What is the Bible for?
Crusty Guy sent me a lecture yesterday by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is the highest position in the Anglican worldwide communion. Williams says that the Bible is first and foremost a public document, read to and for communities, calling them together, shaping them, and connecting them with the communities it has previously called, shaped, and connected. This community is most deeply shaped as a Eucharistic community: a community united in the remembrance of Jesus' death and the celebration of his resurrection. It was an insightful lecture.
It led me to ask another question: What is the Bible for? Does Williams' suggestion capture the whole of the Bible's purpose without remainder?
Let me also ask this, perhaps unrelated, question. I have heard from two people now, one a journalist, that if more people carried handguns the tragedy at Virginia Tech would not have happened. This is possibly true. What it does not prove, however, is that deterring such acts of violence would lessen violence altogether and make for a safer society, which is obviously of greater importance. The argument would have to go something like this:
1. Acts of violence are deterred by reciprocal threat of violence.
2. More people carrying handguns increases reciprocal threat of violence.
3. Therefore, an increased number of people carrying handguns at all times would deter acts of violence.
The irony, of course, is that in an effort to lessen violence, one has argued for an increase in the means, opportunity, and threat of violence. Methinks that rather counterintuitive.
It led me to ask another question: What is the Bible for? Does Williams' suggestion capture the whole of the Bible's purpose without remainder?
Let me also ask this, perhaps unrelated, question. I have heard from two people now, one a journalist, that if more people carried handguns the tragedy at Virginia Tech would not have happened. This is possibly true. What it does not prove, however, is that deterring such acts of violence would lessen violence altogether and make for a safer society, which is obviously of greater importance. The argument would have to go something like this:
1. Acts of violence are deterred by reciprocal threat of violence.
2. More people carrying handguns increases reciprocal threat of violence.
3. Therefore, an increased number of people carrying handguns at all times would deter acts of violence.
The irony, of course, is that in an effort to lessen violence, one has argued for an increase in the means, opportunity, and threat of violence. Methinks that rather counterintuitive.
posted by Aaron Perry at
12:25 PM
10 Comments:
I did steal this from Rob Bell but he stole it from the Bible. The answer is to do the third thing. Doing nothing is wrong. Responding in violence is wrong. One escalates things and the other changes nothing. If I've learned anything from Ghandi (other than not eating steak makes you go bald) it is there is always a creative third option. Jesus talked of turning the other cheek, giving your cloak as well, and going the extra mile. All of these involved doing something non violent but in each case it exposed the brutality of the opressor. This gives the opressor a chance to respond to his own now exposed opressiveness.
Of course, counter-intuitive doesn't necessarily mean false. This is not an argument that is deductive from premises anyway, but a cumulative case built up through a careful analysis of sociological statistics, etc. But nobody wants to do that. They just want to shout at each other.
It is certainly the case that V-Tech's "no tolerance for firearms on campus" rule failed to prevent the tragedy. That it may have helped worsen things is a question that will have to be faced once the emotions running high have cooled.
Crusty
Oh, and lest we lionize Ghandi too mugh, he admired the Nazis, thought the European Jews should have simply capitulated and gone to their deaths without resistance, and despised the Allies for resisting Hitler. All of this is a matter of public record. Sadly, it's never raised.
Ghandi's non-violence was no doubt influence by such missionaries as C. F. Andrewes, but let us not forget that his non-violence was from Hinduism for Hindus by a Hindu. As such, it has much more in common with passivism in the face of Karma than pacifism rooted in the victory of the Risen Lord.
No doubt, I will now be chastised for daring to criticize the secular saint, but please, at least check the record before that's done.
Crusty
I just can't get over he wouldn't eat cow. My point had nothing to do with who Ghandi was as a person. Just the method used to solve the instances of violence against his people. If he stole the idea then more power to him.
Actually, Crusty, the argument as I've presented is pretty much the one I have heard from the two people I heard it from. And you are right that counter-intuitive does not mean false. But it does point in that direction.
It is telling, however, that the immediate reaction to violence is to consider the situation in terms of violence (whether increasing or decreasing): The question was not how to treat a psychologically deranged person; how to coordinate efforts between mental health professionals and weapons dealers...
Kirk: I am not sure I would agree with Bell. I am not sure responding in violence would have been wrong (e.g., a security guard shooting the attacker, someone decking the attacker from behind, etc.).
I do not, nor would I ever, dispute the fact that people on any side of any disagreement can make poor arguments for their cause. I am hearing many bad arguments from both sides right now, not least because everyone is emoting and nobody is thinking.
I do not say this applies to you--I thought your question was right on and was only suggesting that just because this version of the argument is counter-intuitive doesn't mean that it is necessarily false or that a better version cannot be constructed.
Crusty
I liked the idea of at least looking for a third thing, a third option, in any tense situation that seems to have only binary choices. In that, I think Bell is right on.
excellent Crusty concedes. Victory is mine. BTW there are obvious exceptions to what I sid. (I figured too obvious to mention) When someone is being violent without cause or showing unhindered oppresion other means are obviously necessry. I would use Hitler as an example of this. (I just hope Crusty doesn't take his side as well)
Conceded what? When? How? I didn't even know we were arguing! All I said was, some Christians need to take a good hard look at the facts about Ghandi before using him as a champion of Christian virtue. How is that even disagreeable?
You lost me at "excellent."
Crusty
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home