I recently read the following in J. Denny Weaver’s book, The Nonviolent God (p. 220):
When the hour arrived for the end of Word War I, Winston Churchhill and his wife went to Downing Street to congratulate Lloyd George, the prime minister. Churchill interrupted a meeting already in progress and suggested that since the “fallen foe” was close to starvation, they should send “a dozen great ships crammed with provisions” to Hamburg. The suggestion received a cold rebuff.
Six years later a German soldier described his feelings at the time and wrote that “only fools, liars, and criminals could hope for mercy from the enemy.” His hatred grew for those responsible for the suffering. On observing the great misery [in Germany], he wrote, “My own fate became known to me … I resolved to go into politics.”
That soldier was Adolph Hitler.
Critics of nonviolence often use Adolph Hitler as an example of a time when violence and bloodshed was absolutely necessary. They say, “So if you had a chance to go back in time and kill Hitler and save millions of innocent Jews, you wouldn’t do it?”
What the question fails to recognize is that there were good ways of stopping Hitler that did not involve killing him. One wonders if there ever would have been a Nazi Germany and a World War II if Winston Churchill’s advice had been heeded.
Similarly, one wonders if Winston Churchill’s suggestion could help the West in our struggle with radical Islam and ISIS.
Recent estimates put the cost of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at somewhere between $4 and $6 Trillion.
If that isn’t appalling enough, in our efforts to retaliate against the horrible tragedy of the murder of 2,753 people in the Word Trade Center on 9/11/2001, we sent our young men and women overseas, and so far, 4,486 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq and 2,345 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan, with tens of thousands of soldiers being injured or wounded. And this is nothing compared to the casualties among the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Looking back, is it possible that there might be a better way to defeat Isis and radical Islamic terrorists … a way that would have spent less money and fewer (if any) lives? What would Iraq and Afghanistan look like today if we had followed Churchill’s advice in the wake of World War I, and had sent boatloads of food and construction crews to the Middle East to prop up their economy and give their people an education?
The annual GDP of Iraq is just over $200 Billion. Afghanistan is about $60 billion. Imagine what the two countries might look like today if we had spent $4 Trillion building those nations up instead of bombing them down?
When it comes to stopping Islamic terrorists, I sometimes think a Wal-Mart in Baghdad would work better than bombs.
“Oh … But you can’t export capitalism into the Middle East! They will rise up in rebellion.”
Maybe. But if your choices are between a Wal-Mart and bombs, are you really going to choose bombs?
I am not saying this would have “worked,” … but then, is what we are doing now really “working”?
I am not a politician, and I know these are difficult issues, but I just sometimes wonder when the world is going to wake up and realize the truth that that violence always and only leads to more violence. In trying to defeat violence with violence you become like the enemy you seek to defeat.
Appreciate the heart in this, but we have done both… we have spent gobs and gobs of money in our history (pardon the overly technical description here) on relief and aid…. and then ended up still having to spend lives and trillions of dollars to defeat the enemy we previously created and sustained and strengthened.
Jeremy wrote:
I just sometimes wonder when the world is going to wake up and realize the truth that that violence always and only leads to more violence. In trying to defeat violence with violence you become like the enemy you seek to defeat.
This seems naive to me and doesn’t comport with history. Not to mention that most of the prophets, kings, and Judges of Israel, god’s chosen nation, hold a different view. Yes, sometimes violence leads to more violence. Other times what you call ‘violence’ is merely reciprocating….responding to unjustified acts of aggression in order to stop them. And it saves innocent lives.
In one sense Wars are extensions of national diplomacy, and sometimes very complicated. World War I is fascinating to study. Many of the leaders of the warring countries were good friends and even spent time together, but through a tragic chain of events starting with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, effecting a complicated web of entangling alliances between various nations set up a domino effect that led to leaders arguably doing, in some instances, what they didn’t really want to do.
Yes, there was WWI, that had an effect on German sentiment to be sure, but after the war, victorious nations didn’t have to be so hard on Germany. There were post war economic sanctions that had a brutal effect and scarred the nation’s psyche. If they had followed Winston Churchill’s advice then would things have been different? We can’t know for sure, but quite possibly, yes. So then, a good case can be made that it wasn’t just the war, but the war PLUS after the war, kicking them when they were down and prolonging their suffering. This made the climate ripe for the hateful ideology of Nazism to spread.
Don’t forget that Hitler as a youngster was an artist, he even made a living a brief while selling artwork to tourists. His dream was to become a great artist and applied twice to the Vienna Academy of Art, but was rejected. He blamed a Jewish professor for his rejection. A rejection that had a lasting effect on him. Later he would comment that it was in Vienna where the fires of Anti-semitism were ignited.
If he had been accepted, the entire course of history might have been altered.
Hitler dedicated his book Mein Kampf to Dietrich Eckart, his teacher. Dietrich Eckart was involved in the Thule Society, an occult organization. Hitler also consulted psychics and individuals who were occultists. I have no doubt that dark spiritual forces were also an influence. Maybe if more people had prayed to bind them, history would have been different.
Hitler was also influenced by numerous anti-semitic individuals and books. One of Many was written by Henry Ford. Anti-semitism, which seems to have existed, and thrived throughout all of history was a major factor in shaping WWII as well.
I’ve often been challenged, when considering how to handle such grand-scale political events from a perspective of peace, with the question, “What about Hitler? What would have happened to the world if Christians didn’t go to war?”
I think it is worth considering that if Christians didn’t go to war there wouldn’t have been very many Germans soldiers to fight against in the first place.
I know that doesn’t solve anything for those facing the actual Nazi monstrosity with the belief that they must do something to stop it, but I do think it is worth thinking about. Sometimes war becomes the only course because we have already rejected the answers. Sometimes it is even because of what was done in a previous generation – the parents eat the candy and the kids get the cavities.
Even so, there is no guarantee that pacifism would lead to good outcomes, even if it might have stopped Nazism at its root. You have to decide if you think it is both within our power and our calling to make sure world events go our way.
My biggest issue in war is, as you mentioned, all the innocent lives lost. To avenge the innocent on 9/11 how many innocent have we killed? It is all well and good for us to justify it as necessary to preserve our lives or our nation, but the important thing to bear in mind is that to those whose father or mother or infant child has been killed, they will never see it as just. It isn’t just. We call it a necessary evil. It is just that, then, evil. And the problem is that those who endure such a loss, having suffered an evil, have the same right of retribution we claim to have. And so you have an endless war. I think this is why the ancients waged war to the last extreme. They knew that if you didn’t kill every last man, woman and suckling child, there would rise up a new generation – not merely pursuing revenge, but deserving it as much as anyone ever did.
Worked the second time around. If they had listened to Churchill, Germany would be as prosperous as it is now and they would have avoided WWII.
The lesson that we should learn from WWI that can be applied to ISIS has nothing to do with providing economic assistance to a defeated enemy (as we did for Germany following WWII because we did learn the lesson of WWI). The lesson is that we are dealing with Islamic unrest today because the British and the French made the Sykes-Picot Agreement to partition the Ottoman Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Leigh,
I wouldn’t stop there. Sykes=Picot Agreement or not, KORANIC Islam(which ISIS follows) demands that their adherents convert or kill. It is a an ideology and a death cult compelling Muslims to engage in Jihad to conquer the world. Not all Muslims engage in this, but they are classified as apostates as far as the Koran is concerned. Also, it must be noted that if you are at all familiar with Islamic eschatology, you know that the ISIS caliphate is hell bent on fulfilling Islamic end times prophecy, which was there before the Sykes-Picot Agreement and has it’s significant influence independent of it. They believe they MUST do these things to hasten the coming of the Mahdi, the Islamic Messiah.
It’s fascinating when you study it to see that islamic eschatology is the convolution, twisted, upside down version of biblical eschatology.
The issue is if the Sixth Pillar of Islam is internal, or external.
Both the Q’ran, and the Gospels imply that the Sixth Pillar is internal.
The Torah, and Hadith are ambigious on it being internal, or external.
The literal meaning is that it is exernal.
The majority of religious scholars have viewed it as internal.
Treating it as external does not scale.
Treating it as internal does scale.
Whilst the ability to scale shouldn’t be relevant, from both sociology and anthropology we learn that the inability to scale correlates with groups imploding.
Congratulations Jeremy Myers, you have just made the same mistake that most of our leaders make every day. You’re thinking like a westerner, and applying western ethics and solutions to an eastern problem. The reason the Obama’s solutions have NOT worked is because they are solutions understood by westerners who understand solutions rooted in Judeo-Christian teachings. Easterners misunderstand the message that we are trying to convey, and instead see us as weak.
So please educate us. What is the eastern solution to the eastern problem?
We can’t solve the problem. Easterners must solve it. We need to get out of the way while making it clear (and this will have to be do after Obama) that an attack on us or our allies will result in attack. A Walmart in Afghanistan isn’t going to cause them to put down arms though.
Jeremy, have you read through the Qu’ran and the Hadith?
Yes. And I interact with Muslims and Jews almost every day. Do you?
Jeremy Myers I wasn’t aware that the conversation had changed from solving problems in the Middle East, to your interaction with fellow Oregonians. Good talking with you Jeremy. Blessings.
What? You clearly know nothing about me. To get back to my post then, the concept of loving, forgiving, and blessing enemies happens to come from a middle eastern Jew.
I agree there is a place for individuals loving, forgiving, and blessing enemies, but aren’t you conflating an individual’s response to enemies with a nation’s response to enemies?
Jeremy I realize that you have little to no room in your understanding of God, and love, and Christain values for violence, but this is at very best wishful thinking. I am afraid you have neither a biblical or logical leg to stand on. Although it is true that you rarely win an enemy over to your side with violence, the fact remains that humans are the most stubborn creatures in the universe and at times will only respond to brute force, and physical defeat. Paul said that rulers do not bear the sword in vail. They are God’s agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evil doer. And without which the world would be ruled by the ugliest sinners of all! If you do not acknowlage this reality you appearantly have not had much contact with the brutality which is very present in this world.
Ben,
I know you disagree with my stance, but I firmly believe it is biblical and logical. Most importantly, I believe it is the example of Jesus. I am simply follow His example in how He stood up to His enemies.
Jesus told his followers to carry swords, and His Father sent out a shepherd boy to kill a giant with a sling and behead him. Pacifism isn’t “Christian,” it’s suicide by proxy.
To look at Jesus physical life only, as the basis for ones view of violent force, is far from seeing the big picture of world war/ large scale violence. But even then, what do you make of Jesus driving out the peaceful marketers in the temple courts with a whip that He Himself had made? You are free to have your idealistic views, Jeremy, but you must realize the most thinking people are not going to take you seriously. And when you error on such an obvious issue, it makes one wonder if you can be trusted to discern on more challenging issues. The fact remains that God has always used violent methods to punish, and restrain, and correct all of His creation, and we have no reason to believe that those mechanisms are no longer needed.
Ben,
1. Since Jesus fully reveals God to us, He is the paradigm or filter through which I read and study the rest of Scripture.
2. I used to believe exactly as you do, but have changed my mind through serious study and research of the positions and issues. Much of this journey has been documented on my blog, and I won’t rehash it here for you. Your concerns and questions have answers, and you can find them by doing some reading and study.
3. I don’t care if people agree with me or take me seriously. I write the truth as I see it and I try to follow it (though often unsuccessfully). Know, however, that many of the world’s leading scholars, theologians agree with me on this, and many millions of people as well. The world is waking up to the reality of what Jesus taught and demonstrated, that God is love, and in Him there is no violence at all.
Jeremy wrote:
Since Jesus fully reveals God to us, He is the paradigm or filter through which I read and study the rest of Scripture.
In this approach, might you run the risk of abandoning objective grammatical-historical exegesis? Might it cause you to bend and twist the Bible’s 62 other books to fit a pacifistic version of Messiah? If we say that all 66 books truly are part of the canon, don’t we then have to respect the opinions of all biblical authors equally? Instead of saying, these 4 had it right(Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) but all of Israel’s Prophets, Kings, and Judges, had it wrong?
Jeremy, I do appreciate that you take me seriously enough to respond. I actually take you seriously as well or I would not have responded the way that I did. What I ment to say is that it is very hard for someone who looks at the testimony of history and particularly the scriptures to take your non-resistance view seriously. It’s a nice sounding theory, it just doesn’t measure up to how God deals, and has always delt with the most heinous of sinners. A lot of people believe in an unguided process of creation, called natural selection, and it looks reasonable on the surface, until you understand that there is neither arcialogical evidence nor empirical scientific data of any kind to back it up. I don’t deny that in certain isolated incidences God has perserved his people without them having to react violently, but that is far from the norm, and ultimately someone does have to deal with those who are vial.
My question to you is this: If a terrorist were to come into your neighborhood and start shooting up people arbitrarily would you apose a violent reaction to stop him? Because in our day and age, and even in our county this the horror that many are having to deal with. And if you think that Jesus’ preference too this would simply be to let innocent people be slaughtered, well than you and I serve a different God. The Jesus I know would not only take the bullet, but disarm the enemy as well. See Luke 11:18-23 on this point.
And read this very unambiguous verse in Isaiah 49:25. “But this is what the Lord says: “Yes, captives will be taken from warriors, and plunder retrieved from the fierce; I will contend with those who contend with you, and your children I will save.”
Ben,
Of course Jesus would take the bullet and work to disarm the terrorist. But he would not pull out a gun and start shooting (though I might), and He definitely would not (once the terrorist was disarmed) call for the bombing of the country or people group that the terrorist came from.
As for evidence for non-violent resistance “working” you would be surprised to learn if you looked it up, that where it has actually been tried, it has been more effective than violence. There are thousands of empirical, scientific, historical records that back this up once you begin to actually look at it.
I find it very interesting that we are both so confident in our positions on this issue, and yet disagree. But not as much as I first thought. I took you to be a complete Pacifist, and you seem to think I favor bombing a whole country. Neither is true, but perhaps the testimony of history and the scriptures requires more interpreting than we both would like to believe. It would be helpful to have a more thorough debate on this issue though. Although it is very much a personal issue, as far as how one individually chooses to respond, I think you might be confusing that with a government’s or a nation’s response to attacks of violence. I think the Scriptures speak very differently to these two separate issues.
The lesson that we should learn from WWI that can be applied to ISIS has nothing to do with providing economic assistance to a defeated enemy (as we did for Germany following WWII because we did learn the lesson of WWI). The lesson is that we are dealing with Islamic unrest today is due to the Sykes Picot Agreement that the British and the French made to partition the defeated Ottoman Empire between themselves. The unrest has little to do with poverty and everything to do with anger about Western interference in Muslim lands, including support for tyrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
I knew nothing about this. Thanks for the link and input!
Leigh,
The problem is, for Koranic Muslims, ALL land on the planet is considered Muslim land that MUST be taken over to implement Sharia Law worldwide. Oppose sharia law anywhere on earth? Then you must die, or pay a tax according to conservative Islam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbpch-7GuSM
You overlook one thing in your exerpt about Churchill… he offered to extend charity to a ***defeated*** foe.
in both old testament and new, there is a time when the followers of Jehovah must pick up a sword to defend home, hearth, family and life. He did not tell his followers to buy themselves swords, after all, for a Sunday School show and tell lecture. He did it because then, as now, they lived in a dangerous world where they would often be forced to fight for their very lives.
The enemy we face has set himself upon a course of violence, rape, enslavement and murder, even in the face of unending torrents of charity and will not stay his hand unless it is stayed by another.
We will extend mercy where we can. But we will fight because we must.
Somehow, I always believed that Jesus had taught to love your enemy and do good to those who hate you. I’m still looking for the verse where He said “It’s OK to kill your enemies!” Maybe someone can give me that Scripture address. Perhaps He just said some things that sounded nice but, He didn’t really mean them and surely never expected anyone to pay attention to the things He said . How different the world would look today if His followers actually lived as He instructed they should live?
A lot of people believe that the entire Bible is reliable, not just the red letters in the Gospels.
The Bible describes King Solomon in 1 Kings 3:10-12
10 It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. 11 And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, 12 behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you.
That’s pretty high praise. If we have even a modicum of respect for what God said in 1 Kings, I would think we’d want to heed what King Solomon said too:
Ecclesiastes 3:1-5
1For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
2a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
3a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
An additional point. People keep conflating individuals and nations, as if there’s no difference in prescribed behaviors, how they act or how they should act. I would disagree with that posture.
John 12:25
25 Those who love their life in this world will lose it. Those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity.
John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”
Excellent post Jeremy, and I agree with you.
It’s been interesting reading the comments from the people that disagree with you.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Jeremy! Love your take on this and agree whole-heartedly.
So, into the bee’s nest.
It is important that the two competing concepts of Jesus be reconciled. On the one hand, there are those who emphasis Jesus calling for swords and overturning the tables of the money-changers (adding a healthy dose of OT blood and guts).
On the other hand, there are those who emphasis Jesus turning the other cheek and stopping Peter from further use of the sword ( adding a healthy dose of OT concern for the poor and needy).
I have studied the Bible and I have studied war and politics. In those areas, it is far too easy to miss the big picture. God invested centuries in the task of teaching a stubborn group of people he called Israel to obey Him. Over and over, God instructed Israel to treat people with justice.
God finally sent Jesus to live out His instructions so we could see how it should work. Jesus’ finest description of how to do it was the Prodigal Son story. The son is every single human alive. Every person I meet is a son or daughter–my son or daughter. I am to treat them just that way.
There are nations in the world that do it reasonably well. Yes, they tend to be smaller, but treating others as equals seems to work.
The US has not given other nations money since about 1960. We decided to start loaning the aid money and the interest earned had earned us an overall profit, without helping very many average citizens.
We do give away billions of dollars, but only for military hardware, and only if it is purchased from US companies.
I would like to add several hundred examples, but I’ll stop now.
Good post, Jeremy. While there may be instances where some of us would find it necessary to defend ourselves or our families, in general violence only begets more violence. I know all the verses, and as you know I won’t argue theology or Bible verses, but using the Bible to support violence presupposes understanding it differently than I do. You kill some of us, we kill some of you, you kill more of us and the back-and forth goes on forever and only escalates. I do not think that looks like Jesus, and mourn that some think it looks like the Father.
Amen.
Hi Sam,
One reason I like to use/quote scripture because I believe there is power in it. My words are just the words of a fallen, imperfect sinner saved by grace. Though for nuance I might word it a little differently, I agree with the spirit of your post. Certainly, the account of Jesus life given to us through the gospels is the best model for us to try to emulate, and Jesus is the exact representation of the Father.
John 14 –
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Pacifism in the face of outragious brutality does not work. However I agree with Jeremy also there are many times caring for a helpless and defeated enemy is essential to rebuild peace and prosperity. Smashed populations left to rot builds hate and more violence. I also see merit in letting the middle east sort out their problems except when mass murder is occuring eg ISIS. WW1 could have been avoided if countries had sorted out their stuff at the negotiation table instead of going to war. Im an Australian In WW2 the Japanese were about to invade us, they bombed our nothern cities on and off for 2 years so we had no choice but got war, even when negotiations were tried. So I beleive consider grace first, then fight to protect life and freedom.
I forgot to add in WW1 Australia had 450,000 casulaities (including 50,000 dead) from a population of a few million. Many who joined (no subscription) were hoodwinked into believing it was a adventure and be only a short war. They followed this lie to their death. A European war which was a huge slaughter house and if Englands Allies kept out of it would have made a big difference to its duration. What a mess.
I usually don’t address the issue with examples like Hitler or Stalin. I think asking questions from everyday examples can be just as telling.
If violence lends to violence, if you saw a man attempting to rape a child, what would you do.
If violence lends too violence, if a policeman, who is a Christian, sees a man attempting to rape and kill a child, what you would expect him to do?
The premise on which this article is based is flawed IMO. You compare a defeated foe in a war of largely “Christian” nation states, to a war against muslim-koranic-literalists who do not have a nation state. Apples and oranges.
I agree with the notion that we as Christians should try to win people over with love, but we do not live in a world where every situation fits neatly into two choices, one right, and one wrong. Sometimes the complexity of situations blurs those lines. We as individuals must make choices that spring from our faith in Christ, governments do not.
What is happening in the middle east goes back thousands of years and carries much baggage. Many Americans view this situation from our western view point, and light the fireworks off on July forth and wave the flag as we invade another evil empire. There is far too much propaganda emanating from Washington DC for my taste, and yet the masses of people in this country, the majority of whom claim Christ as savior, cheer on the empire.
If we were truly a Christian nation we would send leaders to Washington who did not want to invade nations to defend “interests”, but who would defend its people. America has soldiers in over 140 of the roughly 193 countries of the world as well as roughly 600 to 900 bases. Many Americans look at that and accept that as being a “leader” in the world. From the view of the rest of the world they may view it as imperialistic encroachment on their sovereignty.
This warrior nation state mentality is not confined to one party or the other. George Bush was considered a war monger by the left and they camped out at his ranch protesting the wars in Iraq and Iran. The media kept death counts and pounded the anti wars mantras for years. The Barrack Obama comes into office with the Nobel peace prize in hand, and continues previous war efforts and institutes additional bombings. Obama has bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. Where are the protests? Where is the media?
If we want a pacifist “Christian” nation, it is the responsibility of pacifist Christians to elect leader who will close bases, bring troops home, and defend people, not “interests”.