Even granting all this, it is possible for Christians to foster an inordinate love of violence. This occurs when their authorization or use of violence is disproportionate. It occurs when they take delight in violence as a spectacle, as when Hollywood employs a veneer of injustice to legitimate a two-hour rampage by some action hero. It occurs when for pleasure Christians immerse themselves in the mindset of violence (as in first-person shooter simulations, whether electronic or on a playing field). It may also occur in the form of fascination with the use of force, whether police, military, or personal. Christians may lawfully employ violence under some circumstances. They may also rightly prepare for skillful use of the techniques of violence. Nevertheless, it is not clear that they should ever love violence for its own sake, or that they should delight in either the depiction or the experience of violence.
Dear Lord and Father of Mankind
John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892)
Dear Lord and Father of mankind,
Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.
In simple trust like theirs who heard,
Beside the Syrian sea,
The gracious calling of the Lord,
Let us, like them, without a word,
Rise up and follow Thee.
O Sabbath rest by Galilee,
O calm of hills above,
Where Jesus knelt to share with Thee
The silence of eternity,
Interpreted by love!
With that deep hush subduing all
Our words and works that drown
The tender whisper of Thy call,
As noiseless let Thy blessing fall
As fell Thy manna down.
Drop Thy still dews of quietness,
Till all our strivings cease;
Take from our souls the strain and stress,
And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Thy peace.
Breathe through the heats of our desire
Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind, and fire,
O still, small voice of calm.
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 3 views
Great post. I’d like to see you go a bit deeper on this part though… or expand on it or whatever the right term is.
It occurs when they take delight in violence as a spectacle, as when Hollywood employs a veneer of injustice to legitimate a two-hour rampage by some action hero. It occurs when for pleasure Christians immerse themselves in the mindset of violence (as in first-person shooter simulations, whether electronic or on a playing field). It may also occur in the form of fascination with the use of force, whether police, military, or personal. Christians may lawfully employ violence under some circumstances. They may also rightly prepare for skillful use of the techniques of violence. Nevertheless, it is not clear that they should ever love violence for its own sake, or that they should delight in either the depiction or the experience of violence.
What I freely grant: we should never love violence for its own sake or indulge a love of violence itself.
But I’m not sure what’s really happening when hollywood seems to “employ a veneer of injustice to legitimate…” No doubt, this happens at times. But I find it very interesting that movie makers/book writers, etc. continue to feel compelled to put violence in a pursuit-of-justice context. I don’t think it’s usually just to make it more palatable, per se. I think they are tapping something in human nature: the ability/tendency to see violence as a beautiful thing when it is employed with skill in the righting of a wrong.
And this itself may be something implanted in us as a kind of message, a dim echo of something pretty important.
Re 19:11–13 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God…. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. 17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” (ESV)
Violence can certainly be good, if not beautiful. It just usually isn’t when humans are involved.
One of the tragedies of our times is that while many vocally deplore all forms of violence, they continue to enjoy it in drama and fiction as a human phenomenon, yet, at same time, have lost the capacity to see righteous wrath as a beautiful thing even in the hands of the only One truly entitled to express it. This is one reason the doctrine of Hell is going by the wayside. So our culture keeps loving the action hero while despising the God who embodies righteous wrath perfectly—and that despising often happens supposedly on the grounds that we abhor all violence.
On a more pragmatic note, we have to be careful not to overstate caution against interest in violence. As long as there is injustice in the world, nations and smaller groups of people will need the aid of people skilled in violence. And that involves training, tradition, and those old fashioned ideas of honor and valor in battle.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Here’s an illustration of what Aaron is talking about in the beauty of violence: The Lord of the Rings. I’m reading through it now, and in the movie The Two Towers there is a wonderful scene where just at the last possible second, when everything is darkest, dawn brings a white horseman and a blinding light and the obviously evil orcs are decimated. To me this recalls to mind the passage of Revelation that Aaron mentioned. I’m not prepared to defend every aspect of violence depicted in the movie, but in that moment in watching the movie, I could be disposed to “enjoy” it in two or more ways. I could love the emotion of justice done just in the Nick of Time against obvious evil, or I could love the violence portion of the scene divorced from the setting and context. Did you see the orc “blood” (or whatever that is) and that head flying away? Cool!!! If one is fixating on only the raw violence, that’s probably bad. If one tried to portray the same scene, but completely rated G, you’d loose the oomph of the emotion.
Another separate point I have is this: what one loves will come out. If someone loves violence in the wrong kind of way that God hates, you would expect to SEE violence come from them. I’ll admit that as a boy I loved to shoot bows and arrows, slingshots and even golf balls in my back yard because I love the idea of skillfully getting the projectile close to the target consistently. I’ve graduated from slingshots to .45s, and my idea of a fun time is heading to the range to get more skill in the art of defending myself. I can’t say it’s the violence part that intrigues me. It’s the idea of being skillful in the art of defending me, my family or my friends by pursuing a sport. I’ve never shot anyone, punched anyone or robbed anyone. Even though I could quote to you the pros and cons of the .45 vs. the 9mm or the proper carry rig for a snubby .38, I don’t go around looking for trouble.
Shaynus, when you talk about carrying a .38, I can only assume you mean for a woman to carry that. We all know that guns must have a magazine for it to be a man’s gun. Just sayin…
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
James, as a backup gun in an ankle holster dude, it’s not a bad choice. Give me some credit.
James K, surely you jest! Behold Wyatt Earp’s revolver …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]James K, surely you jest! Behold Wyatt Earp’s revolver …
And by the time someone can aim right and shoot, a shooter has emptied 7 rounds into his target. Speed and accuracy. Using a revolver is like using a typewriter. It is better than some options, but it just can’t compare to anything modern.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Do we have a new beginning to an old song here? ;-) Aaron, Just because Jesus does something, and it is holy, doesn’t make it beautiful.
“By the fury of the LORD of hosts the land is burned up, And the people are like fuel for the fire; No man spares his brother.” (Isaiah 9:19)
I will take a different kind of beauty, thank you.
I’m rusty on the old conversation about the beautiful and the good.
But everything God does is good—I assume we can take that for granted. I think we’d also all buy the premise that everything God does is best. So, while the conditions that make God’s judgment necessary are ugly, the whole of the story of mankind is a beautiful one, including the wrath.
The burning up of the land in Is. 9, has to be looked at through something more than our usual way of evaluating the beautiful and good.
But maybe it helps to avoid getting hung up on what “beautiful” means…. If we are to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength, then we ought to regard all He does—and in a way, each individual thing He does, too—as desirable. Doesn’t faith say that if we can’t see the desirability in an act of God, the problem is with us? (I say this admitting that I don’t find the idea of Hell at all attractive. The idea of eternal suffering has no appeal to me—but doesn’t Scripture compel me to believe that when I’m perfected, I’ll think as God does, see it as God does: a good idea?)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As I see it Aaron, the whole story of man is beautiful, because it results in God’s glory. However, not all the details are good. Sin is not good. If there had been no sin, there would have been no need for God’s judgment on people. Sin has an ugly end, namely death. Death is an enemy. I do not believe anyone, including Moses saw the deaths of Dathan and Abriam and those around them as something beautiful. It was shocking and horrifying. We cannot expect something very wicked and ugly to be overcome by one, shining, beautiful movement. Heaven will be happy when Jesus destroys His enemies, but his terrible swift sword will create destruction, not beauty.
Hollywood films paint a perverse picture of heroes wasting the bad guys. It is completely unrealistic. No policeman who ever had to shoot a criminal avoids being bothered by it for a long time (if not a lifetime). A nation needs to honor its soldiers who defend its interests. However, soldiers who kill the enemy are inevitably plagued with the demons that follow in their minds.
The hollywood point first… I’m not interested in defending them. But I do want to point out that the tradition of singing the praises of heroes is much older than film and video. Among the many examples in Scripture, 1 Sam. 18:7. I know that the actual task of securing justice and thwarting aggressors is often grizzly—and many who find themselves in that role find it very difficult to live with. My reading suggests that many, however, do not. In any case, I think most of us know, deep down, that we are not worthy to instruments of law and justice in this way—to take lives. Fortunately, law does not require worthy instruments. The worthiness comes from the cause itself and from God who authorizes it (e.g., Rom. 13.4)
I’m not arguing that there are no ugly parts of the battle against evil or that there is no ugly violence. Far from it. What I’m saying is that God delights in justice (Jer. 9.24), and so should we. I’m arguing further everything God does is good—so whenever He personally engages in violence against evil, this is a good thing.
And if violence against evil is ever a good thing—an admirable thing—it follows that violence is not, in itself, ugly and abhorrent.
Sometimes we probably do well to see beauty in the fact of justice being won while simultaneously seeing ugliness in the means or the process. But so much of the language of judgment seems to call us to look differently at the means as well.
We were just reading Hosea the other day, for example. It’s a good exercise to read through it an pause often to ask, how am I intended to feel about this?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion