The hand of Saruman

In the mythsoc digest that came through last night, there’s a fascinating article by Jef Murray as part of the January 2008 issue of his Mystical Realms newsletter:

In the Lord of the Rings, all of Hobbiton was paralyzed by Saruman and just a few dozen of the Big Folk. Why? Because, after a few killings, everyone became too fearful to fight. They shut their doors and tried to blot out the bad stuff. The good folks locked themselves in, and those who had consented to evil were free to do as they pleased.

This is a whole lot of unpleasantness. Turning the other cheek is OK in theory, but if evil is real, and if we want to spare the “least of these” some of the vast suffering available for the dispensing, aren’t we obliged to kick up a fuss?

C. S. Lewis thought so. In his essay “Why I am not a Pacifist,” he methodically lays out the moral need to resist evil. Thomas Aquinas, likewise, helped to define what a “just war” was. And if a saint says we should defend the innocent, who am I to argue?

That feels right. But at the same time, as Jef mentions, we’ve got Christ telling us to turn the other cheek, effectively advocating a policy of non-violence.

So, where’s the line? Is it a personal rule? (Meaning, is it okay to resist evil if the victim is someone else, but not yourself? Is the line a circle around you, with unacceptable resistance inside and acceptable resistance outside?)

Or is it a matter of degree? If someone’s trying to kill you, turning the other cheek may or may not be the best idea. (And of course it depends on the situation.) But now that I’ve said that, I’m thinking back to the people in the Book of Mormon who knelt down on the ground and let the Lamanites slay them.

Then again, I don’t think that necessarily counts. The reason they didn’t even try to fight was that (1) they’d already been a very bloodthirsty people and (2) because of that, they’d taken a vow of non-violence to atone for what they’d already done. Most of us aren’t bloodthirsty and won’t have taken a vow like that because there’s not much if anything to atone for (in that regard).

Besides, the history of the Saints is chock-full of us defending ourselves from attackers, whether in the Book of Mormon or at Haun’s Mill or pretty much anywhere there’s been a covenant people.

If Jesus really meant non-resistance, then that’s what we ought to do, of course. But somehow I have a hard time believing he wants us to just throw up our hands and give up, flinging the door wide open for evil to come slaughter us both physically and spiritually.

Believe it or not, what all of this boils down to is the nature of hope. J.R.R. Tolkien described the Catholic worldview as a “long defeat”. That is, the Christian believes that things will continue getting worse and worse here on planet earth until the final days. But, that doesn’t mean we can just hole up and wait things out. There are plenty of Sarumans still out there, plenty of Slubgobs and Screwtapes. And they may win a lot of skirmishes over the next months and years and even centuries, but they’ve already lost the war.

Quite true. Holing up is not an option.

I don’t know where the line is between turning the other cheek and defending yourself and your family (any thoughts?), but generally speaking, the Spirit will let us know if we’re in the wrong. Let’s just hope we’re still in tune enough to notice it.

Great questions, really, and a loaded one at this point in our history. I think there’s only one person to point you to: Captain Moroni of the Title of Liberty fame. I think the Title itself gives a good guideline for when we need to come out of our doors and defend ourselves, our families, our nations, and our faith. Christ did turn the other cheek, but he also did not tolerate wickedness. I point to the incident in the temple, over-turning the tables of the money changers. He was defending that which was sacred, protecting His Father’s house.

I would apply turning the other cheek to someone who cuts you off in traffic, not someone taking away the liberties and free agency of others. But, as always, let the Spirit guide.

Ben,
Read over Nibley’s thoughts on war and his war experiences when you get the chance. You can find some in his authorized biography, A Consecrated Life. There also is a recently published book that I don’t know much about which is devoted entirely to that called, Sergeant Nibley, Ph.D.: Memories of an Unlikely Screaming Eagle.

I think you have to ask yourself if you believe in peace at any price or not. Are you going to become someone’s slave to have peace? or are you going to fight for your agency? I personally think that God has gone to a lot of trouble to allow us our agency and that we should fight to keep it, or to allow others to keep theirs.

Captain Moroni is my hero, so I absolutely love the title of liberty story. It also gives a list of things worth fighting for.

Loved the post, Ben. And the others’ comments.

I think an essential part of discerning when to turn the other cheek, in addition to the fundamental necessity of the Spirit’s guidance, is one’s motive/s. If I am striking back out of vengeance, I’m likely in the wrong. However, if I’m fighting back - be it verbally, physically, militarily, or otherwise - in order to right a wrong, or often to prevent future wrongs, or to defend those who need defense, chances of my being justified go up tremendously.

I agree with all the comments so far, and the only thing I can thing to add is a warning against apathy and fear. Sometimes people have a tendency to let themselves get their agency taken away or abused because they think they’re “turning the other cheek,” but really, their using that clause from the Savior’s teachings as an excuse to give in to their apathy or fear. That’s what Jef Murray was talking about with Saruman and the hobbits. They were just too lazy or too afraid to fight back.
This applies to us both with physical violence and with spiritual temptation. It can even apply to us when it comes to public policy or government. But in the end, as always, let the Spirit be your guide.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. It is always right to fight evil. There’s no way out of the fact that we’re in a war. The question then becomes what means one should use to fight. There is no such thing as “passive” resistance. Even Gandhi, the champion of non-violence, very much advocated active resistance. He intentionally and blatantly defied unjust laws.

Sometimes, the best way to fight evil is turning the other cheek (example: walking away from someone who wants to Bible bash). And I don’t think there’s any relationship, personal or professional, that will survive without some turning of cheeks. But, like Sally said, that doesn’t apply to every circumstance.

I respect the Lamanites who refused to fight, but it wasn’t right for them to be slaughtered either. God told Ammon to get them to Jershon where the Nephites protected them. And, though they didn’t participate directly in war, they actively supported their brethren. They provided many supplies for the Nephite armies.

Let’s consider Nazi Germany. Should every young mother have openly fought against Hitler? Maybe the correct response is to quietly teach your children correctly and setting an example of charity without going out of your way to make a statement and endanger your life and your family’s lives. But what happens if everyone takes that course? Holocaust. Like Ben said, the important thing is following the Spirit, because it can be easy to use personal circumstances as an excuse not to fight when you really should. I wouldn’t condemn the mother who made a choice to protect her children, but I’m still not sure that’s the right choice. Somebody has to fight or those children aren’t going to have a world worth living in.

Simply fighting isn’t enough. We have to be wise in how we fight evil. Getting killed because you made a stupid decision doesn’t serve God. Being willing to die if it’s right is essential. Likewise, getting fired because you said something stupid doesn’t serve God. But being willing to lose your job if it’s right is essential.

There’s a reason you can argue for or against war based on the scriptures. It’s because both can be right. But when war isn’t right, action still is. There were three responses to the Gadianton Robbers. One was to support them, one was to exterminate them and one was to preach the gospel to them until they repented. God knows when people will repent and when the only option is to resist with weapons.

Great post and great comments!

If someone comes after me I have every right to either defend myself or turn the other cheek. On the other hand, if someone comes after my family I do not have the right to turn their cheeks. I have an obligation to defend them. Of course, I don’t have my own family, but whatever. I think this extends beyond family though. I think we have an obligation to our neighbors too. This is why I believe it’s just to tax for military protection: we all have the obligation to protect each other. This can be taken too far though to have to provide everything for everyone. We certainly aren’t obligated to do that, but basic rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence? Certainly.

Great comments, everyone. Now we just need somebody to disagree… :P

I think the bigger problem comes in defining what is Good and what is Bad, and when someone is Right and when someone is Wrong. And then convincing a person who believes that they’re Right that they’re really Wrong.

So we start doing that…and pretty quick we find that one group can agree (mostly) on one set of definitions for these binary sides. But then another group has the audacity to go through the same process and come up with some conflicting definitions. So now, on principle, these two sides have to combat each other because each side has to “stand up for”, “defend”, or “fight for” what is right in their world-view.

What we wind up having is not a Good v. Evil fight, but human beings in conflict because they think/feel/believe differently. Both sides are fighting for Good while their opponents are fighting for Evil (or at least Not Good or Less-Than Good). In this light, I think the conflicts resulting from the debates over immigration, gay rights/marriage, abortion, religion, and even terrorism make much more sense. I can almost assure you that “the terrorists” don’t get together to say “Blood and plague, brethren! How can we destroy this world and promote the reign of our Dark Lord, Satan, this day?” but probably more along the lines of “How can we combat these imperialist forces that seek to enslave our people and infect them with their secular vices? We must fight back so that we can preserve our values and redeem our people to God.” Now we “imperialist forces” might beg to differ on those views, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is what they think (hypothetically speaking).

The problem becomes vastly more complex than good people doing nothing. In many cases, it’s because the people who see themselves as forces of good insisting on doing something that a problem even exists. It’s easy to identify what needs to happen or should have happened in Tolkien’s world (or in most books) because they are generally worlds built around objective, moral absolutes with almost strictly binary answers (this doesn’t mean I don’t like the books, I adore them). I would submit that a lot (not all) of our problems today are not of the binary Sauron/Saruman v. Middle Earth types, but of the more subtle conflicts arising from subjective ideals and some moral relativity.

There is no Sauron, in the same sense as in Tolkien’s world. Satan might be compared to Sauron (and extended to Saruman), but the key difference is that they had physical existence in that world, which means they could be fought. Even Sauron’s non-corporeal form could be pursued and hunted. Our Sauron comes more in the form of ideals than an actual being (Satan in Tolkien’s world perhaps being more like the ideal Sauron represented, or maybe, maybe, Morgoth).

But while the existence or accurate representation of Sauron can be easily debated, I would submit that there is most definitely no Ring. There is no Thing, or series of Things, any mortal or group of mortals can do that will undo the essence of our Sauron. For us, he is here to stay and there is nothing we can do about that.

Thus I think the ultimate answer lies not in standing up and doing something, but in finding ways that we can live with each other despite our differences of belief. To some extent, in “living with the enemy”, but with both sides having a respect the other (even if it is a little grudging). It’s not for us to make the final call about what is Good and Evil, that can only rest in the hands of the Almighty. Because even if we do try to make that call, “the others” are still going to be here because we have to authority. This doesn’t mean we won’t ever or have to or should never make some of those types of calls, but it does mean that whenever we do (whether in an attempt to right a wrong or in the futile pursuit of homogenizing a heterogeneous mixture), that there will be conflict (which I think is good, to an extent).

Basically, the only real way I think one can “stand up” for something is to live that something yourself and let others do the same. If what you believe or feel is right really is, others seeking right should be able to see it in you and will want to emulate it. If not…well it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong, but does mean someone disagrees. Obviously there are going to be times when we have to step outside of that on behalf of others or because of some other extenuating circumstance, but I think that needs to be a very rare occurrence (and in theory, if everyone acted as thus, those cases would be very rare, but as I said about homogenizing a heterogeneous mixture…). But most of the time “standing up” for something just escalates a conflict to the point where there can be no solution, and that can be just as bad (and even worse) than having one side sort of run rough-shod over the other. I think that’s the point the Saviour was trying to get across.

So stand up if you really think you must, but be ready to sit back down and never lose your head in it (to the point of being unable to seek a compromise or solution with the other party). Because if you do, no matter what happens next, you lost.

Good points. We do need to defend and protect ourselves (and our families and communities), but then again there aren’t that many attacks, so perhaps it really is a “very rare occurrence.” Interesting.