Quote of the Week: Jacques Ellul on Violence
As we have just seen, Christian realism leads to the conclusion that violence is natural* and normal to man and society, that violence is a kind of necessity imposed on governors and governed, on rich and poor. If this realism scandalizes Christians, it is because they make the great mistake of thinking that what is natural is good and what is necessary is legitimate. I am aware that the reader will answer at once: “You have shown that violence is inevitable and necessary in undertakings of any kind; therefore violence is legitimate, it must be used.” This is anti-Christian reasoning par excellence. What Christ does us is above all to make us free. Man becomes free through the Spirit of God, through conversion to and communion with the Lord. This is the one way to true freedom. But to have true freedom is to escape necessity, or rather, to be free to struggle against necessity. Therefore I say that only one line of action is open to the Christian who is free in Christ. He must struggle against violence precisely because, apart from Christ, violence is the form that human relations normally and necessarily take. In other words, the more completely violence seem to be of the order of necessity, the greater is the obligation of believers in Christ’s Lordship to overcome it by challenging necessity.
This is the fixed, the immutable, and the radical basis of the Christian option in relation to violence. For the order of necessity is the order of separation from God.
Jacques Ellul, Violence (New York: The Seabury Press, 1969), 127-8.
* When talking about what is natural, he is talking about nature in its fallen mode of being; that is, because the universe is fallen, the structures of sin are also a part of what we consider to be nature and so can be found in nature; this, of course, points to some of the problems involved in the exploration of ‘natural law.’ Of course if we can discern nature in purity, the natural law would also be good; but when we live in a world of sin, then we must be careful and not confuse how things work now as if that is how they should work in eternity. This of course goes to the root of many modern debates and undermines them all–HK
Comments are closed.
Awesomeness.
This quotation is the perfect response to some of the comments running on the preceding “double effect” post. There is no hope, in this fallen world, of being kept safe from all harm and suffering. But we can hope to be good, and to direct what strength we possess toward that end.
Rodak
Yes; the conversation wanted me to quote Ellul; I decided on this one though he has many other good ones in the work.
I must admit that this is attractive, but I think that “only one line of action is open to the Christian”, if I am understanding him correctly, is too much of a generality. This is fitting, perhaps, for a single man who has no temporal responsibilities for others.
But, as a husband and father I believe it is my moral duty to protect my wife, children – and myself – for thier sakes, and if necessary to use whatever force warranted and necessary to fulfil that duty. I carry a gun. I believe that I would be failing my duty as a husband and father if I took the pacifist position.
In your opinion(s), is there something morally wrong with my position? Why?
Steve
I would recommend you read Ellul’s book as a whole. His point is that when we fall into violence, it is an issue of sinful, fallen humanity. We cannot ascribe that response as Christian, even if it turns out to be a necessity. He himself judges himself in this light as well .
Thanks for this wonderful quote, Henry!
It’s unfortunate that just war requirements have the name it has. It suggests a presumption that wars are just. How many times have we seen (or used) arguments along the lines of, “We know that violence is sometimes justified; take for example Just War?”
When this is applied to things like the Iraq War, get into even sloppier territory, such as Thiessen’s mis-application of the Principle of Double Effect cited below.
Steve,
You said, “believe it is my moral duty to protect my wife, children – and myself – for thier sakes, and if necessary to use whatever force warranted and necessary to fulfil that duty” and ask “is there something morally wrong with my position?”
Your statement seems to say that there are no limits to what you would do to defend your family. But there must be a line that we do not cross in our application of force. May we nuke entire countries? May we use obliteration bombing? May we terrorize? May we rape? May we torture? May we mutilate? May we kill? May we shed blood? May we bruise? May we restrain? May we push away? May we use harsh words? May we stare them down?
In our use of defensive force, there must be a line that we do not cross. My question to you, Steve, is where you would draw the line and why?
Henry, Post this everywhere you can. The mystery of where to draw the line is important and each case must be considered individually and completely.
When Christ was born they had to flee instead of remain in an unsafe place. The children who were then slaughtered could not flee and could not be protected. It was there sacrifice which united them to Christ.
Abraham was told to sacrifice his son for God. He was ready.
It comes down to believing or not believing that God and Christ are real and that our final destination is with God. The choice then is to face death without human defenses and die while we watch our loved ones die with all the horror in that reality for the unknown and unseen reality of God, or to kill the attacker and believe that this is the real world that we must live for.
It is a tough choice.
Steve
Your position is actually that of the Popes. The Popes cooperate formally with the fact that the Swiss Guard have both 9mm pistols and Heckler and Koch submachine guns (very high tech)…I’m sure they do not want the Swiss Guard abusing them but they want them used should for example a small group of extremists enter Vatican City and start killing innocents:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/05/catholicism.religion8
I really believe the popes should not be protected. By protecting the pope it is implied that we also must protect ourselves. It exhibits a weakness of faith and conformity to the world’s definition of peace. “Speak softly and carry a big stick”.
The more I think of this defensiveness it seems to reveal an attachment to the “culture of death”.
I will use caps to emphasize the following question.
IS THE POPE AFRAID OF DYING?
Excellent quote from Ellul. I think he’s referring to what Paul called “the wisdom of the world.” The world sees God’s wisdom, found in the crucifixion, as foolishness.
Your statement seems to say that there are no limits to what you would do to defend your family.
When it comes to defense, I’m not sure if there is a limit. I would use whatever force I deemed necessary to defend them against a violent assault. If I believed that the life of my wife or child was on the line, I would use all the force that I could muster to defend them, even if it meant the force would likely lead to the death of the attacker – or even my death.
The choice then is to face death without human defenses and die while we watch our loved ones die with all the horror in that reality for the unknown and unseen reality of God
I find this kind of thinking wildly arrogant. You have no right to sit and watch your loved ones die if you have an opportunity to defend them. You cannot know their hearts and also cannot know if they are ready to share in your pacifistic martyrdom. If you are ready to die defenseless, fine. I applaud your courage and your virtue. But to assume your philosophy upon others and allow your children – anyone – to suffer and die while you passively watch due to a presumed obligation to some kind of personal pacifistic dogma is, in my opinion, absurdly misguided, to put it mildly.
Simon – that’s a great article. The pope’s (at least) since the 1500′s have obviously not been pacifists.
By the way Ronald, forgive me if my post above seemed directed at you. The “you” I was referring to is a general “you” and not you per se, if you get my drift. My point was direct at what I perceive to be an extreme version of pacifism.
In reality, I find pacifism, in some senses and on a personal level, attractive. I’m not sure if I would call Saint Francis a pacifist, but on the other hand maybe he was one. I would like to imitate his way, whatever one might call it. But pacifism, at least in the sense that you have portrayed, doesn’t jive with duties according to the state in life of a husband and father.
Steve, thanks for making that clear. I didn’t have my coffee yet and I read your note and was shocked out of my pacifist morning drowsiness. I was stating what the choices might be. Pacifism to me is not passive in the face of violence. On the contrary, it is very active in the sense that the belief is in the life after death and if through this sacrifice of one’s life without defense against the attacker, the attacker converts, then a soul has been saved.
Even if there is no conversion with the attacker the collective violence in the world may diminish in its intensity and frequency–the butterfly effect.
I am curious. If there were more saints like St. Francis or if the pope had gone with St Francis to visit the Persian king would the war have been prevented? More than one light needs to be lit in the dark hole of human suffering.
By the way, if someone hurts my daughter or son my rage button would kick in and I probably would go absolutely crazy and me and the attacker would be in the fast lane to perdition.
God Bless you Steve.
Ronald King
A Roman centurion according to Christ (Matthew 8:10) had more faith than anyone Christ had found in all Israel and the centurion in effect carried 101 swords each week.
Christ allowed the disciples to carry actual swords (Luke 22:38) probably for mugger purposes (the good Samaritan story is about a mugging). If you allowed yourself to be mugged prior to modern medicine, you could be a beggar for life with an unfixed broken leg.
When He said “he who takes up the sword will die by the sword”, the better sense might be captured in the other translation “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”. Samuel killed Agag and Samuel died peacefully at home….as have countless military men and women. Either Christ was wrong or Christ meant that if one lives by aggression as the solution to everything, one will die by aggression.
Once you find the passages on the swords, check the original language and they were combat swords not fish cutting knives. Read and memorize the Bible or you will create your own mistaken version in your head. The choice is yours.
Simon
As I said before, Christ affirming the Centurion’s faith is not Christ affirming the Centurion’s livelihood (or Roman occupation).
Simon, The last word is Christ on the Cross. That trumps everything before that. Did the centurion go into battle after that? I know the Bible and it is your choice to interpret through the Cross or through what you want to see before the Cross.
I choose the narrow gate whenever I am aware enough to overcome the hardwiring of a genetic history of violence in response to sin.
You can rationalize your own violence anyway you want. However, I do not expect you to understand what I am saying. It has taken a long time to learn the truth of the Cross.
Henry
Yes but…it means that carrying the sword even for Rome which did both good and evil differing with the time and place in each century… is not a block to having more faith than the religious of the temples which means as an occupation, it is a good per se unless one sins in it in an unjust war; as is the occupation of the Swiss Guard good per se with their Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine guns which could be very necessary should Pope Benedict make another mistake along the lines of Regensburg where the speech could have survived without the offending anecdote as still a great speech.
Now Christ did not tell any prostitute who intended to continue prostituting that she had more faith than any He had found in all Israel since
her very occupation involves what Aquinas called a turning away from God. We can presume that Rahab changed vocations after she sheltered the Jewish spies.
Indeed one might see at the judgement that soldiers who risked paralysis and amputations and death for their country or the Swiss Guard for the papal state in a just war may indeed shine far more at the judgement than most those who followed occupations which required less self sacrifice like my present one which requires no such self sacrifice: I Corinthians 15:41 “For star differs from star in brightness. So also is the resurrection of the dead.”
Simon
Once again, you are assuming much — too much from the story. You are using silence as an argument (we don’t even know if he were silent). But on the other hand, it is quite clear whenever Christ was EVER near the use of a sword, he put a stop to it.
I didn’t have my coffee yet and I read your note and was shocked out of my pacifist morning drowsiness.
I have, at times, been called the antidote to coffee. (Amongst worse things.) :)
Steve, Coffee is good.:)
Fellows,
It’s not just Christ affirming the centurion’s faith.
The other relevant passage is when Christ teaches various folk what they should do, and tells a soldier, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely–be content with your pay.”
He notably does not say “resign your commission.”
In short, Jesus had a prime opportunity to tell a soldier that there was something inherently wrong with his occupation, and instead of saying so, He chose instead to tell the soldier to practice his profession honestly and justly.
Excelsior
How do you know he didn’t? Beyond that, again, this is an argument from silence. Other times, Jesus is clear — no violence. Like to Peter.
Excelsior, Jesus told the soldier “…don’t accuse people falsely…” When we call someone an “enemy” are we accusing that person or country falsely? Every word He speaks is HUGE.
Excelsior,
That line is from John the Baptist, not Jesus. Moreover, some translations have the Baptist saying, “do violence to no man”.
Jesus addresses the question of violence directly: do not violently resist evil, but turn the cheek, love your enemy, and do good to those who hate you. And then, if we are too stubborn to listen, Jesus practices what he preaches, and asks for the forgiveness of those who crucify and mock him. He demands that Peter put away the sword and tells us that all who use the sword will die by the sword. The Church canonically forbids clerics from shedding blood. There is no question that Jesus renounced the use of violence as a means of defeating evil. There is no question that Catholic priests follow his example – as too his greatest saints, including Saint Francis and all those who followed Francis. Francis’ third order was forbidden from possessing arms, and were the conscientious objectors of the Medieval ages.
No whipping in the temple or shock at a Centurion’s trust in Christ’s word can change the simple fact that Jesus died on the cross with love, and that he directly commanded us to renounce not only violence, but possessions, family, and even marriage. He demanded that we give our very lives to the Kingdom and the King. The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church, and even if violence has a legitimate place in a fallen world, even if war and killing can be philisophically legitimate, the Christian is called by supernatural grace to live differently, to live better, to live as if he, and all he loved, were to live forever.
The “what would you do?” argument is flawed. Sure, some folks would defend their families if some random attackers invaded their houses to simply hurt them. What kind of a situation is this? How often do people break into people’s houses just to hurt/rape/kill other people? Usually there’s some other motivation, usually having to do with property. If this is a hypothetical, there’s an assumption that one COULD do something. One would have a gun or another kind of weapon. One would have to be a really good shot to hit the person without a chance of killing the people they were trying to protect. And there couldn’t be the chance that the person would kill the person one was trying to rescue beforehand. If they weren’t a good shot, would it be safe to shoot in the first place? One would have to assume that it is a sure bet. One would also have to assume that the person would also prefer the rescuer to take that kind of action–perhaps they would prefer to die than kill. Or perhaps they would rather have violence inflicted upon them in the hopes that it would end before it became deadly. Maybe it happens perfectly in action films–but how is it going to work in practice?
Okay, say we’ve got that perfect hypothetical situation. It comes along some how. Sure, I’ll buy into that one. Hypothetically.
Yet, we’re talking about war. The “we” is usually the soldiers of the state, or the citizens of the nation committing the aggression. The “defend” is usually killing people that are of no direct threat to you and probably just wearing a different uniform. Perhaps they are citizens of another state (or, opposition group like “terrorists”) that is threatening to your state. The truth is that people are willing to do more heinous acts to other people in the name of country than they would protecting from the perfect scenario unlikely home invaders. Nowadays they don’t even get to see a lot of the people they kill face to face.
It’s not the same. The “what would you do?” is not only unrealistic, it’s also misleading.
Ryan
Plus, it follows with what Ellul points to here. The natural response is violence. Just don’t call it the Christian response. The struggle is to find a way out of the cycle of violence…
Agreed! I only brought up the fallacious “what would you do?” (I admit I lifted most of it from John Howard Yoder) because I notice most of us get caught with it when we suggest that violence is not the only solution available.
Next week, I’ll tackle “WHAT ABOUT HITLER?!” ;)
One more thought. If we are truly members of the Mystical Body of Christ do we harm that Body by committing violence against another?
How are we to actively live being a member of the Body of Christ?
He said we will be known by how we love one another.
How are we known?
Ronald
Do you mind if I e-mail?
Henry, Feel free to email anytime.