Donald Sensing has responded and his post opens with this anecdote.
There's an old story about the Old West when railroads were still new. A train was chugging down the track across the Great Plains one day when the engineer espied a small, dark dot on the track near the horizon. As he and the object drew nearer, he could see that it was a buffalo bull charging straight at the locomotive. The buffalo's head was down with the horn pointing straight ahead and the animal was running full tilt.That pretty much sums up my thoughts on pacifism as well. I think evil needs to be confronted and sometimes violent means of confrontation are necessary. If someone is routinely employing violence and terror like Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, I have little problem using violence against them.
The engineer shook his head and muttered, "Fella, I admire your courage but your judgment just stinks."
A friend of mine is Christian and a pacifist. He was raised Menonite/Quaker, but now he's Baptist. He's a good guy and I generally respect his wishes. But generally his views and mine are not dissimilar. He is not anti-confrontation, his is simply anti-violent confrontation.
John the Methodist has noted that the CPT members who are being held captive have expressed their wished not to be rescued by violent means.
Should we (a) respect their wishes and restrain the military or (b) permit the use of force to rescue them from their captors?I don't have a good answer. In general, I would just ignore their wishes and do what needs to be done. Since I would prefer a peaceful conclusion to this situation, peace would come first. But in the end kidnappers have to be caught and criminals must be brought to justice. If we have to resort to violence, I would consider it justified and their wishes be damned. There are more things at stake here than just their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment