Non Violent Exceptions?

Great discussion. I particularly identify with James' statement, "I also believe there is a huge difference between protecting my own rights and protecting the rights of others. I never see Jesus defend his own rights; and I read about turning my cheek, giving my coat. But the character of God is one that defends the weak, rescues the oppresses, protects those who can't protect themselves."

He articulates what I was trying to say extremely well.

I don't necessarily agree that "War doesn't work". It might be messy and imperfect, because we do live in a fallen world, but war brought the end of Nazism in Germany. That's a good thing, right? We actually tried appeasement which did not work.

Also, what is your response to someone who would point out all the times in the Old Testament that God commanded Israel to wage war and completely wipe out entire nations? I'm not sure we can use the argument that people die in war, so therefore war is not sometimes necessary. I do not agree that war does not work as a social construct because it incites the oppressor. In fact, I'm not really concerned about social constructs. I'm more concerned about Biblical constructs.

It's not my intention to use this as a cop out, but my pastor has taught (not in excusing war but just generally) that the "turn the other cheek" statement made by Jesus in the context he used it was meant to apply to insults. Being slapped on the cheek was an insult in that culture, not an act of violence.

I can't find any other place where Jesus really addresses this discussion other than my already mentioned statement to Peter, to which nobody responded. That question still remains. Who causes those who live by the sword to die by the sword?

I am in no way in generally in favor of war, but this conversation has made me put my focus on whether or not going to war can be legitimate & good. I would love for all conflict to be handled through peaceful relationships, but I believe there comes a time when that is sometimes not possible.

Storms, you asked, "Who causes those who live by the sword to die by the sword?" The answer is for me, "We do."

I honestly believe that war as a construct is beginning to end as an answer because there is so much evidence that is doesn't work. But like every other construct we've defined, it needed a period to be realized and then examined. Will it go away completely. I don't know.

Jonathan, I never meant that you said life was our highest goal. I was just speaking of "we" as in "a lot of Christians." We place a pretty high priority on earthly life -- more so than Jesus.

I agree that the oppressor needs rescuing from himself, and that he is still created in the image of God. I just don't agree that this means we keep him alive at all costs.

I want to, and think I do, agree also with your assessment that no sin is more wrong than another, in that they all separate us from God -- and that the consequences are what may be different. But I don't know what to do with that: because there will exist some situations where I must choose between options that are either all wrong, or would have all been wrong at another time. David eating shewbread. Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Rahab lying about the spies.

Morality is situational. So either there was a more and less wrong in those situations, or the situation itself made it such that one of the "wrongs" became a right. In the case of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, I know it can't have been a wrong, because he was sinless. But this is my very argument. Killing is not what God wants or intends for us to do -- but might there ever be a situation in which this is the right choice (or the less wrong one)? There is with lying, and with working on the Sabbath. How can we be so sure that killing is the exception?

What I suggested was laughable was comparing Jesus dying in order to save the entire world to me offering my life to a murderer in order to allow him to kill a group of innocent people. If I could die in a situation in order to save others, I would gladly do so. But to refuse to defend innocent people is not noble and Christlike in that I spare the life of a bad person; it is to enable and allow him to take a number of lives. Doing nothing in that case keeps me personally from being the one to pull a trigger, but it does not prevent murder and death. I see it as almost a selfish way for me to remain "clean."

Storm, Thank you for discussing this with me. You have brought up a really good point. And here is where I think the exception needs to be dealt with.

James said, "I also believe there is a huge difference between protecting my own rights and protecting the rights of others. I never see Jesus defend his own rights; and I read about turning my cheek, giving my coat. But the character of God is one that defends the weak, rescues the oppresses, protects those who can't protect themselves."

Why does this not extend to the oppressor? How can we protect the rights of the other by harming them? This is why I think Jesus said turn the other cheek. If anything the cross validates there is no exception because in seeing the enemy/oppressor as someone we are free to harm, then Jesus could have crushed Rome. He could have brought all of the angels upon the empire. But he didn't. He chose to sacrifice.

Jesus did choose to sacrifice. He chose to sacrifice because that was exactly what he came to earth to do. But, Jesus is God. He is the God of the Old Testament as well as the new. He is the God who wiped out entire nations and who presently wars against evil spiritual forces.

I've given a couple examples, with no reply. I like the discussion, but I would love for the things I'm saying to be addressed. What about Nazi Germany? What about Jesus saying those who live by the sword die by it?

Storms,

The sword is in the hands of government, to whom God entrusted it. Because God has designated government as his servant to be an agent of wrath in punishing evildoers. At least that's Paul's view in Romans 13 (forgive my paraphrase). This is another argument many use for the Christian's involvement in war and/or violence. Because if God designates a government to punish humankind for evil or good, shouldn't we be involved in ensuring that those governments have informed understandings of good and evil? Not my view necessarily (that Christians need to be involved in war), though I take Paul at his word that governments exist to dole out justice in some form or another...

Storm, first God didn't wipe out entire nations simply for the sake of their own evil acts. God did it to reveal his own power over other fake gods.

You bring up Nazi Germany, and specifically I would add Hitler. I've debated this before and one truth I would bring up is that Hitler was still a human being created in the image of God created very good. But he lost site of that. We don't like that because it takes away our excuse to hit back.

But I would also say this. I didn't have to make those decisions for war, and I am still not someone's judge.

Andy, that's a good story. I wish I had thought to throw my body on the kid, and taken the beating myself. That might have really been a better idea. If only I could go back in time... This is a good discussion guys. Thanks. It really helps me think things through when I have to type them for other people to read. So it's good for me to learn more about where exactly I am.

Jonathan, I don't understand from whom the oppressor would need rescuing?

Do we all agree that God seeks for us to act with justice in our society, and not allow the weak to be taken advantage of? If I can protect the weak without killing the oppressor, is it the right thing to do? What if I have to break into a private residence in order to rescue someone from an evildoer? What if I have to lie in order to save a life? Steal? Does it become wrong only when there is death involved?

We treat this issue as if human life is the ultimate good, that which we strife for or worship -- as if the command not to kill is the greatest one, with the second like unto it... But truth be told, the gospel Jesus brings is not about keeping people alive. I don't mean that he desires physical death for people, but staying alive is just not a goal in the kingdom. Ultimately when it comes down to it, I cannot define or explain God's intent for us with the words "Do not kill." That is not the core of Christian morality or ethics. Love is. So if the two ideas are set against one another, the best choice is love. And righteous love protects the oppressed, not the oppressor. I don't think we can throw out something that is so central to the character of God as justice is, because we want to place one of his laws above it -- be it a rule about the Sabbath, or stealing, or killing. I believe God's character and the core of the gospel trump any rule or law given.

Rahab knew that in saving the lives of the Israelite spies, she was ensuring her own nation would be completely and utterly destroyed. In essence she not only lied, but traded an entire nation in order to save just two lives. And she was commended for it -- called righteous. Because she acted out of love in accordance with God's will and character.

[Side note: I think then we are also able to see it can't be a numbers issue even. I hear a lot of "just war" supporters talk about decisions being made for "the greater good" (ie. if we can trade 20 lives for 1000, then it's the better choice). That is a different subject altogether -- possibly one worth discussing -- but different all the same. Because justice is not a numbers issue. It's an issue of defending the weak and rescuing the oppressed. It's an issue of doing something extremely difficult and painful (and unquestionably wrong were it in another context) in order to choose the greater love -- which seems to be helping the poor and defenseless, widows and orphans, etc.]

In my first post, I took issue with referring to these situations as just exceptions or hypothetical questions. In reality, it is an extremely difficult situation in which an individual is left with no GOOD choices. None of us would go home happy having killed a murderer to protect 10 innocent people, or a rapist to save a little girl's life. But we also wouldn't go home happy if we let the murderer kill everyone present, or allowed the rapist to have his way. And I'm not saying God would be happy either -- no matter which was the outcome. But my argument is that I think God would say one of those outcomes was more just, more loving, and closer to his heart. And in those two cases, I believe it would be to save the innocent people, even if it meant killing the bad guy.

I'm with you, though. I want it to be cut and dry -- always wrong to kill... and to steal... and to lie... And honestly I don't believe that in the above situation it's "right" to do any of the options. No matter who dies, God is saddened, and his creation has missed the mark he'd set for them. It is wrong to kill the guy. But it is more wrong to allow him to kill others. We very well may find ourselves in a situation at some point in which there is no good option -- that's the nature of living in a fallen world.

I also wish that turning the other cheek was a solution to protecting other people, but it's not. This is a personal issue in which Jesus is speaking of giving up our personal rights. But someone else's personal rights are not mine to give up -- nor are they the oppressor's. I really believe if a murderer was trying to kill me and me alone, I would not kill him. I would try and defend myself, but if it came down to me or him, I'm going to be the one to die. I would make sure of that.

Christ gave up all of his rights. He would never have crushed Rome in order to defend himself. And you're very right -- he did sacrifice. He chose to die, which is the greatest example ever of a loving act in keeping with the character of God. But I wouldn't dare compare Christ dying to save the world versus me allowing a murderer to kill. That's much bigger than a stretch. It's almost laughable to suggest those are the same. If my death in a situation could save the lives of all others involved (as did Jesus'), then you are right and I should lay down my life. Even if my life could be exchanged for just a few of their lives, I would argue it might be the right choice. But what I think I hear you suggesting is that I should lay down my life in order to save the killer and the innocent; and if he sees what you've done and repents before killing anyone else, you've made a great decision. But if he kills the others anyway, in choosing to show him love (or in elevating the law of "do not kill" to a dangerous level) you've enabled evil and caused the deaths of many. I just find it hard to see God coming down on this side of the decision -- preferring love to be shown to the oppressor, even at the cost of death for several of the oppressed.

Oh, and for the record... I wouldn't see the oppressor as someone I am free to harm -- rather someone whom love requires me to harm.

My original concern is that you ascribed a judgment onto what I said, that I didn't actually say. You said, "We treat this issue as if human life is the ultimate good, that which we strife for or worship -- as if the command not to kill is the greatest one, with the second like unto it... But truth be told, the gospel Jesus brings is not about keeping people alive."

I never said that.

You also asked, "Jonathan, I don't understand from whom the oppressor would need rescuing?" The answer is from oneself. We are our own worst enemies. To hold onto the dignity of the oppressor is to remind that person they are still created in God's image.

You also said, "It is wrong to kill the guy. But it is more wrong to allow him to kill others." This is where I think we actually get it wrong. There is no "more wrong" There is just wrong. We want there to be "more" but there isn't. There IS more consequence, and much of our subjective understanding is usually to mitigate the consequences and find least harmful response. But they are very different.

You also said it is laughable to compare what Christ did on the cross with what we do in everyday life. I will leave you to that judgment but I do not share it. The cross is the ultimate reality for the exact reason that it extends far beyond our every day life but calls us to extend the cross in our every day life.

James, you said, "And righteous love protects the oppressed, not the oppressor." I don't see how that is defensible. It's why Jesus said, "Love your enemies." I think Jesus knew that we would seek out one group over.

I emphasize love for the oppressor because the moment we harm the oppressor is the moment we become like them. It is the moment we use the exact means they are using to protect. So in essence when we strike back we are saying their actions are acceptable to us. This is why I think Jesus called us farther than we were comfortable going. We we created an exception, we ran the risk of being the exception. Because in reality there is a spectrum of when someone is oppressive. We will always find a moment when we are on the other side. And it is that moment that we would want someone to restore us.

Psalm 9:16, "The Lord is known by his justice; the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands." Justice is in God's character; he's KNOWN by it. And the wicked put themselves in this hard position.

Proverbs 21:15 -- "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous, but terror to evildoers." Apparently a right relationship with God is one in which we are joyful when justice is done in the world -- not happy, but joyful, knowing that God's character was exercised in our world.

Proverbs 28:5 -- "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it fully."

Isaiah 9:7 -- "...He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever..."
In Jesus' rule, he will be always just and always right. Sounds like it's in his character...

Isaiah 30:16 -- "Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice..." Grace and compassion can and do coexist with justice in the person of God -- and should in our lives. We don't have to throw out one in order to keep the other.

Isaiah 56:1 -- "This is what the Lord says: 'Maintain justice and do what is right...'"

Isaiah 61:8 -- "For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate iniquity."

Zechariah 7:9 -- "This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor...'" Again, justice and mercy and compassion together. What if showing mercy and compassion to one group requires justice for another?

In Luke 11, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they've kept a lot of rules, but "but neglected justice and the love of God." They cannot be separated.

Even the cross itself was an act performed in order to demonstrate God's justice, so that he could be both just and saving in his actions, Romans 3. The Father stood by and watched his son die -- in order to bring salvation and justice... at the same time.

When an individual strikes back in defending the defenseless, I don't believe he is saying the other's actions are acceptable. That logic offers that any time someone is perverting an action in life, if we carry out that same action in a righteous and Godly way we are saying their actions are acceptable. This guy is beating up a little girl, and you hit him in order to get him to stop; you've said his actions were okay. This lady is sleeping with people for money, and so the married couple next door are demonstrating through sex that they accept her abuse of it. This guy is a raging alcoholic, and so the believer drinking wine at communion is approving of his actions. There are actions and ideas that are not wrong in and of themselves -- even God-given and right when used as he would use them -- and they were designed with purpose and intelligence. Justice is one of these.

I believe that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, is affirming laws of the Old Covenant. He's fulfilling them, giving them greater meaning. But he's not throwing them out. He's not suggesting God has changed his mind about the justice thing. In 5:38-42, Jesus is speaking to individuals who will come face to face with an evil person, and he tells them not to defend their own personal rights, but to instead give them up completely. But I can't see this text as being instructions for how we act when someone is oppressing the weak, or taking the lives of those who cannot defend themselves.

If our understanding of "turn the other cheek" requires that we refuse to come to the aid of the defenseless in a great time of need, then we almost must allow the poor to be taken advantage of in court, their land ceased for business projects or greed in general -- and we ought to encourage them to give not only their land but their homes as well. If an evil man has killed one innocent person, we turn over to them a second?

Our understanding of love and how it works MUST be grounded in the character of God, not in our hatred for death, or even in a single of God's commandments. I hate murder and killing and violence as much as the next Christian. But I can't throw out who God is in order to put all of my weight behind a view of non-violence, no matter the cost. It's as if we've convinced ourselves that love and justice can't coexist in a world, much less in a person, and even less in a God. But the problem is, God does exist in those extremes. Somehow love and justice have to be tied together. Just as you would argue that I can't throw out love in order to punish and take revenge on all the evil people in the world. I have to argue that you can't throw out justice in order to keep from ever having to do a hard thing like stop one of those acts, even if it took violence. Both love and justice are crucial to being like God.

When Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for them, it's not a command to give them free reign of the world, allowing them to take whatever they like, whether money or power or lives. That ignores the nature and character of God in order to "love" a murderer. Is that how we love people? By enabling them to do horrible acts? If you truly loved me, would you allow me to make a mockery of creation and life by killing a number of innocent people? Do we allow our children to beat up other kids, because we are against punishing them? We know that God disciplines those that he loves, as is suggested love does (Hebrews 12). Love sometimes does hard things -- and if forced to choose between the lives of innocent people and an evil man who is seeking to kill those people, love within the character of God does not allow us to pull a Saul, standing by and watching as someone is murdered. That is not love.

So I, too, emphasize love for the oppressor. But not a twisted and ungodly love that allows him to do as he wishes to others. A love that must be tied up in the whole character of God.

James, you like to write don't you. You have misunderstood what I have said. Please go back and read it again.

Jonathan, I do like to write. I apologize for putting so much in there. I kind of think by writing through things, and I often don't realize how much there is until it's all there in front of me.

I also want to apologize if I sound rude in my comments. It's almost as if I'm debating with myself as I write. And sometimes I don't realize how it comes across. The last thing I want to do is turn our discussion into an unprofitable and foolish controversy. I respect your ideas, and appreciate you giving us a forum in which to discuss these issues -- and challenging us to think through some hard things.

And I may have misunderstood you, but after three rereads, I understand what you wrote in the same way I did before. Maybe my answer was just so long and confusing that it came across as if I didn't understand. I tend to get off subject.

God bless, and I am enjoying reading your blog.

James, you didn't sound rude. I would encourage you to keep debating yourself, but be open to how love is informing your reality.

First, I read a very similar thought in a book called "Submerge" by John Hayes. He witnessed a man being beaten by corrupt police in India (I think). He intervened and it didn't go so well. The beating stopped out of deference for the white man, but nothing really changed. Later, he realized the solution that he missed, To throw himself on top of the man to stop the beating. Of course, he might have been hurt or worse, but he also saw that's more like how Christ would have treated the situation.

On the other hand, I once attended a talk in South Africa during apartheid. The speaker, a black African man, was addressing a room full of white Christians. Of course, white people in South Africa were deathly afraid of what might happen if the people they were oppressing ever fought back all together. My friend asked a simple question, "Is the violence of the woman being raped to resist the same as the violence of the man who is raping her?"

First, I read a very similar thought in a book called "Submerge" by John Hayes. He witnessed a man being beaten by corrupt police in India (I think). He intervened and it didn't go so well. The beating stopped out of deference for the white man, but nothing really changed. Later, he realized the solution that he missed, To throw himself on top of the man to stop the beating. Of course, he might have been hurt or worse, but he also saw that's more like how Christ would have treated the situation.

On the other hand, I once attended a talk in South Africa during apartheid. The speaker, a black African man, was addressing a room full of white Christians. Of course, white people in South Africa were deathly afraid of what might happen if the people they were oppressing ever fought back all together. My friend asked a simple question, "Is the violence of the woman being raped to resist the same as the violence of the man who is raping her?"

"We like exceptions, don’t we? They provide us safe comfort to hold love just far enough as to personally comforting but not discomforting."

I don't know... For me, I'd have to say I don't like exceptions. I wish there weren't any. But rather than chalking their mention up to some Christians needing comfort when they don't want to live out a hard command, I'd suggest those exceptions are a reality because of the fallen world in which we live. Because of the brokenness around us every day, there are times when we really are put in those situations in which we must choose between options that might have both been wrong in another situation. In my opinion whichever option is more in keeping with love and the character of God is the right choice at that moment in time.

Rahab was faced with one of those hard situations. She opted to lie, and save the men of God from death. James commends her for that decision in chapter 2 of his book, saying she was considered righteous for making the choice she did. Saving lives was more in keeping with the character of God and the first commandment of love, than was being honest.

We don't like that there are exceptions. We want everything to be cut and dry, black and white. But the nature of our world requires that we look at morality in a context. And just because I've never been in a situation in which my options were to kill, in order to defend a group of 20 innocents OR allow them to be killed, doesn't mean it's not a useful exercise in thought; There is truth to be found in these situations. We like to pretend that Biblical commands never come in conflict with one another. This is going to sound horrible, but sometimes I wish Jesus had been faced with a decision to save 20 kids using force, or allow them all to be murdered -- but we can't read that story. The closest we've got is Jesus breaking the Sabbath on numerous occasions, because when the two came in conflict, love for others was always the right choice. Though there was nothing wrong with the Sabbath in itself. It was a good law, designed with purpose by God himself.

I don't have my mind completely made up on pacifism and the like. Though I promote non-violence. I also think it would be great if I could offer my life in exchange for the 20 innocents. But if I try and it doesn't work, I've become an enabler of evil. In that situation I believe the greater act of love, more in keeping with the character of God, is to save the 20. With little force, and without killing if possible, but if not...

I also believe there is a huge difference between protecting my own rights and protecting the rights of others. I never see Jesus defend his own rights; and I read about turning my cheek, giving my coat. But the character of God is one that defends the weak, rescues the oppresses, protects those who can't protect themselves.

There have been a few times when I had to step in to protect someone. Once when I was living in China, a handicapped kid was being beaten and kicked by a really angry guy. And everyone was just watching. I became angry (I believe a righteous anger, in keeping with the character of God) and stepped between the two, while the handicapped kid lay on the ground bleeding. This guy continued to kick the kid, even with me there. So I yelled at him to stop, asking him what he was thinking, kicking a little kid who couldn't even walk. He didn't stop, so I pushed him. I think he saw the anger in my face at that point, and he stopped. I believed I had done the right thing. I tried not to yell, just to stand. I tried not to push, just to yell. And you know this angry guy wouldn't let me "take the place of the crippled little boy?" What if I had tried to stop at pushing, and he still refused to stop? What if he had a knife and was using it? A gun?

I don't know for sure what Jesus would have done in that situation. Maybe I should have prayed more once I became angry -- instead of immediately trying to use MY power to end the abuse? I honestly mean that. Maybe that would have worked... I think I should have tried. Maybe I should have spoken out loud in the name of Christ against the spirit of rage in that man? I fully admit that I may have been wrong in what I did. But what happened was not some hypothetical situation I made up so that some of us can find comfort...

This is a beautiful response and one I aspire to, but due to my wounding through past violent encounters I have not reached that point of growth. With that in mind, I would ask, " What if your sacrifice is not accepted?" Are you able to extend that love to the point of allowing you and your children to become the sacrifice of love? I question if that is your decision to make in the place of your children who are young and seeking to live their lives.
I realize this significantly changes the scenario, and that I have not attained that level of love, but out of love for my children I would choose to defend and attempt to maintain the dignity of the perpetrator to whatever degree I could in the process.

Wow...just wow. Jonathan, your comments here perfectly echo my feelings on this subject. Like you, I don't know what I would do if faced with some of these horrible, worst-case-scenario situations, but I truly believe the correct response from me is with non-violent resistance. An aggressor can hurt me and my family physically and materially, but he/she cannot harm me spiritually as long as my eyes are on the Savior. Thank you for these beautiful comments.

Thank you David. As I wrestle with this concept, I keep seeing the simplistic brilliance of what Jesus was talking about. I don't always like it because I have to break myself over it. But when I do I seem to find something worth holding onto.

Thanks for taking time to answer, and I completely understand your heart. Here's my issue, though - and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one, but I think it is naive to think that if my home were invaded by someone set out to use violence against my family that me offering myself in the place of my wife & kids would satisfy the evil desires of the person.

Here's where I am. While I need to be "willing to see the true identity and dignity of the other person," I also need to stand for justice. It is unjust for a person acting on evil intent to harm another person - period. Just like everything else in life, our motivation, our heart is the issue. If my heart is not to act out revenge upon a person or people attacking someone else, but instead to use my resources to protect and defend people from an evil attack, then isn't that just & right?

I have to be honest. I am Naval veteran & someone who has family and friends currently serving in the military. Is it your position that their willingness to fight in a war to protect our nation from enemies who have attacked innocent people is not in line with Jesus' teaching?

I believe there are 2 separate issues here. The "turn the other cheek" statement referred to two individuals. Certainly, if someone insults me or wants to fight me, I can walk away, even take a punch without reciprocating. But, in the case of a person or group of people purposefully setting out to harm or kill innocent people, I believe protecting those people through whatever means necessary is just. Am I wrong?

Jesus told Peter "Those who live by the sword die by the sword." That statement is used by pacifists to say we should not fight. But, my question is on the second half of the statement. If that's true, then who administers the justice by which those who live by the sword die? Does God not use people to administer that justice?

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Like you, I struggle with this, but I do not believe it is as simple as just saying there is no war.

Storms, let me first say that I am not your judge. I cannot make your decision for you.

But I will say this. I am first simply part of history that begins with war. And that war has taken 110 million lives in the last century. As a social construct, it just doesn't work because it is based on the idea of the myth of redemptive violence. I assumes that striking back will actually impede the oppressor in some way, when it actually incites the oppressor.

Within that history are really good people who chose to participate in war. And as much as these people, like you, mean well, we also cannot ignore the reality of the cost of participating in war. 25% of those coming back from Afghanistan are suffering from some sever level of PTSD. And its not just this war. My grandfather was severely traumatized by WW2. He never recovered. The lie is that war actually works, when in reality is that it doesn't work.

But if we take it down to a local level, when we stair our attackers in the eye, we are faced with one undeniable truth. This person is still a child of God. This person still has dignity, yet they have lost site of it. I don't think I'm being naive at all when I say that it wouldn't have an affect on the person, because behind the heart of the reason for attack is that loss of identity and dignity. To step in the way is to reveal that back and to say, "I'm going to reflect back to you your dignity. I'm not going to strike back."

I would also say that most who share the exception, myself included because I used to hold this exception, fail to see that God is part of that confrontation. God was fully present when Jesus was being crucified. He would also be fully present during an attack on my children. The question is then who I am going to choose to be in that moment. My children are first God' children, who I am parenting. To strike back is actually to become just like my oppressor. To turn the cheek or step in is to become whole in that moment, choosing love.

I'm also not naive enough to think that I can without a doubt say I would choose that move. I know the deep love I have for my kids and you for yours (if you have them). I can only hope I would. I also don't think God stops loving us when we strike back. I think the real concern is who we are becoming when we strike back. It has more to do with the person we are realizing at that moment.

I also have no problem agreeing to disagree. I would rather you be honest and dialog than be dishonest and ignore the conversation.