The Bigger Picture (Part IV)

Have you ever had to think through a particular subject and discovered that you're equally attracted to two points of view? Honestly, it's the most frustrating thing! I've been reading on the subject of violence and pacifism lately, and two works of writing have stuck out of the rest: Shane Claiborne's "Irresistable Revolution" and Patrick Meade's series at Tentpegs.

I honestly am not sure if the two of them are diametrically opposed or not (translation: are they really opposite in thinking?), but, whatever the case, each time I read Shane, I find myself thinking "yeah, that's it!" But then I read Patrick, and I think "yeah, that's it too!" I think I'm proving my own point: the truth is never simple. Ever.

Like with violence; Shane talks about what he calls the "myth of redemptive violence," but Patrick thinks that there are times when we are called by Jesus to forcibly defend others. So which is it? Shane talks about military guys working to get out of the military because the military does things against their beliefs, and Patrick has a son in the military of whom he is very proud. Shane says that pacifism means finding a third way around violence that still stands up for others, and Patrick notes that when the UK and Australia banned private citizens from owning weapons, the rate of violent crime quadroupled (and continues to escalate). They're both right, so what do you do with that?

I want to know if Christians should be allowed to play violent sports like hockey or footy. That's a valid question, right?

Or take Jesus. You can point to scripture and say stuff like "see, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life! It's so simple!" and yet I look back at it and wonder, is it really? I mean, what do those even mean? What is the way? What does it mean that Jesus IS the truth? Whose life?

So many questions. Only ninety years (or less) to figure it out. *sigh*

Care to be confused?

Shane
Patrick

(to be continued)

"And Now, A Word From Our Sponsor ..."

Ok. So I've studied psychology a bit. Al Quaeda is becoming a nuisence, and nobody seems to know what to do. But I do. Here's what we do:

We pay al quaeda to terrorize.

No? Try this on for size. This experiment has been replicated over and over again in multiple cultures: A bunch of bullies are consistently throwing stuff at a guy's shop. He has tried everything to discourage them, but it only seems to strengthen their resolve, and amuses them endlessly. So one day, he comes up with the idea to pay them to throw stuff at his shop. They're happy, thinking that their luck has never been better. But then a few weeks later, he cuts their pay. They don't like it much, but they keep throwing stuff. A few weeks later he cuts it again. Then again every couple weeks until one day, he stops paying them at all. And suddenly they go away, citing better things to do.

Reverse psychology, I guess. But it works.

What do you think?

Minesweeper: The Movie