On violence and redemption.

The dominant American fictional narrative of action movies it the idea that we can make the world a beautiful place by killing bad guys. This, as some have rightly termed it, is the myth of redemptive violence. To put the point rather bluntly, Jesus came to die for us, not to kill for us. That means that killing bad guys is never the ideal for the obvious reason that it is always better to redeem (restore, rebuild, refashion, reclaim, recover) something than to destroy it. Precisely because killing prevents the Christian ideal of redemption (from which God would get the maximum glory), it must never be celebrated. But can Christians ever use or endorse it at all? It’s a serious question with a long history, but it also has a simple answer.

Yes.

Sometimes.

As rarely as possible.

Which means more rarely than you are inclined to think.

The key here is to realize that the Gospel reshapes us sometimes by prohibition and other times by telling us we must do something in a very different way. Our money and our sexuality are two big examples, cases where the Gospel prohibits some things and alters everything that remains. Similarly, violence is the sort of thing that, if we Christians do or endorse it at all, we must do so far less often, for better reasons, and in a different way than the secular world around us or our own natural impulses would.

To make things clearer, it’s useful to see that there are at least four kinds of violence. The first kind of violence is capricious, justifying itself by merely appealing to its ability. This is the violence of the strong, and all decent people recognize it as fundamentally evil.

The second sort of violence is vengeance, the sort which invites us to satisfy our bloodlust for revenge under the notion that justice will be done. This is the sort which action movies appeal to and which Christians are told repeatedly in the Bible not to pursue, leaving the prerogative to God.

The third sort of violence is the absolutely necessary. We know this kind of violence exists since in the Bible God kills, instructs people to kill on His behalf, and also endows government with the power to kill under certain circumstances. Therefore, we have to make room in our thinking for some sort of violence which is Divine, even if it is not redemptive.

And the fourth kind of violence is that which seems necessary only because we haven’t been creative enough in finding an alternative or diligent enough in pursuing it. This is actually violence of the first or second sort masquerading as the third sort, hence caprice or vengeance masquerading as necessity.

Yes, some rare violence is necessary. But precisely because violence always fails to redeem, Christians must be extremely cautious about endorsing or using it. This is why every Christian citizen, lawman, soldier, or politician must be constantly and self-critically vigilant lest we go beyond that bare minimum necessity.

What is envy?

Okay, pop quiz to see how well you understand children.

Imagine you have three young boys and somehow you come into possession of four objects of considered value (muffins, golf balls, paper clips, whatever). How should you dole them out?

Thinking like a foolish adult, you might say, “Give one to each of them and then give the extra to someone randomly.”

In theory this sounds great. But here is how this will play out in reality. Three otherwise fairly happy children will suddenly all become miserable. The two who got “only” one item will be resentful and furious to not have gotten two. And the one who got two will now be plagued with all the security concerns of the wealthy and the torment of his jealous brothers.

Even when doled out equally, squabbling often ensues. But when doled out unequally, full-scale civil war is guaranteed. This is because, according to the principles of toddler math, some is not better than none. Some is always worse than none because it is less than more.

So here’s what you do. You give each child his own golf ball (preferably all the same color) and you then throw out the extra one. See, sin always requires a sacrifice.

Was killing bin Laden Biblical?

In the aftermath of the raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani compound, many people have been asking whether killing him is morally justifiable from a Christian perspective. Even though the answer here seems obvious, actually articulating it is still a useful exercise and may clarify some confusions.

First, it is true that only God has the authority to take a life. This is why killing is by default a prohibited action. But as with many kinds of authority, this one may be delegated to others by God. And in the Bible, we see this authority very clearly delegated to government. In the Old Testament, this is shown by the various capital crimes itemized under Israel’s penal code. In the New Testament, this is shown by the statement in Romans 13:4 that government bears the sword against evildoers as a “minister of God.”

If I hire a babysitter to feed my children in my absence or a stock broker to buy some investment on my behalf, they have the authority to do so because I gave it to them. Not because they had it originally, but because I gave it to them temporarily.

So in the case of bin Laden, a duly constituted government (ours) killed a man who had boasted of evil against our citizens and threatened more of it in the future. Killing him wasn’t just a Biblically acceptable act, it was a Biblically endorsed one. This was government doing precisely what God established it to do.

As to the question of him being unarmed in the moment of his death, the first thing to remember is that it was already justifiable to kill him, regardless. Second, ascertaining the certainty of him being unarmed under those circumstances would have been very challenging in the heat of the moment. This means that plausible issues of self-defense add onto the already justifiable killing to eliminate any real question about moral propriety. Had it been certain he was unarmed and not a threat (perhaps because he was asleep), there may have been more to be discussed. But the difference then would have been his value as a captive rather than as a corpse. Killing him in his sleep would still have been an improvement over the option of bombing the entire compound and the entailed risks to non-combatants, a choice which itself would have almost certainly been permissible to begin with.

Appearances matter, too.

My three boys love to ride bikes, scooters, big wheels, and anything else that has a chance of going fast or causing injury. Unfortunately for them, we live on a residential street that many non-residents consider a throughway. So, whenever they want to ride their mean machines, I have to stand outside and chaperone them against the auto threat.

Whenever a car comes, I quickly shepherd them back onto the sidewalk to wait until it passes. But their preferred way of waiting is to sit on the bike, poised to tear off back into the street. So I always tell them to turn their bikes or big wheels sideways, pointing away from the street. “But dad, we’re on the sidewalk, just like you said.”

“Yes, but when someone is driving down our street, he doesn’t just want to know where you are. He also wants to know where you’re going to go next. And if it looks like you might rush into the street, that makes him nervous. Even though you know you aren’t going to, he doesn’t know that. So pointing your wheels sideways is how you tell him that’s not going to happen so he can stop worrying. That’s called being considerate.”

Ode to a mother's body.

Originally aired 03.10.09

Sags and droops, so clearly unfirm,
Stretches and folds earned at full term.
What once was taut has now released,
A wrinkle here, and there some crease.

A bit more plump each passing year,
To better soothe her children’s tears.
The showroom floor no more her place,
A hall of fame instead to grace.

A child’s stuffed toy so worn and bare,
The marks of love are shown by wear.
Perhaps she ponders taking action,
Improving looks for satisfaction.

But such mistakes to her I’d say,
Though they may seem so wise today,
Eventually will prove quite wrong,
A yielding to some foolish song,
Which sings to her of looks gone by,
But only tears will make her cry.

If truth be told, she is a gem,
Her life in flesh poured out for them,
True beauty in no body other,
Than that which be called a mother.