The Myth of Redemptive Violence

[Bootstrap]

In both the wars threads and the Christian Nationalism threads, I think we are dealing with the Myth of Redemptive Violence. It goes like this:

The thing that really makes the world good is more threats, more violence, so that the bad guys won't dare do anything we don't want them to. If we are just ruthless enough, we can make them do whatever we want.

The problem with most people is that they aren't willing to be ruthless enough, and that's the real reason that there is evil in the world.

I think this is incompatible with the Christian gospel. And I think it is incompatible with any realistic look at history.

Christians are called to be peacemakers. This is not the way to do it.

[mike]

In both the wars threads and the Christian Nationalism threads, I think we are dealing with the Myth of Redemptive Violence. It goes like this:

The thing that really makes the world good is more threats, more violence, so that the bad guys won't dare do anything we don't want them to. If we are just ruthless enough, we can make them do whatever we want.

The problem with most people is that they aren't willing to be ruthless enough, and that's the real reason that there is evil in the world.

I think this is incompatible with the Christian gospel. And I think it is incompatible with any realistic look at history.

Christians are called to be peacemakers. This is not the way to do it.

Romans 13 says things about violence, and being "redemptive" is certainly not one of them. What it does say is that government is established by God, that we should submit, and that it bears the sword to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

That's about it. The most you can say about the 'good' that is accomplished by the government using violence is that it keeps evil in check, generally speaking. God made it to be this way, and we can assume that he had his reasons for it. For now.

Christians have a different calling; see Romans 12.

[JohnH]

What doesn't make sense at all is calling for governments to somehow behave like Christians should. Governments are not capable of "loving their enemies" or of choosing to lay down their rights, and in fact such a government would be quite evil, unless you think it is somehow good to allow society to be overrun by rapists, thieves, murderers, and so forth.

[barnhart]

In both the wars threads and the Christian Nationalism threads, I think we are dealing with the Myth of Redemptive Violence. It goes like this:

The thing that really makes the world good is more threats, more violence, so that the bad guys won't dare do anything we don't want them to. If we are just ruthless enough, we can make them do whatever we want.

The problem with most people is that they aren't willing to be ruthless enough, and that's the real reason that there is evil in the world.

I think this is incompatible with the Christian gospel. And I think it is incompatible with any realistic look at history.

Christians are called to be peacemakers. This is not the way to do it.

I think the more dangerous form of the myth is the conviction that refusing to participate in coersion and violence is withholding the good God intends for the world.

[Ernie]

What doesn't make sense at all is calling for governments to somehow behave like Christians should. Governments are not capable of "loving their enemies" or of choosing to lay down their rights, and in fact such a government would be quite evil, unless you think it is somehow good to allow society to be overrun by rapists, thieves, murderers, and so forth.

I don't know of anyone advocating for this. Do you know of some?

[Bootstrap]

Romans 13 says things about violence, and being "redemptive" is certainly not one of them. What it does say is that government is established by God, that we should submit, and that it bears the sword to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

That's about it. The most you can say about the 'good' that is accomplished by the government using violence is that it keeps evil in check, generally speaking. God made it to be this way, and we can assume that he had his reasons for it. For now.

I think I would put this a little differently. If you look at all of the things God expects of governments in the OT and in the Revelation, it goes beyond Romans 13. But keeping things in check using the sword is one of the things that God calls governments to do.

Across the prophets and the law, rulers are consistently held accountable not just for restraining evil, but for establishing justice, protecting the vulnerable, and ruling with righteousness. Kings are judged for how they treat the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner (e.g. Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 22, Psalm 72). They are condemned when they use power for oppression, corruption, or self-enrichment instead of justice.

The Revelation tells us that governments can become beastly, claiming divine authority and using violence to oppose God and persecute his people (Revelation 13). So while government is ordained by God, it is also morally accountable to God and capable of deep corruption.

Christians have a different calling; see Romans 12.

But there is overlap. Christians are also judged for how we treat the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.

Still, we Seek First the Kingdom of God, not earthly kingdoms. And we do not do that by seeking earthly power or by violence.

[JohnH]

Interesting. So, Boot, you’d support capital punishment as outlined in the OT?

[Soloist]

In both the wars threads and the Christian Nationalism threads, I think we are dealing with the Myth of Redemptive Violence. It goes like this:

The thing that really makes the world good is more threats, more violence, so that the bad guys won't dare do anything we don't want them to. If we are just ruthless enough, we can make them do whatever we want.

The problem with most people is that they aren't willing to be ruthless enough, and that's the real reason that there is evil in the world.

I think this is incompatible with the Christian gospel. And I think it is incompatible with any realistic look at history.

Christians are called to be peacemakers. This is not the way to do it.

The other side “if we construct what we call just laws, legal warfare and measured response to enemy or criminals the world will improve”


Christians are called to follow Christ, this is not the way to do it either.

[MattY]

I wouldn't say that violence is redemptive, certainly. And it could be that in parts of history and in parts of current society, there has been this harmful myth that violence is "redemptive" and will solve everything.

But that doesn't mean we need to put on Walter Wink's glasses (the guy who coined the term) and make that the way we look at society, government, and violence in general. Someone who internalizes the term and makes it the way he looks at everything will - if consistent - eventually arrive at Prov. 23:14 ("Punish them with the rod and save them from death") and put that and all corporal punishment (spanking) under "the myth of redemptive violence."

But the government does not bear the sword in vain; they are God's agents to keep order in the world and bring punishment on evildoers. While violence is not redemptive, it can be retributive (that is, just) and deterrent - but only when done by the proper authorities, against actual evildoers, and only in proportion to the crime committed. Also, governments are responsible to rule justly, protecting the poor and vulnerable, etc. The requirements of the Mosaic law do not apply (such as executing idol-worshippers), because those were only for that specific time, not an example of government for all time. But we can see in the prophets things that displeased God about many of the evil nations who were condemned - such as their treatment of the poor, of widows, etc. So, executing jaywalkers, persecuting people for their religion, mistreating foreigners, failing to protect the vulnerable - all of these things would make for an evil government. Using the sword to keep order and punish evil would not; even going to war against foreign threats may not, depending on the situation.

And I think it's significant, agreeing with the traditional Anabaptist view, that different pronouns are used to refer to government (they/them) and Christians (you). What Christians are supposed to do is in the last part of Romans 12: not repay anyone evil for evil; do not take revenge, let God repay (through his agents the government, at times); if your enemy is hungry, feed him... If these principles are applied consistently, one will tend to arrive at the conclusion that we should avoid government office and military service, although the text of Scripture sort of lets us arrive at that conclusion for ourselves rather than spelling it out.

[JohnH]

The requirements of the Mosaic law do not apply (such as executing idol-worshippers), because those were only for that specific time, not an example of government for all time.

There is nowhere the Bible teaches “just kidding - allowing idol worship and sorcery is fine!”