Christians and Violence: The Role of the Media

This will be the third and final post in this series regarding Christians and violence.  If you did not read the first two posts you can read them here and here.  As a guide for this series we have been utilizing Miroslav Volf's latest book, A Public Faith:  How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good.

To briefly review, in his book Volf touches upon two means of engaging the public sphere with one's faith.  Both of these, according to Volf, miss the mark and fall short.  The first way of engagement is "idleness."  Idleness is actually non-engagement with the public.  Essentially the believer holds that their faith is private and subsequently not meant to be shared publicly.  The second one is on the opposite end of the spectrum.  Volf calls this option "coerciveness."  This option takes place when a believer attempts to force their faith onto another.  Usually when this happens we have violence of some sort.  In the last two posts we examined some of the outcomes and implications of these two options.  Today we will look at the role of media and the possible implications it may have on this topic.

I'm sure many of us at some point have had a conversation with someone regarding the nightly news.  Invariably in those conversations we will likely hear another say something to this effect:  "I don't like to watch the news anymore.  It is always so dark and negative."  I would agree that this is the picture that we often find.  The news appears to focus on the negative:  wars, murders, fights, court cases, robberies, fires, etc.  Who wants to watch that every night?  What about Christians and Christianity in the media?  From sitcoms to the nightly news it seems that Christians often receive a bad rap.  Volf points out that this is significant and largely influences the way which people think and act toward others.

For example, in his book he quotes Avishai Margalit, who wrote about ethnic belonging, and applies it to Christians and violence.  Volf quotes:  "It takes one cockroach to be found in your food to turn the most otherwise delicious meal into a bad experience...It takes 30 to 40 ethnic groups who are fighting one another to make the 1,500 or more significant ethnic groups in the world who live more or less peacefully look bad" (p.52).  What does this quote have to with with our topic?  Volf uses this as an example of what he calls "the self-inflation of the negative."  Essentially this refers to the tendency of evil to loom larger than the good.  This is were the role of media comes into the picture.

Apparently the media today follows "the self-inflation of the negative."  As an example Volf introduces the reader to Ms. Katarina Kruhonja of Osijek, Croatia.  Ms. Kruhonja was awarded the "Right Livelihood Award" which is an alternative to the Nobel Peace Prize.  However, Ms. Kruhonja is virtually unknown.  She is a medical doctor who has worked hard to implement peace initiatives which have been largely motivated by her faith--Christianity.  Why has the world largely not been introduced to Ms. Kruhonja and her peace initiatives?  To put it simply, mass-media communications in this world are driven by what sells.  What is it that sells in today's world?  The answer:  Violence.  Volf states in his book: 

"Violence sells, so viewers get to see violence, without media outlets being much bothered about disproportion between represented and actual violence.  The mass media credit reality, but they do so by building on the proclivities of viewers...Religion is more associated with violence than with peace in the public imagination partly because the public is fascinated with violence.  We, the peace-loving citizens of nations whose tranquility is secured by effective policing, are insatiable observers of violence.  And as voyeurs, we show ourselves as vicarious participants in the very violence we outwardly abhor" (p.52).

According to Volf's argumentation, the media gives the people what they ultimately want.  This point coupled with the previous point brings us to a question:  Is Christianity as violent as appears in the media?  I think the answer is "no."  The over-focus of the media on religious violence gives the appearance that faith is more violent than it actually is.  We could quote the old cliche:  One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.  The media seems to focus on the one bad apple, thus giving all people of faith bad rap.  In reality, people of faith do much good for the world and their local communities but media doesn;t often cover these stories because they don't receive the high ratings that violent stories provide.  Thus the picture that is painted portrays people of faith as violent hypocrites because this is what sells.

To reiterate, the Christian faith is to be neither idle nor coercive.  As Jesus said to his followers according to John's Gospel:  Be in the world but not of the world.  We are called to engage the world but we are called to do so as Christ did--subversively.  Jesus changed the world from the inside out.  An idle faith neglects any engagement with the world.  A coercive faith attempts to engage the world from a top down approach.  Both of these miss the mark when it comes to engaging the public square.  As Volf points out:  "To be engaged in the world well, Christians will have to keep one thing at the forefront of their attention:  the relationship between God and a vision of human flourishing" (p.54).

May we live our lives engaging our communities in a way that imitates the Messiah who took on human flesh and died a cursed death in the cross.

Christians and Violence: A Misuse of the Faith

In my last post (Christians and Violence:  Called to Love) we began to look at the issue of living out a public faith.  Particularly we are using the issue of violence as an example of a public faith lived out wrongly.  Also as a guide we are referring to Miraslov Volf's latest book, A Public Faith:  How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good.  Volf points out in his book that there are two essential errors we must look to avoid when living out our faith.  The first error is "idleness."  Just as it sounds, idleness points to a person who professes faith but thinks it is only personal, not meant to engage the public arena in any way.  This type of public faith (or lack thereof) falls short. On the other end of the spectrum is what Volf refers to as "coerciveness."  This is when one attempts to ultimately force their faith upon another.  This is usually when violence in the name of Christianity occurs.  This too is an error and falls short.  This second point is the focus of this post today. 

Volf argues in his book that "the Christian faith is misused when it is used to underwrite violence" (p.51).  I must say that I agree.  The biblical record seems clear to me that Christians are not to involve themselves in violence even in self-defense.  I know that statement will draw the ire of some of my brothers and sisters. 

Let me share a few examples:  Jesus said turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39); love your enemies (Matt. 5:44); be salt and light to the world (Matt. 5:14-16); imitate Christ in the way of self-sacrificial love (John 15:12-13; 13:34-35); carry our own cross (Matt. 10:38-39); imitate Christ in suffering and not retaliate (1 Peter 2:21-23).  These are just a few among many others. 

Also, a theme of the OT that's reiterated in the NT is this:  The battle belongs to the Lord.  It is not yours or mine to fight.  Volf states in his book:  "Though imitating God is the height of human holiness, there are things that only God may do.  One of them is to deploy violence" (p.50).  When a Christian picks up a weapon with the intend to harm another rather than picking up the cross to follow Christ then something is out of alignment. 

From this some questions arise.  How did we get here?  How have Christians allowed the faith to become acquainted with violence?  How do prevent this from happening further?  Volf answers these questions by examining convictions and where they are rooted.  Where we place our convictions makes a huge difference.  Volf writes:

"If we strip Christian convictions of their original and historic cognitive and moral content and reduce faith to a cultural resource endowed with a diffuse aura of the sacred, in situations of conflict we are likely to get religiously legitimised violence.  If we nurture people in historic Christian convictions that are rooted in its sacred texts, we will likely get militants for peace.  This, I think, is a result not only of a careful examination of the inner logic of Christian convictions; it is also born by a careful look at actual Christian practice" (p.51).

Ultimately, when we look at the character of the Christian faith and its fundamental convictions we see that they are not violence inducing.  In fact, taken at face value they are just the opposite.  When Christ calls a person, he bids them to come and die, not to go out and kill.  When Christians get this backwards not only does the faith become coercive, but it also fails to imitate Christ.

Christians and Violence: Called to Love

It seems to me that more and more I am hearing from non-believers as well as other sources that Christianity is a violent religion that stresses oppression of others.  Usually the argument goes something like this:  "All the major wars and violence throughout the last two thousand years have involved or been directly related to Christianity.  So much for a religion of love."  Unfortunately, as a Christian, we must admit that this is at least partially true.  We cannot ignore the dark spots o four history like the Crusades or the Inquisition.  But we can go back even further to the early fourth century and Emperor Constantine who thought he had a vision and heard the words "In this sign conquer."   And what was the sign?  You guessed it - a cross.  We definitely cannot sweep these things under the rug.

Those attempting to make this argument think this to be pretty ironclad.  This seals the deal for many as the reason not to follow Christ.  But is this as ironclad as it may appear?  I recentfinished Miroslav Volf's latest book, A Public Faith:  How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good, and in it Volf touches on this topic.  Volf teaches theology at Yale Divintiy School.

Throughout the book he describes essentially two errors that Christians fall into when publicly engaging the world.  The first error is what Volf calls "idleness."  This is the engagement which is actually a lack of engagement.  The person who says "My faith is a private thing that shouldn't involve others" is an example of idleness.  Another example could be the politician who when asked the question "How will your faith effect how you lead?" and they respond "My faith will not effect how I lead."  The idle person professes faith but they do not engage the culture.

The other extreme that Volf draws attention to is "coerciveness."  Essentially this is when a believer attempts to force their faith onto a non-believer.  This can take place in numerous ways.  One example from the history of America involves the West-ward expansion and the Native Americans.  In certain instances the expansionists forced the Native Americans to profess faith in Christ or be killed. 

Volf reminds us that Jesus and the early church were not idle, nor were they coercive.  In fact, as he points out, "an unbiased reading of the story of Jesus Christ gives no warrant for such perpetration of violence" or idleness.  Jesus and the early church never forced their faith on others.  Also, they never refrained from public engagement of the faith as well.  Volf goes on to remind us:

If there is a danger in the story of the cross in relation to violence, it is that it might teach mere acquiescence to be mistreated by others, not that it might incite one to abuse.  Whenever violence was perpetrated in in the name of the cross, the cross was depleted of its "thick" meaning within the larger story of Jesus Christ and "thinned" down to a symbol of religious belonging and power - and the blood of those who did not belong flowed as Christians transmuted themselves from followers of the Crucified to imitators of those who crucified him (pg. 48).

The words of the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness to Jesus' trial, are a powerful reminder and corrective for Christ-followers:

"To this [suffering] you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.  'He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.'  When they hurled there insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats.  Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly" (1 Peter 2:21-23, NIV).         

Christ-followers are called to love the world.  Jesus said this is how the world would know that we are his people.  Jesus also told his disciples that love means laying down your life for another.  How is violence under the sign of the cross laying down one's life?

In the next post we'll look more at the issue of violence as a misuse of the Christian faith.