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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment