Face Punch

[Bootstrap]

That said, if I had seen this coming, I probably would have tried to start a conversation with the 50 years old guy simply in order to divert his attention.

Yeah. Or even with both of them, perhaps making sure I could hear both sides, helping them hear each other.

[RZehr]

I’d probably just stare fascinated at what just happened. And might have just helped the 50 year old up or asked if he was okay.
If he’s 50 and doesn’t know when to apologize, and 70 and doesn’t know when to apologize, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to train them. Sure they should. But that’s up to them.

[temporal1]

I’d probably just stare fascinated at what just happened.

And might have just helped the 50 year old up or asked if he was okay.

If he’s 50 and doesn’t know when to apologize, and 70 and doesn’t know when to apologize, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to train them. Sure they should. But that’s up to them.

Max:
.. The punch was so sudden there was no time to intervene. ..

There wasn’t time to prevent or interfere.
People most often step forward to offer a hand up, or other aid, as needed.
If the victim showed signs of continuing the fight, advice to calm and not choose further aggression would be expected.

i would have been grateful there was no evident lasting harm, that no weapon was used, that the perp left.
he will have time to ruminate about his loss of control. nothing much happens in the heat of the moment, that doesn’t escalate violence. First responders know all about it.

In my world, i now pray for no drive by shootings when i go to the gas station.

i wouldn’t like to see men scuffling. i would not wish anyone to interfere. in younger men, this leads to gangs/escalation.
responding to help the injured is another matter. when this isn’t done, most are disappointed it wasn’t.

[MaxPC]

I’d probably just stare fascinated at what just happened. And might have just helped the 50 year old up or asked if he was okay.
If he’s 50 and doesn’t know when to apologize, and 70 and doesn’t know when to apologize, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to train them. Sure they should. But that’s up to them.

Quite. I agree with your assessment. It seems there is a prudential mindset in Anabaptism: I see a pattern here that knowing when to intervene and when to walk away is as much of Anabaptist non-resistance as keeping peace(ful) and away from the world’s angry agendas and scoffers.

My idea is that we have to be peacekeepers, not peacemakers - or at best peacemakers in our own conflicts by being peacekeepers. The whole idea about "making peace" as a third party in other people's conflicts is an exaggeration, leading to hubris and mental overload.
With other words, there need not be a proper solution to your problem.
That said, if I had seen this coming, I probably would have tried to start a conversation with the 50 years old guy simply in order to divert his attention.

Yes, we use distraction as well... if there is time. Would you say then that as peacekeepers (not in the military definition) that we take responsibility for keeping peace in our own walk? Would that be a more accurate conceptualisation of non-resistance in daily practice?

I agree that getting involved as a third party mediating-stranger does create more problems than it solves; as a third party helping the injured I can agree.

28 years ago or so I witnessed another violent situation in which tempers flared. It was a case of road rage and the combustion of violence was both spontaneous and intense. It ended just as quickly as well.

[haithabu]

I’ve never seen fisticuffs in church and never hope to, but I have seen conflict and have noticed that there is no better way to get sucked into the middle of it than to attempt to intervene as a peacemaker.

Sometimes the best way to keep the peace is to keep your peace. That way at least you’re not contributing to the escalation.

[Ken]

I’ve never seen fisticuffs in church and never hope to, but I have seen conflict and have noticed that there is no better way to get sucked into the middle of it than to attempt to intervene as a peacemaker.

Sometimes the best way to keep the peace is to keep your peace. That way at least you’re not contributing to the escalation.

You have to intervene as a group. Four or five guys each pulling them apart in opposite directions gets the job done. One person trying to get into the middle often doesn't. The only place I have ever seen fights in person was in sports locker rooms. Never in church or the workplace or anywhere else.
And it generally takes a group of guys pulling them apart.

[MaxPC]

I’ve never seen fisticuffs in church and never hope to, but I have seen conflict and have noticed that there is no better way to get sucked into the middle of it than to attempt to intervene as a peacemaker.

Sometimes the best way to keep the peace is to keep your peace. That way at least you’re not contributing to the escalation.

Quite true. Many, as this one concluded, were brief because no others became involved in the violence. Escalation can happen quickly.

[haithabu]

I’ve never seen fisticuffs in church and never hope to, but I have seen conflict and have noticed that there is no better way to get sucked into the middle of it than to attempt to intervene as a peacemaker.

Sometimes the best way to keep the peace is to keep your peace. That way at least you’re not contributing to the escalation.

You have to intervene as a group. Four or five guys each pulling them apart in opposite directions gets the job done. One person trying to get into the middle often doesn't. The only place I have ever seen fights in person was in sports locker rooms. Never in church or the workplace or anywhere else.
And it generally takes a group of guys pulling them apart.

I agree as far as a physical confrontation is concerned. For relational breakdown in a church setting it’s a lot less simple to form an evenhanded consensus.

[MaxPC]

For relational breakdown in a church setting it’s a lot less simple to form an evenhanded consensus.

Indeed that is an entirely different kettle of fish. Relational conflicts often feed from long simmering issues: grudges, resentments, envy, jealousy and power issues frequently are at the roots.

[PetrChelcicky]

MaxPC,
did you know that there is someone named Lisa Schirch who has "taught in the graduate programme on peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University for 23 years"?
She also "has facilitated and participated in the design of national peace processes in Fiji and Afghanistan" - can't speak about Fiji, but in Afghanistan she seems not to have been very successful.
That's what I call hubris: every year there are some students graduated and sent into the world as trained "peacebuilders" with the promise that now they can "build peace" (a promise to them personally, about their abilities, and at the same time a promise to others, about their usefulness).

This strikes a sensitive nerve in me because I am in a clinch with my "home organization" (FOR Germany) over a similar question. I confronted the ideas about international "peacebuilding" by negotiations with the fact that a lot of those people are completely intransigent, if not fanatical, about the conflicts in their own homelands - and why should the public trust peacebuilders who cannot apply their supposed abilities on the spot (hic Rhodus , hic salta)? Like, we had a member who part-time persuaded the NATO soldiers in Afghanistan that they must speak with the Taliban - and part-time he toured Germany in order to tell people that they never must speak with the AfD (let's call them the "German Trumpists"). A kind of double standards which is unfortunately not uncommon in peace circles.