The Abused Woman in John 8 (Part II)

A continuation of studying John 8:2-11:
"Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. 4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
 6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. 9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” 11 “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

The story of the abused woman begins while Jesus is teaching and a group of religious leaders burst onto the scene, bringing the woman and force her to stand, shamed and disgraced, in front of the entire crowd.

There is no explanation of who caught this woman, how she was seized, or where the other guilty party is.  Since the authorities are vague on how they came by this woman, bring forth no witnesses, and only arrested one of the guilty party, it is clear that they are not interested in justice.  In fact, they are violating their own laws by failing to bring forth witnesses and the other partner.  They have already passed judgment; they are clearly interested in something other justice and Jesus’ opinion on the matter.  The narrator makes it explicit when he explains that their interest is in trapping Jesus so that they may bring a charge against him.  The surrounding narrative makes clear that the ones who are supposed to be the experts in understanding the law of Moses are the ones who actually fail.  For the abusers, the law is a weapon to be used to gain power over opponents, and the woman who is used for bait is of no consequence to them.

          The Greek in this passage suggests she was snatched while in the very act of engaging in sex.  The witnesses must have seen the act itself.  This is the only way their testimony is valid.  However, no one in the scene ever specifies the identity of the witnesses.  Furthermore, no man is not brought before Jesus and accused of adultery.  Readers have been creative and constructed scenarios of why the woman’s lover is not present as well as try to attempt to answer the question of how the religious authorities got their hands on the woman. None of them are legal and none of them are fair. 

Maybe a man is asked to seduce a woman by the Pharisees and then is allowed to sneak away.  In this case, the authorities would also be guilty of sexual abuse. No background on the woman is given on how she was caught, but it is clear that the scribes and Pharisees are using her as nothing more than an instrument to arrest Jesus.  The woman is the victim of a trap. The authorities are not seeking justice; they are abusing the law and bending it to their desires.  They do not seek a trial, but a mob lynching.  A nameless woman is caught in the crossfire as the scribes and Pharisees attack Jesus.

          Before the narrator tells his audience this is a trap, the reader suspects the authorities’ of ulterior motives when they cite the law of Moses, but still ask what Jesus thinks of the matter.  Why would they ask Jesus his opinion if the law is clear on the issue?  Their minds are made up; the question is how Jesus will answer.  The religious authorities believe that Jesus will speak out against stoning this woman.  They desire to draw out an explicit statement from Jesus that values mercy over the letter of the law.  If Jesus sides against stoning her, he is guilty of breaking the law of Moses. This would cost him his credibility and many followers. Instead of answering, Jesus does something unexpected - he bends down and begins writing in the dirt.

 

What's in A Name?: The Story of the Abused Woman

After looking at some of the ethical issues surrounding self-defense and violence against women (particularly sexual assault), I would like to share with you a biblical story that I have really come to treasure. I only started looking at this story differently earlier this year, when it suddenly occurred to me that the way I was taught this story (and how it continues to be taught) might be way off the mark – John 8:1-11.
 
“Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, ² but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. ³ As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.⁴ “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵ The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”⁶ They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. ⁷ They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”⁸ Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.⁹ When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. ¹⁰ Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”¹¹ “No, Lord,” she said.And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more” (New Living Translation).
 

Image: Woman Caught in Adultery, John Martin Borg, 2002

I wanted to try and sum up the woman’s viewpoint in this story.  I came across this poem a few months ago and it brought me to tears. I had a visceral reaction to it.  It sums up so many of the things I fear and things so many women (and men, but I am focusing on women in these posts) have had to live through and have had to find a way to continue to live with. I think it perfectly sums up the raw emotions of the woman in John 8 as well.

still

there are days

when there is no way

not even a chance

that i'd dare for even a second

glance at the reflection of m body in the mirror

and she knows why

like I know why

she only cries

when she feels like she's about to lose control

she knows how much control is worth

knows what a woman can lose

when her power is taken away

by a grip so thick with hate

it could clip the wings of an angel

leave the next eight generations of your blood shaking

and tonight something inside me is breaking

my heart beating so deep beneath the sheep of her pain

i could give every tear she's crying a year - a name

and a face i'd forever erase from her mind if i could

 just like she would 

for me

or you

but how much closer to free would any of us be

if even a few of us forgot

what too many women in this world cannot

and i'm thinking

what would you tell your daughter

your someday daughter

when you'd have to hold her beautiful face 

to the beat up face of this place

that hasn't learned the meaning of

STOP

walking to your car alone

get the keys in the lock

please please please please open

like already you can feel

that five fingered noose around your neck

two hundred pounds of hatred

digging graves into the sacred soil of your flesh

please please please please open

already you're chocking for your breath

listening for the broke record of the defense

answer the question

answer the question

answer the question miss

why am i on trial for this

would you talk to your daughter

your sister your mother like this

i am generation of daughters sisters mothers

our bodies battlefields

war grounds

beneath the weapons of your brother's hands

do you known they've found land mines 

in broken women's souls

black holes in the parts of their hearts

that once sand symphonies of creation

bright as the light on infinity's halo

she says

i remember the way love

used to glow like glitter on my skin

before he made his way in

now every tough feels like a sin

please

bruises  on her knees from praying to forget

she's heard stories of vietnam vets

who can still feel the tingling of their amputated limbs

she's wondering how many women are walking around this world

feeling the tingling of their amputated wings

remembering what it was to fly to sing

(By: Andrea Gibson http://www.endthesilencecampaign.org/poetry/andrea-gibson/blue-blanket/)

 
The abuse of the young woman captured in this poem speaks to the experience of the woman who is commonly referred to as “the adulterous woman in John 8.” We already labeled this woman, we have already given her a name. But she has no name in the story. She could just as easily be described as the abused woman. The wretched woman. The used woman. The story of the abused woman begins while Jesus is teaching and a group of religious leaders burst onto the scene, bringing the woman and force her to stand, shamed and disgraced, in front of the entire crowd.
 
_____________________________
Over the next week or two, I want to continue looking at this story in a new light. 

Women and Self Defense: Living in the Not Yet

          One aspect of exploring peace, violence, and self-defense is clear – it is difficult to have a black and white answer if you are attempting to answer honestly both Scripture as well as experience (fear of assault, the desire to protect others, etc.).  There are myriads of grey areas and numerous questions with no easy answers. I still have lingering doubts and uncertainties about this problem that has haunted me for years.  For example, it is difficult to tell a woman who has experienced rape that she must love her enemy.  On the other hand, it is problematic to take only yourself into consideration and not the New Testament ethic of concern for your neighbors and enemies.  It is a difficult balancing act and I doubt that I will ever be completely at peace with it.  For example, shouldn't I be striving to meet the ideals of God’s kingdom though it is not yet fully present?   Is it possible to come to an agreement on when it is proper to use violence and when it is not?  Is the “middle ground” I am treading on actually possible to reach a consensus on?  Is it all too subjective when it is justifiable to use violence and when it is not?  Is any situation where a woman experiences fear grounds for violence?  For example, if my purse is stolen, is it justifiable to use self-defense? Alternatively, should self-defense be used solely when bodily harm is threatened by an assailant?  How does one know for certain beforehand whether to use violence or not?
 

A person also has the issue of control.  When engaging in violence, you can never be sure of the outcome.  It is very easy to harm an attacker more than intended or for some other unforeseeable event to occur.   Additionally, where do you draw the line on how much violence to use?  Many people are perfectly content with using guns while others desire to use less lethal methods (As I’ve mentioned before, I am uncomfortable with guns – they are simply too lethal for me to feel morally comfortable with).  However, there is again the difficulty of never knowing when an act may be deadly.  I am left in the precarious position of balancing both love for enemy and love for self.  Until violence is done away with and God reigns fully among God’s people, this tension will exist.  Then, God “will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever” (Revelation 21:1-4).
 

One “cannot live responsibly by a love which is abstracted and divorced from justice, and from the rational and structural elements which constitute justice…but must be held together in unity of their polar tensions.”  It is within these tensions that I find the answer to my question.  I will seek to always love others, but there are some situations where the most loving act for all involved is to use controlled self-defense to stop the assault. Even more importantly, I will work to hone my skills in preventing violence (and promoting peace), because violence is always a sad and terrible thing, even if it helps others and is a lesser evil.  I recognize this as part of the narrative of Scripture.  We live in a time between Eden and the New Jerusalem – there is sin, violence, hatred, and a world full of pain. I acknowledge the need for protecting the vulnerable from the powerful until that time.  I also recognize that violence belongs to this time of chaos and not to the time of the New Jerusalem. We live in the Not Yet - God's Kingdom has not yet fully come.  Avoiding assault through self-defense may be the lesser evil, but it still is tainted – it is not the ideal.  I long for the days when people can live together peaceably in the New Jerusalem. But that time has not yet arrived. Nonetheless, I yearn for this time of peace and safety, when women no longer have to worry about rape and sexual assault. One day I will stop looking over my shoulder and viewing most males as a potential threat. Until that time, I will continue to wade through the murky waters of loving others but using restrained violence (if absolutely necessary) in order to stop this epidemic that plagues women the world over. 

The Good, the Bad, and the Kingdom of God: Narratives and Responsibility in a Violent Assault

When I look back at what it is that bothers me so much about self-defense, I find that I am torn between caring for myself (or others) and the larger narrative of the kingdom of God. The narrative of the kingdom of God is the larger framework in which I view the world; it is the lens through which I see the world. However, I combine this picture of what the kingdom of God means with the ethic of responsibility to self and others in order to help figure out what on earth the ethics of the kingdom of God looks like in various situations. 

The Narrative of the Kingdom of God

Narrative ethics sets the stage for my concern about self and others.  Here, I ask myself “Who am I becoming?  Who are we becoming?” and what do my actions contribute to the larger world narrative. This was the question that triggered my quandary– I did not want to be a violent person. I became concerned that my obsession for personal safety was so inwardly focused that it was making me become a person I did not want to be (as a side note, you can practice self-defense but you must consider the effect is has on you and the world. This is where I began to run into problems).  It is not a list of rules that appeal to me and set my morals, but the vision of God’s kingdom. God’s kingdom is not centered around doing what is best for me and mind. There is a much larger picture that sets the story for our interactions with the world.  Hauerwas writes, “to be Christian is not principally to obey certain commandments or rules, but to learn to grow into the story of Jesus as the form of God’s kingdom.  We express that by saying we must learn to be disciples.”  What we ought to do must be connected to who we are and the story that we are a part of.  “Through story, we interpret, evaluate, and envision the world – and determine our roles and responsibilities within it.”

One idea that is vital to me is the interconnectedness of all people.  There is an overarching story that is seen throughout the Bible and especially in the Gospel.  Ideas from the Christian narrative that are central to this narrative are that we are all sinners and live in a fallen world.  This does not excuse criminal activity and harming others, but it does help understand how we are connected.  Many people create a binary of good and bad people, but we are each marred by sin. We each have our own life and background that creates a complicated picture of every person.  Additionally, the idea that Christ can redeem and save even the darkest of hearts is important – our binary of good people and bad people is again challenged if we believe that God’s forgiveness is open to every “bad person.”  We are to model ourselves after Christ, who sees each of us a potential member of the Kingdom of God.  Finally, all human life is important and each person is made in the image of God. These few ideas are what I see and think of when I think of the Kingdom of God as being the background to our lives.

            I frame my life in this overarching storyline.  I believe who I am and what I do contributes to that story, and that this narrative should affect me and all of my actions.  However, what this looks like can be different depending on who is telling the story. The “law of love” is interpreted differently by every person.

The law of love is too general to tell us when we ought to do what a commandment tells us not to do.  We need more than love, say, to tell us when we “ought” to shoot a human being.  We need solid evidence that it is necessary to break a commandment in order to respect both the rights and needs of someone for whom we are responsible. We need a reasonable indication that breaking a commandment will serve the cause of justice as well as the law of love.[1] 

The second idea I want to use to help guide the narrative and the role I play in it is the idea of responsibility.

Adding a Dash of Responsibility to the Law of Love

The narrative of Christianity leaves us with a very broad set of ethics.  Adding the idea of responsibility helps to refine our personal roles in the larger narrative into manageable portions.  An ethic of responsibility focuses on the response we give to action upon us, but it also looks at the larger ramifications of our actions.  It seeks to balance the interests of the larger narrative as well as the individual players. 

In my moral dilemma, the question arises as to whom I responsible to in a dangerous situation?  My initial instinct is to take care of myself; however, the narrative ethic I looked at above demands that I also consider everyone involved – including the assailant.  While seeking various perspectives on this issue, I have become frustrated by the false dichotomy that many make: if you are a pacifist, you are faithful to the gospel but irresponsible socially and if you are for violent intervention, you are being unfaithful to the gospel but acting responsibly.[2]  I have a responsibility to consider my enemy, but I can also protest against sexual assault.  If one contends for even a minimal amount of consideration towards one’s neighbors, then one has the responsibility to do the least amount of harm in order to escape to safety.  This does not mean that no offensive actions can be taken, but it does restrict what self-defense one can use (shooting to kill, for example, should not be one’s first response).

Since one has a responsibility to one’s enemy, one of the most important practices to cultivate is preventative self-defense. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that each person has a moral obligation to cultivate these skills. These include things such as being aware of one’s surroundings, keeping doors locked, and not walking alone. People (and I am especially calling out all WOMEN to look out for one another) must realize that these little precautions may be what saves her from walking into a potentially dangerous situation where violence, assault, and even death can occur.  If a confrontation does arise, attracting attention to your situation and showing that you are willing to put up a fight are often all one needs to scare off an attacker (as I did in the story I shared in my last post).  The last resort should be physical violence, BUT it is an ethically acceptable step to keep one safe as well as to keep the assailant from harming himself.  Intervening with a controlled amount of violence in dangerous situations is taking responsibility for self as well as the assailant.

In sum, this is a difficult decision on “how to incorporate what we believe love and justice together dictate,” but never to separate the two.  I deeply desire and long for the day when violence is no longer needed.  Until that time, I will use non-violent but active methods of self-defense in the majority of situations; I will continually train in prevention as an act of love to myself and to my enemies. However, I am not unfaithful to the gospel or unethical if the need for self-defense does arise and I use a controlled amount of force to stop the situation.
 

---

[1] As a side note, I am really uncomfortable with killing as a morally justifiable or even a morally laudable action.  However, this quote can be applied to self-defense and responsibility in general. Guns are still a twisted moral knot I am trying to untie, but I do not include them in my definition of self-defense because they are simply too deadly.  As I mentioned in my last blog, this has absolutely nothing to do with laws or rights. This is a moral issue that I am trying to work out. The law says I may own a gun, but I am not convinced that it is morally justifiable at this point. My thoughts may change on the subject (they are constantly turning over the moral implications of carrying a gun), but that is where I am at right now. I cannot morally justify owning a gun to myself. It conflicts too greatly with my responsibility to love my neighbor and love my enemy.

[2] At a recent conference, one of my past professors, David Matson, argued against the popular pacifist movements in many churches and denominations.  While we may strive for peace, refusing to intervene may actually be perpetrating more violence.  The example he used was whether or not a pacifist should intervene if a woman is going to be raped. He argued that not acting would be causing more violence than forcibly stopping the rape.  However, it is important to also remember that not all situations are best handled with violence. In my last post, I shared a terrifying ordeal I had with a dangerous stranger in a parking lot. It would have been irresponsible and much more dangerous to have used physical violence in that situation instead of yelling at the guy. Violence is ALWAYS dangerous (to everyone involved) and should ALWAYS be a last resort. 

Scary Stories: Is there a way to love others in the midst of violence?

This post continues where my previous one left off. To review: I've studied martial arts in reaction to being scared of people. The situation I am writing with in mind is sexual assaults on women. However, how ethical is studying ways to hurt people (to put it bluntly)? What about self-defense? The first place to for this ethical dilemma was Scripture. It has examples of both violence and restraint. Out of all this, however, there is a demand to love others. How on earth can I do that when we are talking about sexual assault? In this entry, I will look at the second source that informs my actions - stories and statistics.

 For me, the most compelling arguments for self-defense is the stories and statistics of rape and attempted rape (this can also be extended to other violent situations!).  I live with fear and wariness every day.  Every time I go for a walk I am constantly aware of my situation, who is near me, and whether I have a good grip on my pepper spray. I am careful when I load my groceries in the car. I don't answer my door. The fear and cautiousness that many women are forced to handle daily is a significant portion of their lived experience.  I think a lot of people don’t realize this aspect of violence – the dread and exhaustion of always being cautious is something I carry heavily on my shoulders in a way that many people don’t quite understand. (I totally know that men are also victims of sexual abuse, but I am just trying to share my experience as a woman.)

  I have only been caught in an extremely compromising situation once and it scared me to death.  I left my friend’s apartment around midnight and started to walk to my own apartment by myself – just a few hundred feet away.  A man appeared out of the dark parking lot, and started coming directly towards me, carrying a motorcycle helmet (a potential weapon), making threats about what he was going to do with me since he had me all to himself. (It was really vulgar, so I will not repeat it. However, those words often echo in my mind when a stranger comes too closely into my personal space).  In a split second, I realized what a stupid situation I was in. I was all by myself, I didn't have keys, a phone, my pepper spray, or anything to use as a weapon except myself. So, I screamed. And then started to threatened him in turn.  I told him what I was going to do to him if he did not walk away.  The most shocked expression appeared on his face and he turned and ran. He didn't know what to do with a woman ready to fight back. However, I never lifted a finger.  This was a bold move and I have no idea how it happened. I didn't even think, I just started talking. Call it Providence, God, or whatever you want, but the night before this occurrence, my Aikido instructor gave me a book that suggested one way of getting out of dangerous places is by taking control of the situation and startling the attacker before it turned physical.  I read a chapter that very morning and I did exactly what the author suggested – and it worked! (Don't take this as what everyone should do in every situation. It was one way that happened to work to get out of a dangerous situation.)

 It is not only the stories of terror that propel women like myself to take self-defense measures – it is also statistics that show it is a common occurrence. Every two minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted.  Over 90 percent of the victims are female and 1 out of every 6 American women will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (that is just ridiculous!).  Females 12 to 34 are at the highest risk, with 80 percent of rapes happening to women under age 30.   These statistics scare me to death.  In reference to the self-defense question (What do I prepare myself for?), the vast majority (87%) of assaults are done through physical force alone (that is, with no weapon at all).  Putting all these numbers and percentages together, we can tell that it is most likely that a young woman will be the target and the assault will be made by using physical force alone as a weapon. And she will most likely not report the incident to authorities or tell anyone (but more on that later).

 The initial reaction of most people is to do anything necessary to stop the assault.  For many women, the reason they learn self-defense is  fear of assault and the desire to learn how to respond effectively in a compromising situation (this is me). But what does an assault look like? How are women assaulted by strangers? Years ago, reporter Ann Landers at the LA Times received this letter from an anonymous rapist, who wanted to warn women about his tactics:

 "I'm a rapist.  I do it because I like it.  It's like hunting, only easier.  Mostly because [women] travel by themselves, work by themselves and are so dumb about taking care of themselves… I pick my women because of their situations, which I've studied before I move.  Looks don't mean a lot to me, but she's always alone in a place where nobody else will come, or I get her to go to one.  You'd be amazed how easy that is.  About self-defense for women: Don't make me laugh.  I don't go after a woman who looks like she'd be able to whip me in a fight.  The best protection from me your working women have is company or a locked door you're smart enough not to open when I ask.  More than that, the best protection from me is for you to remember that there are lots of guys like me out there who are looking for you." 

Yep, this is my definition of terrifying and what it is that I am afraid of.

 Now I have to take what I wrote about in my previous post about the biblical ethics of violence and weigh it with this second kind of information that informs my decision on what to do. If I only consider my fear, then I am simply reacting to a situation. I would like to go a step further and create an ethical framework that includes more than just data and terrifying stories. I have wrestled with experience, the frightening statistics, and biblical texts for a long time.  For me, a response emerges where I must balance experience with the biblical ethic of caring for my neighbor and enemy. I spoke in my previous post about the somewhat nebulous biblical passages about violence and love. One thing stands out to me – there is some type of command that demands that I consider others. What this looks like is really difficult to discern. Is some violence acceptable and other kinds not? Do I need to think about how lethal my response is? If I also care for self (which is equally important), I will not allow the violation to occur without fighting it, but where do I draw the line? I feel like my ethical framework must balance care for self and care for others. It is an extremely difficult position to hold these two values in tension with one another. For my next post, I will start to flush this idea out further.

Possessions as the Source of Violence: But What About MY Body?

A few eons ago, I started a blog series on the compatibility of self-defense/violence and Christianity.  This issue is incredibly important to me and the questions continues to haunt me.  As I described in the blog post prior to this one, I have taken martial arts for the purpose of self-defense for the last several years.  Why? People scare me.  I have friends who have been attacked and assaulted.  I have been approached by a stranger but was successfully able to deescalate the situation.  Statistics show that way too many women will get sexual assaulted in their lifetime, the vast majority before they hit 30 (and usually by someone known to them, but also sometimes by strangers).   So, both reason and experience point to idea that it is not too crazy to be watching your back and have a ready answer with what you would do the day the approach/attack happens.  The moral source that carries the greatest weight on this issue for me is Scripture.  But it is way more complex than most Christians admit it to be.  Not only is there a mixture of both violence as well as commands to love one another, but Scripture also does not address my moral question directly.  This creates a complex issue to wade through.

 Loving Your Enemy            

The majority (all) of Christians pick and chooses which biblical passages are their norm and leave out anything that may challenge their interpretation.  Nearly everything I have read on this topic falls into to extremes. For example, I was reading a blog recently entitled, “Love Your Enemies, Unless…” where the guy argues that there are no exceptions to Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies (Luke 6:32-36).  He argues that many Christians mistakenly view this command as an ideal that does not have relevance in the real world.  The blogger particularly emphasizes that when personal safety or the well-being of a loved one is at risk, Christians’ quickly dismiss concern for one’s enemy (which is a fair critique).  The guy contends that Jesus and the early church praised self-sacrifice, love of neighbor, and even died before lifting a finger to save themselves.  There are no references in the Bible to putting one’s own safety above the well-being of another person.  Many pacifists similarly quote examples from the Sermon on the Mount, which contains many of the passages that are said to argue for following the higher calling of loving others.  Hauerwas (probably one of the best known Christian pacifists out there with a lot of great questions on how to live life with a higher calling), for example, cites Matthew 5:43-48, as well as other pericopes from the Sermon on the Mount, to justify his argument for the ethical significance of Jesus and the foundation for his book, The Peaceable Kingdom. He writes, “For our possessions are the source of our violence.  Fearing that others desire what we have…we seek self-deceptive justifications that mire us in patterns of injustice which can be sustained only through coercion.  And of course we believe our most precious possession to be the self we have created, that we have chosen…What Jesus offers is a journey, an adventure.  Once undertaken, we discover that what we once held valuable, even the self, we no longer count as anything.”  Hauerwas argues that once we become disciples, we cannot count our personal safety as more valuable than another person’s well-being; the question of self-defense is no longer an issue when the self is viewed in this light. (But…it’s still an issue for me and I’m guessing most other people. So, why I think his statement is incredibly enlightening, I have some more ideas to wade through before I my “that’s it!” moment turns up. I would however, like us to keep it in mind as we continue, since there is a lot of truth to it.)

 The Grey Area: More Complications

            Both the blogger I mentioned and Hauerwas argue that Jesus’ command to love one’s enemy is a Scriptural ideal that is meant to be applied literally and in all circumstances.  When a person uses violence against another, both men would see this action as morally wrong.  However, it is extremely doubtful that Jesus meant all of his statements to be taken literally by his followers.  He often uses hyperbole to make a point, such as cutting off body parts in order to keep from sinning (Matt 5:27-30).  Few theologians argue for Christians to follow this command, despite the fact that it is in the same chapter as Christ’s command to love one’s enemies.  Additionally, does loving one’s enemy always necessitate a non-violent response?  Could one show love to a neighbor by stopping them from assaulting a woman?  Furthermore, passages from the Sermon on the Mount fail to deal with violence supported by Yahweh in the Old Testament and even by Jesus elsewhere in the Gospels.[1]  If Scripture includes a mixed assessment of violence, why should the Sermon on the Mount be more authoritative than other passages?[2]  Since self-defense against assault does not have an exact analogy in Scripture, the issue becomes a complex puzzle of different viewpoints from Scripture in addition to an attempt to apply passages to situations that were not necessarily written to address it.  Neither violence nor pacifism is upheld throughout all of Scripture.

 And that is where I am going to stop for today. (I know, cliffhanger!). The hope of the series of posts I am going to be putting up this week is that people will take a second to see where they fall on the issue of violence (I’ve heard one or two people talking recently about guns and gun control?) but then also on the issue of self-defense. Just to clarify, this has absolutely nothing to do with constitutional rights and national laws. I am concerned not about what the law allows me to do, but what can I ethically condone in my own life with an issue that terrifies me?
 Join me next time for how experience and stats are a second moral source to draw from! (This part is one everyone can relate to, I’m sure of it!)
 

---

[1] OT references include Nehemiah 1:14. References for Jesus’ support on violence, see Matt 26:51-53 and Luke 22:36.  A great book to check out is by Brendan F. Furnish, and Dwight Hervey Small, The Mounting Threat of Home Intruders: Weighing the Moral Option of Armed Self-Defense (Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas, 1993), 107-125. Also, David Matson argues that modern translations of Luke 22:51 are portrayed as more pacifist than the Greek allows.  Any edition prior to WWII has a very different translation of the passage. One cannot help but wonder if this tragic war left its mark on the pages of our Bibles. David Matson, “Pacifist Jesus? The (Mis)Translation of Luke 22:51,” a soon to be published paper presented at the Stone-Campbell Journal Conference, Nashville, Tenn.: March 2013.[2]  Hauerwas rejects the depiction of war and violence in the OT as legitimately Christian.  

Kicking Butt and Taking...the Well-being of My Enemies into Account?

Several years ago, a good friend of mine was assaulted. I had an intense emotional response to the traumatic event; I became paranoid and developed an unhealthy fear of being assaulted as well. This fear became crippling and I did not know how to move past it.  To help, I joined a Kenpo Karate dojo, which is a mixed martial art focused exclusively on stopping as well as preventing any type of unwanted aggressive behavior. After a few years, I began to feel strong and capable. My sense of paralyzing fear was replaced with a healthy awareness of being able to avoid and, if needed, stop most types of assault.  However, as my fear subsided and my training increased, I began to be troubled by how comfortable with violence I had become. I spent numerous hours every week for years learning how to inflict pain on others in order to save myself or to save others. 

Statistics show that one in five women have been raped (or experienced an attempted rape), one in four women have been beaten, and one in six women have been stalked.  The odds are fair that at some point in my life, I will face an attacker and I will have to decide how to respond. In fact, I have been in several situations where I have had to deescalate situations with hostile males through aggressive but non-physical means (I am defining violence as forcing your will onto another person.  This can be anything from a threatening look, yelling inappropriate remarks, or to actually laying hands on a person with the intention to hurt them.  When I used aggressive but non-physical means to stop an attack, I yelled and threatened the person, which is the same behavior he had started doing to me. So, we both used aggressive, but non-physical violence in order to force our own will onto another person – in his case, he was attempting sexual assault. In my case, I coerced him into stopping his behavior and giving me time to get to safety. So, I won that confrontation by using similar techniques my "enemy" used on me). The next time I may not be lucky enough to be in a situation that I can stop through aggressive but non-physical means.

 As a Christian, I believe in the value of every human life. I also believe that sin has corrupted every person, some more so than others.  I believe the Sermon on the Mount has the clearest commands about loving one’s neighbor and loving one’s enemy. The question arises as to how to love others when someone may mean you harm. Do I have a right to protect myself? Do I have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable in my care (such as children)? Can loving one’s enemy include stopping your enemy from committing a terrible sin? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then how much violence can one inflict (again, this includes everything from non-physical violence to the other extreme (perhaps, using a weapon to kill?)), while still following the mantra of loving one’s enemy?  Does one have the responsibility to inflict the minimum amount of damage in order to counter the attack?  My moral dilemma can be boiled down to this: As a female follower of Christ in a world where violence against women is common, how should I view/use violence (both physical and non-physical)? I will be spending my next few posts on this ethical quandary.

The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: "If I stop and help this man, what will happen to me?" But...the good Samaritan reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?" - Martin Luther King Jr.

**As a side note, most people will think  there is no ethical quandary here. Those who see no ethical quandary have already made assumptions about the value of self-preservation being more important than the well-being of another person, even an enemy. I am not necessarily disagreeing with this yet. I am just taking a deep breath and looking at the whole issue of using violence to stop violence. Instead of reacting from a place of fear (which is what I have been doing for years and continue to do), I would like to look at this issue and figure out where my boundaries lay.