For The Record

Submit birth, marriage and obituary records online.

Personal Ads

Meet new friends today!

Advertising

Put your message in front of 19,000 readers.

PDF documents on this site require the free Adobe Reader:

Get Adobe Reader

2007-05-01 issue:

Strong nonviolence

Speaking Out

by Rich H. Meyer

Print Article

In his Feb. 20 editorial Everett Thomas made an effort to distinguish “force” from “violence,” with specific attention to policing, and in the March 6 issue Vern Rempel took another look at the place of force “to stop harm from happening.” I’m glad we are looking at the complexity of the choices we face in responding to violence in our world.

It can help to rule out some options. Rempel rejects violence, “both in perpetration and in response,” and he begins and ends with love (“respond generously and with great and abiding empathy for those who have suffered violence … nurture lives of community building, overcoming the ways of fear and rage”). Rempel also offers a clear limitation: “[W]e may need to use force … but with restraint … force is different from killing. … We may take penultimate action to restrain … ultimate fate rests with God.”

Our tradition can give us still better guidance in setting limits. Consider the phrase our churches taught to young men preparing to face draft boards 65 years ago: “I will not use force in any way that permanently, mentally or physically injures anyone.” Clear limits that still leave room for forceful intervention.

Of course, beyond simply setting some boundaries, our God offers us the power to act in strength as Jesus did; following Jesus means learning the loving way of strong nonviolence. Choosing the way of the cross in fact gives us many more options. Rempel includes this also in his exhortation to never underestimate the power of God for transformation and reconciliation.

Thomas introduces confusion when he defines violence as “force with intent to injure.” Does intention really distinguish between force and violence? Following that line, Thomas says that “whether or not we intend to injure and abuse another country distinguishes our country’s actions as either force or violence.” This would allow any kind of aggression, as long as the perpetrator means well. And who determines the intentions? (President Bush says he invaded in order to help Iraqis.)

Thomas refers to a “continuum of force” used by the police in the town where he lives. But at least twice in his discussion of escalation of force, Thomas betrays a misunderstanding of the responsibility of a person using violence. Consider the word “required” in these two sentences: “The officer is free to jump to any level of force at any time required by the situation. … But shooting another person—required by the action of the perpetrator—leaves them in a moral dilemma.”

Is the police officer “required” by the situation or by the actions of another person to use lethal violence? People choosing violence often want to blame someone else. Who better to blame than the victim of their violence? From the police officer to the president, this falsehood is used to excuse “our” violence by blaming it on “them.” Was President Bush “required” to invade Iraq? Did an Iraqi dictator have control of U.S. foreign policy? Do hoodlums determine the policy on lethal violence of the local police? No. Each person choosing to use violence is responsible for that choice.

This is precisely what is wrong with that “continuum of force” used by many law enforcement authorities and self-righteous superpowers: It tries to evade the responsibility for the consequences of the underlying commitment to control, dominate and win at any cost. Yes, any cost, because the person adopting that paradigm is deciding they will escalate the violence as far as they have to in order to control the other party, even to the point of killing them. People are willing to escalate to lethal violence then try to shift responsibility, saying they “had to do it.” The force continuum is just an upward spiral of violence for people who see only the choice between winning and losing.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Many law enforcement agencies have sensibly taken back some of their responsibility by adopting policies against continuing “hot pursuit” car chases when these chases endanger the fugitive and the populace. This is an example of someone in authority deciding not to escalate, that winning is not worth the cost. I hope our local police can be taught to use similar judgment with the force continuum, remembering that every escalation is a choice, not a requirement. 

But for us who believe, the Spirit can guide us with far more creativity. Love that overcomes hate may not win in the eyes of the world; praise God we don’t have to win. Jesus already did that.

Rich H. Meyer works for Christian Peacemaker Teams.

Reader Comments

Add Comments