Wednesday, June 14, 2006

When Force Doesn't Work

I didn't date at all until college, and up to that point I took my cues from movies as to what such close relationships would be like. My siblings are all quite a bit older than me, so I also didn't have the "benefit" of living with someone whose will was sometimes in tension with mine. So I used to dream of how conversations and relationships would go with whatever girl I had a crush on at the time.

But when I started dating... then after I got married... then after I had children... I came to realize--I know, what a deep and profound bit of knowledge--that other people just don't always talk and act the way you had them talk and act when you were in charge of the dream. When I ran the dreams, others did and responded how I wanted them to. In real life, they had their own personalities and dreams, and their own will.

As a parent, I have at my disposal a certain amount of force I can use to make or try to make a child do what I want him or her to do. There is the threat of a spanking, the withholding of a toy or video game, the ever present grounding.

On the other hand, there is also a point where the amount of force necessary to move to action has such negative repercussions it is not worth it. So, for example, normal people would not use a gun to try to move another adult to action. And there is a point where our children get so far into life that we cannot spank any more.

In short, there is a time when the right thing to do is to lose. If it takes a gun for force to work with other normal people, it's time to lose. Too many parents don't get that they must increasingly give autonomy to their teenagers--they're too used to the easier use of force in childhood--and they win a few battles but ultimately lose their children. If we have not managed to build a certain character into our children by a certain point, long after force works, then we have lost.

But all of this is of course a parable for more than parenting. I am really talking about the limited value of using force to achieve objectives. For whatever reason, much of our culture is oriented around the use of force to achieve our objectives as well as to punish for wrongdoing. I am not a pacifist, nor am I against consequences for wrongdoing. But force and punishment are not ends to themselves. They are very effective in the short term, and very ineffective in the long term.

We might force certain foreigners to act a certain way. But if we have not changed their attitudes, then we have only postponed the problem to the time when we are not able to reach or enforce our will. Building walls between America and Mexico or Israel and the Palestinians might have some value in the short term, but it represents failure if we can't quickly bring them back down. It was easy to bring down Hussein by force, but force cannot win the peace of Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia.

And Palestinians like Hamas will not win statehood by force. Force might get someone else's attention, but they will fail unless they learn how to make peace as well.

Here is wisdom. There is a time to admit that you cannot win by force. We cannot morally kill all Iraqis. Indeed, in the aftermath of Bosnia, Rwanda, civil wars in Sierra Leone and Somalia, it has been impossible even to bring to justice every individual who has committed an atrocious act--in some cases almost no one would be left if everyone who deserved punishment were punished.

There is a time to lose. This is one of the lessons of parenting that is so hard but so crucial. Something in the American heart wants consequences no matter what. We might be willing to reneg on punishment if repentance occurs. But there is a time to lose even when there is no repentance--because you are thinking of the long term. You are losing the battle so you can win the war, rather than winning the battle and losing the war.

I am not advocating for withdrawal from Iraq. I'm arguing for a major paradigm shift in our foreign policy, indeed in many, many areas. Kingdom building, they call it. Kerry called it having a plan to win the peace. I'm not sure that Kerry would have made much of a president, but he was right on with this comment.

It is empowerment of the weak and true "correction" of the criminal. No one said these things were easy. Force is initially easy--and thus is the first recourse for those who are not up to the bigger challenge. "It's their own fault." Yes it is. But it is foolishness to think it won't come back to bite us if we don't do something about it.

Of course there is simply no debate that a Christian will be concerned with poverty. I'm not even going to argue that one. But poverty is something an atheist should be concerned about, not because of values but consequences. That person without resources is going to be far more likely to do crime, to get into drugs, etc... Whether we like it or not, their problem is our problem too.

While some of the terrorists are spoiled brats like bin Laden, I bet you anything that most suicide bombers are dirt poor (not literally, Wesleyans don't bet). The fundamentalist Muslim problem has something to do with economics too. Just look at our most prosperous churches--neither a fat Christian nor a fat Muslim is bound to be very fanatical in their faith.

Make "no child left behind" about educating children from the inside out rather than by holding a stick over school administrators if they don't get "results."

There is a wholesale paradigm shift I am advocating here, a shift toward wisdom and real understanding. It is not "liberal nonsense"--there is a time for force, in my opinion. This is balanced wisdom that can see the long term consequences of short term solutions.

12 comments:

Jake Hogan said...

Dr. Schenck,

You're a smart man and a bad Republican.... interesting combination, don't you think?

S.I. said...

Ken,

I'm fat and I'm fanatatical, so HA!

(nobody latch onto that because I'm kidding.)

::athada:: said...

And before we start dancin' on Zarqawi's grave, let's not forget that about half of the New Testament was written by a converted terrorist. As Shane Claiborne says, "An extremist for hate made into an extremist for love." I hope at some church in America this week, people are praying for Zarqawi's family...

YOU: "Just look at our most prosperous churches--neither a fat Christian nor a fat Muslim is bound to be very fanatical in their faith."
- Someone needs to compile a list of Scheck-isms. You have the best one-liners...

matthew said...

I was just reading Philemon and liked how Paul said "I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do" and later said "I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced"

Paul, as an Apostle, had every right to use 'force', but he appealed to Philemon on the 'basis of love'

Seemed to fit somewhat. Good post.

Ken Schenck said...

I think that's a great example, Matthew... better to develop in Philemon the right attitude rather than force him to it (although there is some pressure in sending a private message to be read in church in public :-) Sometimes Paul used as much force as he could, but ultimately (like with the lost letter to Corinth), he could not control what the church ultimately did.

Jake, to me it's very important to see that both political parties on various issues are likely more Christian than the other. I really don't see how you could argue that the Republican party is more Christ-like on issues of poverty and peace. But I think Republicans are better at justice and "tough love." :-)

Adam, although I don't go quite as far as you, Drury, and Kevin, I completely agree that the Bush administration doesn't understand the concept that "violence begets violence." The recent press on the Marines is an excellent example of what we should expect to take place in all wars. It cannot be stopped from happening. When we commit to war, we are implicitly saying that the cause outweighs the unstoppable wrongdoing and atrocities our own forces will commit.

Such War 101 concepts seem beyond anything Bush understood when he started this war--he really thought it was basically over when he declared mission accomplished well over 1000 days ago. I do think he's learned a few things--his rhetoric seems more nuanced now than it used to be. But don't expect me to congratulate him for figuring out things like this after the fact, when so many warned him from the beginning.

And for anyone who doesn't know Steph, she's as skinny as a rail.

matthew said...

Yes, it is interesting that the letter to Philemon was to be read in front of the church that met in his home

And also that he mentions what he could do as an Apostle...and that he is "confident" that Philemon will heed his advice.

Paul seems to be using the concept of "peace through strength" which is generally considered a republican slogan nowadays.

Seems Paul was a bit of a republicat :)

Aaron Perry said...

it would be neat to hear onesimus' take on it.

Dan said...

Is it possible to expect government to use anything other than force? Whether its democrats or republicans, I don't think they have even 25% of the responsibility in that respect.

I think the church is the most responsible vehicle God uses to accomplish peace in the world. And I don't mean some institutional stuffy bunch of westerners. I'm talking about the people on the ground, in the trenches, across the world, showing people the love of Christ. Governments will always act with force in an evil world. Not because force is evil, but because evil exists.

Of course God can use whatever means he wants. I trust that he allows this chaos for a reason and that somehow he will bring good out of it. He always has. This partly describes his sovereign will.

Two spheres, accomplishing two different goals. While its harder to make the goverments do what is right, every single Christan can make a difference in the life of someone else.

Ken Schenck said...

Daniel, there is a sense in which I didn't actually write this piece as a Christian. I mentioned at one point that I thought a Christian perspective would go even further. But in my mind, this might have been an op ed piece for a secular newspaper. The kingdom standard, as you suggest, is much higher! I wrote this from the perspective of the "other kingdom." I think it is foolish from a non-Christian perspective to try to accomplish everything by force.

Dan said...

Ahh...I am sorry. Okay, I am tracking with you now. I hope to be able to expand my writing to broader audiences one day as well. I have a long way to go. You're pieces have so much intent behind content..I could really learn a lot if I paid closer attention! (sigh)

Ken Schenck said...

Well, I don't have a broader audience... just a big mouth!

Keith Drury said...

I've been wondering how the rise of agressive Islamic fundamentalism quite willing to kill and be likked for god's sake...might ignote a rise of "finght fire with fire" Christian fundamentalism willing also to kill for God's sake... (though admittedly less willing to die). I have a hunch that the radical Moslem fundamentalism may trigger a similar brand of Christianity and the "moderates" who claim that these extreme groups twist the Koran or Bible will gradually be silenced?

The reason I'm thinking this is while going to sleep one night last week I listened to my tiny radio and heard John Hagee on an hour program basically calling for a holy war against Iran in the name of God... even suggesting we might have to "take them out" (there) before they take us out (here)... the rhetoric I've been hearing all along...

Anyway... I'm just wondering if "today's situation" will allow this radical war-like Crusader Christianty to(re)emerge... Hmmmmmmm...