Absolute Truth and Violence

Image by urban don via Flickr

Image by urban don via Flickr

A common argument today against Christianity is that believing that Jesus (or any other religious figure or religion) is the only way to God (See yesterday’s post) is “dangerous.” This claim actually has some justification, for it is undeniable that most of the butchery carried out throughout history has been done in the name of defending a god, a religion, a nation or an idea as an unquestionable absolute ideal. Religious absolutism has killed millions, no doubt. The admirable desire to bring an end to this insanity has led many academics to claim that, for the sake of the future of humanity, we must categorically reject all absolutistic claims, especially on religious matters.

I empathize deeply with this sentiment. At the same time, the reasoning behind it is flawed, on at least two accounts.

First, this kind of reasoning confuses the truth or falsity of a belief with its positive or negative consequences. Because a belief has tended to have certain negative consequences does not in and of itself tell us whether the belief is true or false. This point is especially relevant in light of the fact that people often act in ways that are inconsistent with the truths they proclaim, and nowhere is this more clearly the case than with Christianity.

This leads directly to a second point. I maintain that the Gospel message is the one and only absolute truth claim that could never result in bloodshed, if it was actually followed. If Christians followed Jesus’ teaching that his followers are to love and serve their enemies rather than kill them, no one in the whole of history would have ever been killed in Jesus’ name.

Every other religious or political or philosophical ideal one could ever hold as an absolute can (and probably will at some point) result in violence toward others. Sooner or later a person or tribe may deem it justifiable to kill others in order to advance, or defend, their absolute ideal. But the ideal of self-sacrificial love can never result in violence, for this absolute stipulates that its defenders must be willing to die rather than kill for the sake of the absolute.

If one’s religion is their highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance their religion will seem justified.

If one’s nation is the highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance their nation will feel justified.

If democracy is one’s highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance democracy will be justified.

If the American way of life is one’s highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend or advance the American way of life will feel justified.

Even if one’s own definition of truth and justice is held as the highest ideal, then at some point killing people to defend and advance this version of truth and justice will feel justified.

The only ideal that cannot result in violence is the ideal of self-sacrificial love. And since Jesus incarnated this ideal and told us to follow his example, I would argue that, far from being dangerous, holding to the absolute truth of Jesus is the only truly safe candidate for an absolute truth on the table.

The problem with those Christians throughout history who have supposedly “defended Jesus” with the sword is not that they believed Jesus was the only way. The problem is that they didn’t believe it enough.

Related Reading

Should churches have armed security guards?

Question: Recently (December, 2007) a security guard at New Life Church in Colorado Springs shot and apparently killed a man who was shooting people in the church parking lot. The pastor (Brady Boyd) hailed her as a “real hero.” Do you think churches should have armed security guards and do you think the pastor was…

Nations and Violence

In this video by The Work of the People, Greg shares why there is no such thing as a Christian nation. Nations are not the kind of things that turn the other cheek, love their enemies, or lay down their sword as Jesus commanded. They exist because they use the sword. Nations and violence go…

Why do some of Jesus’ parables depict God in violent ways?

Greg deals with the question of what it means that some of Jesus’ parables seem to depict God in violent terms. In addition to getting an answer to this question you’ll be treated to a window into Greg’s graceful way of moving through the world. Really classy. Enjoy!

The Source of Violence

When people think of violence, they think of physical violence. But the truth is that our actions are only violent because our hearts and minds are violent first. For this reason, Jesus emphasizes purging violence from our minds as much as from our physical behavior. In Matt 5:21-26, he reminds us of the OT command…

Voluntary Suffering and the Kingdom

In a post from two days ago, I wrote about the call to voluntary suffering for others as it is laid out in the New Testament. For the first three centuries of the church, Christians understood this call as they sought to follow Jesus’ example of forgoing the use of violence and expressing God’s self-sacrificial…

God’s Dream for the World

The future doesn’t yet exist—which is why it’s future instead of the present or past—this doesn’t mean I’m claiming the future is wide open. To the contrary, it’s very clear from Scripture that God has a great plan for the future, and this plan steers the course of history by setting limits on what can…