Thanks, Michael for chiming in. I’ll try to respond helpfully, and I know it gets too long.
1. My objection to the slogan is that it is illogical, sacrificing careful thought in pursuit of provoking thought. I am not putoff by your slogan b/c I disagree with what it purports to support; I dislike it b/c it does not make sense. (How’s that for direct?!)
2. Having said that, I’ll grant you that defining PEACE matters. My whole beginning point was to push the definition issue. If the slogan falls on any definition, it falls entirely.
3. If peace means, in the classical and biblical sense “cessation of warfare”, then surely you could concede that killing causes war to cease (thus producing peace). The issue is about time within TIME. I think we share a worldview that says there will never be real peace until some understanding of Christ’s return, etc. But if that is the definition of peace, we are all wasting our bandwidth [in the specific purpose of this discussion].
4. In this time — the world as it is — killing is often the only path to creating temporary peace. What is an underlying cause for the end of most wars? “Enough with the killing — we can’t take it anymore.” That is an indirect cause, but a cause nonetheless. The direct way that killing creates peace is in what I tried to argue for previously, and if that cannot seem valid (which, of course, it may not be) then I’m afraid I can add nothing more.
5. I would say again, of course killing cannot create lasting peace. But it is often necessary to stopping the peace-stopper. And if the peace-stopper is stopping peace, then the one who stops the peace-stopper restores peace. To say otherwise is, by definition, denying the posisbility of any kind of peace whatsoever. If you insist on saying that the existence of any kind of violence precudes peace in any sense, then as I say, I can add nothing.
6. You said: “You may supress it a bit, kick evil down a notch, but if you fight evil with evil….” This equating all killing with evil is just nearly impossible for me to comprehend. My dad was in law enforcement — never had to use deadly force, thankfully. If you mean that deadly force by a policeman is evil, then the definition thing is out of control and we have lost common ground.
7. If you are willing to qualify your definition to allow some killing as being non-evil, then we have some common ground (and the slogan’s veracity falls). If ALL killing is evil (not just a “necessary evil”, but actually evil as you suggest) the slogan stands and stands against law enforcement, your friend in the Navy, etc.
8. Finally, You said: “You need people like me–and I need people like you, Randy. We balance each other out. I cause people to think twice before pulling the trigger–you spur people on to protect their families. Both are good causes of equal value in the Kingdom.”
This is warm and big of you, and surely right. My only quarrel with this approach is that truth can easily be the casualty. I know Emergent types and PoMo’s are weary of the truth question. But if there is no truth and no reasonable means of knowing it, what is the point of dialogue?
Granted that none of us will see all or see clearly what we do see. Thus the point of this ‘balance’ you abley describe. But opposing viewpoints are not always equal in merit. Indeed I am surprised for you to say that about me with regard to peace. We both bring part of the truth but I’m not sure we are both of equal value — you may be far more right than I can see.
I’ll cut to the chase: If your quote is TRUE, then my viewpoint, so far from being of equal value, is WRONG. If your quote is not true, well then…. But if it is true, my opposing cause is certainly NOT of “equal value to the Kingdom.” And for the record, I’ll suggest the quote has little or no value to the Kingdom — the ends (spurring dialogue) do not justify the means (patent offense to logic/flattening of definition).
Just trying to grapple with this issue as I am able to see it. I confess what is probably obvious — it takes all I can muster to be open to your viewpoint — it just sort of mystifies me. But maybe I get points for trying and I do, of course, think one of us is right.
Killing is either essentially and always evil, or it is something else. Peace cannot have 2 or 3 different definitions in the same context. If you mean lasting, permanent peace, the discussion seems irrelevant. But you have already conceded that you do not believe we can achieve lasting peace in this time.
So how do we have temporary peace? According to Paul, somehow, somewhere a “sword” is required. As long as there is evil, it must be fought with the good. Some fighting gets messy. Some fighting requires violence. Ghandi and MLK had something about non-violence, but I ask you: Were their assassinations a good thing? Should the assassination have been stopped? In the specific act of evil known as assassinating MLK, would non-violence, i.e., refusing to harm the gunman if necessary to stop the deadly shot, have stopped it? The answer is in a grave somewhere. And I would remind you that God’s answer to evil is in the Cross ultimately, yes; but He also deals quite violently in overthrowing evil. Seems to ruin the idea of defining all violence as evil, though you may not intend that definition.
I’d like to respond to more but hope the above adds some light. I would end with this: I am a long ways from a warmonger or and am not even a typical, as you kindly put it, “spurring us to fight for our families.” I believe I, like you, perhaps, would die and even be violent as necessary to protect my family, and by extension, my homeland. That is necessary in the world that is. But I am far from trigger-happy and very seldom use a gun for any purpose. (I did not think you were suggesting this, just wanted to clarify where I actually land. This is just something I’ve wrestled with for a long time and this discussion brought some of it out into blogprint.)
Enjoy the discussion and I do humbly ask your forgiveness for the strain that may be apparent. It is a weakness that really flourishes when I get on the warpath and I do not mean to offend.
And so, in that spirit, peace!
RH