
I have been watching superhero movies since I was a kid. From Japanese-inspired animation such as Giant Robot and Ultraman to the very pro-American Superman. I even watched the 1950s Superman simply to see…Superman! Although everything looked fake and old, I just wanted to see his regal power and authority cast a shadow over criminals. Superheroes tend to show up in film…well…when we need them. During a time when it seems like our politicians are lost and our weapons seem powerless to stop an opposing threat, super human people in films are our drug of choice designed to relieve our stress about a world doomed for oblivion. I don’t think its any accident that superhero movies have proliferated in the last 10 years. (Anyone remember September 11?) The first Superman movies showed up in the late 70s and early 80s along with Star Wars. What were the issues then? A growing nuclear contention between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1981. Although Rocky Balboa is not a superhero, he defeated Ivan Drago the Russian in Rocky 4 in 1985. Come on, we know that this boxing movie was symbolic of the frosty relations of the USA and Russia. (So was the US vs. Russia hockey games. I don’t even like hockey but I watched these games because I wanted to see the Russians lose).
There are two enduring myths in American culture: the superhero and the outlaw. The superhero represents our desire to be selfless and sacrificial and create a perfect world free from fear and anxiety. (Men, we get the girl. Just remember, many women consider this to be sexist.) The outlaw represents the antithesis of the superhero: selfish, needy and greedy. Both are symbolized in Superman and Jesse James: the good guy and the bad boy motifs. By the way, who killed Jesse James? Most of us don’t even know but we know who Jesse James is. In 2007, a movie was made about Jesse James’ assassin, Robert Ford, but it cast him as a coward. Sometimes these two myths combine in trilogies like Rocky, The Matrix and the X-Men. It’s the outsider who moves toward mainstream acceptance (except for Wolverine. He is just a perpetual outsider.)
Most of these superhero movies present an idyllic world where most humans don’t die…well, except for a few. Even in the two Transformers movies, no matter how much the robots fight, humans were always in the exact right place when one of those huge chunks of alien metal fell to the ground. What a world to live in!! Although this world seems to save a superhero to fix everything, there is one thing they never fix: the buildings, vehicles and roads they tear up while fighting. I wonder what a bill to Optimus Prime would look like after all the damage they did fighting the Deceptacons? What would our taxes be like because of cleaning up their mess? But aren’t the violent on our behalf? I guess it’s a small price to pay to save the world, right?
Violence as a Lifestyle
One of the presuppositions that are implicit in all these action movies is the acceptance of violence as the ONLY solution. I see this play itself out among American youth and adults. Recently, my wife and I were coming home from dinner at night and we saw two teen girls fighting on our block. I thought they were playing. But as I heard the squeals and shouts of the other kids, I knew it was real. I jumped out my van and headed towards the conflict. There were other adults there to stop the melee so I did not get involved. Based on what I heard, it was all over words. As we know the tongue has the power to bless or curse. On the one end, you have Christians who believe in the power of words so much that they can ask God for any material blessing and receive it. On the opposite end, you have young people who also believe in the power of words so much that they will hurt you if they don’t like what you have to say. Tell me, is there really a difference between the two?
Anyway, the Bible is not devoid of conflict. Neither is life. So how does one navigate around the idolatry of materialism and violence?
First of all, these sins are not new. The Old Testament reveals them both through the gods of the pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites. There was child sacrifice (Leviticus 8:21) and religious prostitution (Rahab). I would call these forms of violence that are begat by a lifestyle and spiritual acceptance of violence. When you research many near Eastern gods, you will find that the creation of the world was a violent act. Something had to die in order for something to live. But it all seems petty, vengeful and self-perpetual: this becomes the example for others to follow. Although Jesus Christ did die for the sins of the world, it was not a selfish act. We enter into his sufferings but we do not have to die on the cross. Jesus willingly died to fulfill his destiny. This is in stark contrast between the struggle between Tiamat and Marduk in Babylonian mythology. Only the strong will survive. God constantly steered Israel clear of this kind of spiritual acceptance of violence. In Genesis, Ccreation represents the creative genius of Yahweh intentionally creating the world for humans, animals and vegetation to thrive. Although God made order out of chaos, chaos is not represented as an entity that challenged God’s sovereignty. Chaos is simply the absence of hierarchical order.
The end result of this kind of lifestyle violence is God’s judgment. God judged the people of Noah’s day because of their wickedness (Genesis 6:5-6) and brought on the Flood. God judged the Canaanites for their wickedness (Leviticus 18:24-30) as well. But why did God spare the Israelites? Well, he didn’t. God gave very clear laws that spelled out the penalty for becoming like the surrounding nations: death. In Psalm 11, God says he hates those who love violence. In the Book of Proverbs, a fool is also depicted as violent and the righteous man is self controlled and not quick to quarrel. The judgement that comes down may sound harsh but a close look shows that God had the same standard for his chosen people. God made good on his promises when the Israelites did not keep the covenant such as the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16:1-50 (more than 14,000 died), Achan’s sin in Joshua 7 (Achan and his whole family died), the men of Beth Shemesh in 1 Samuel 6:19 (70 of them died) and many more. Wickedness is a form of extreme rebellion that basically thumbs its nose at God’s sacred creation and at God Himself. So, although man is sinful by nature, we are all still made in God’s image. But when we begin to live a life that is a total disrespect for what God created, we offend God. The body and soul are sacred because God created it and breathed his essence into it. This is where a lifestyle of violence thrives: first, believe that the other is not human. Second, treat them like they are not human. Third, make decisions that remind this person they are not human. This is one reason why I believe slavery in the Bible is different from American slavery. Although I am not justifying the former, American slavery did not view Africans as human. Therefore, they were at the mercy of their slave master and this produced rape, maiming, castration and death. Slaves in the Bible had some rights.
Although these Old Testament stories still cause some consternation in me, we can also conclude that God is serious about his covenant and the holiness of his people.
What Would Dirk Willems Do?
We all know the famous drawing of Anabaptist Dirk Willems rescuing his pursuer. Dirk was escaping from prison where he was confined on the charge of his Anabaptist beliefs, rebaptism of himself and others. The established Catholic and Protestant churches believed in infant baptism. This drawing is the shot (no pun intended) heard around the Anabaptist world. This drawing serves as a historical visual symbol of the Anabaptist focus on ‘loving your enemy’ and peace education efforts. However, here are a few questions I am going to raise in relation to Anabaptist theology from an urban perspective:
1. Absence of Conflict
Much of the Mennonite example of peace education I saw was to avoid and abstain from conflict. Although this has some merit especially on trivial matters, it carries little weight in more complex matters. If Dirk wanted to avoid conflict, shouldn’t he have stayed in prison?
2. Loving Your Enemies
American Christians find this a tough concept to follow and I would submit to say we do not do this very well. But does loving your enemies mean liking them? I don’t get the impression that Jesus liked the Pharisees (for what they represented) very much or that Apostle Paul liked the ‘super apostles.’ If Dirk knew that his pursuer had the possibility of living, would he have returned?
3. Self Defense?
I have not heard much talk about the ethic of Self-Defense in Mennonite circles. (If I missed out on this discussion, please enlighten me.) But I live in a place where many forms of violence are common. I have a difficult time listening to people tell me about physical confrontation who do not live with the risk of it (in an American urban context). Can self-defense be separate from a lifestyle and spiritual acceptance of violence? If we look at it in verbal terms, Peter, John and Paul provided some form of defense of what they represented. Although they did not use physical confrontation to advance their cause, sometimes they asked God to respond to physical confrontation. The Holy Spirit through the early disciples confronted supernatural powers that were manifesting in the physical and spiritual realms through exorcisms and healings. But there were times where wisdom and discernment came into play. One example is when Jesus hid because the Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy (John 8:58-59). Much of the violence experienced by Jesus and the apostles was mob violence and violence sanctioned by the prevailing laws of their day. This is the kind of violence that fits with my idea of a lifestyle and spiritual acceptance of violence. Although individuals can hold this view, it can lose power when exercised by persons because there is a higher risk of force being matched with equal or greater force. This is one reason why those who are fans of this type of violence tend to target those who cannot counterbalance their physical force: big vs. small (bully), man vs. woman (rape), rich vs. poor (class), loud vs. soft (culture), adults vs. children (abduction), etc. It’s an intentional pre-meditated kind of physical confrontation. As a result, this means that those of us who fall in this category must be wise as serprents and harmless as doves. Although this can cause anxiety, developing a sense of God’s presence and care of us gives us courage even when it means we may be physically hurt.
I am not making the case to use self-defense as the first and only option. We can call on to the Holy Spirit to intervene in our confrontations. Jesus, Peter and Paul’s defense of their actions was a response to hostility, confusion, apathy and spiritual dullness. They experienced physical confrontation BUT did not let that stop them from what God called them to. Can a Christian understanding of self-defense (physical and verbal confrontation) produce a righteous response?
What are your thoughts?