I understand that violence and non-violence are each other’s contrasts. I understand that great spiritual leaders think of non-violence as superior to violence. And I understand why: a non-violent response shows a fundamental respect for life and it refuses to destroy in the name of revenge.
I also understand what some call a close cousin to this position: intention trumps outcome. If my intention is to respect life and I accidentally hurt someone, then I am not guilty of the hurt I have inflicted. This makes sense.
But when I throw Christian faith into the mix, something happens and I lose my cognitive grip. Because then death - which is the worst possible outcome violence can produce - is suddenly not my worst enemy. In fact, dying well is what Christianity teaches best. As Hauerwas said in an interview shortly after 9/11: “what Christianity is about, is always learning how to die early for the right reasons.”
If this is so, then why do we make such a fuzz about the destructive nature of violence? Why do we not simply refer to it as “the way things are” and recommend the art of dying well as the best and most powerful response to it?
Related Posts:
- Why Do We Hope in Heaven in the First Place?
- Why Did We Start in a Garden and End in a City?
- Why Do Christians Have Such a Difficult Time Embracing Suffering?
(Photo: celestephotography)
