Ryan Rodrick Beiler: Turning a Robber onto Wine
This story in today's Washington Post made my day. As a pacifist Mennonite, I can't count the number of times someone has posed "The Question": If someone had a gun to your loved one's head, and you could use lethal violence to save them, what would you do? This scenario that unfolded in a D.C. backyard doesn't fit that exact hypothetical scene in every detail, but it does help point out the absurdity of it—what are the chances that reacting violently in such a situation is guaranteed to save your loved one and only hurt or kill the "bad guy"?
At the very least, true stories like this one remind us that violence is never our only option:
A grand feast of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp was winding down, and a group of friends was sitting on the back patio of a Capitol Hill home, sipping red wine. Suddenly, a hooded man slid in through an open gate and put the barrel of a handgun to the head of a 14-year-old guest."Give me your money, or I'll start shooting," he demanded, according to D.C. police and witness accounts.
The five other guests, including the girls' parents, froze—and then one spoke.
"We were just finishing dinner," Cristina "Cha Cha" Rowan, 43, blurted out. "Why don't you have a glass of wine with us?"
The intruder took a sip of their Chateau Malescot St-Exupéry and said, "Damn, that's good wine."
The girl's father, Michael Rabdau, 51, who described the harrowing evening in an interview, told the intruder, described as being in his 20s, to take the whole glass. Rowan offered him the bottle. The would-be robber, his hood now down, took another sip and had a bite of Camembert cheese that was on the table.
Then he tucked the gun into the pocket of his nylon sweatpants. ...
"I'm sorry," he told the group. "Can I get a hug?"
Of course, this story (and please, read the whole thing) is ripe with indirect biblical allusions—though the article makes no mention of any spiritual or philosophical motivations for anyone's actions. And of course, there's every possibility that in spite of a nonviolent response, it or similar situations might not have ended as happily—but Jesus never promised as much when he taught us to love our enemies and bless them. In fact, he promised the opposite. Still, it's beautiful when turning the other cheek, giving your shirt, and going the extra mile have the intended effect: confronting our enemies with our humanity—and their own.
Though theological arguments aside, I suppose another moral of the story could be, quite simply: In case of armed robbers, always have a bottle of good wine handy.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank You Ryan!
Yes, it doesn't always work out that way, immediately. Yet, Jesus has a real insightful approach, doesn't he?
Posted by: Deryll | July 13, 2007 4:08 PM
That's a great story, thanks for sharing it. It reminded me of the big news story a year or so ago (I think it was down south somewhere) when a man who had just murdered someone ran to a woman's house and took her hostage. But over the course of the time they spent there she talked to him about her faith and Jesus' love for him and he turned himself in to the police. I would hope I'd have the peace of mind be able to do the same.
Posted by: Eric | July 13, 2007 4:13 PM
No, this doesn't make "the question" absurd -- the robber could have just as easily turned down the wine and then you're right back where you started. And perhaps the guest, on an instinctive level, realized this guy was bluffing. As things stand we have no idea whether or not the gun was loaded.
But yes, when confronted with threats it's always good to stay calm and look at all your options, including the nonviolent ones. Good thinking gang.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 13, 2007 4:25 PM
When I was 18 I hitched hiked around the country . Coming out of Charleston SC I encoutered a tall man carring what appeared to be a pipe off a muffler . He requested my money , and I told him all I had was one dollar . He said he wanted it and give it up or else he hit me . I told him , " I did not want to live in a wold where someone would kill another for one dollar" His eyes were red anyway , but they appeared to become purple with rage .
I walked away and he flung the pipe at me and missed , at this time people started poling their heads out of their establishments and apartments just watching this all unfold .
Interesting to note it was a Sunday morning and their were church bells in the distance .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 13, 2007 4:27 PM
what are the chances that reacting violently in such a situation is guaranteed to save your loved one and only hurt or kill the "bad guy"?
--What are the chances that being nice to would-be murderers is guaranteed to save your loved one? A degree of uncertainty is attached to both scenarios, but real life stories of people who have successfully defended themselves and others abound while the one you cite is very uncommon (which is why it made the news).
At the very least, true stories like this one remind us that violence is never our only option:
--Yes, and sometimes getting killed or watching others get killed as a result of our non-violence is an option.
Nice story, though!
Posted by: jesse | July 13, 2007 5:39 PM
"Yes, and sometimes getting killed or watching others get killed as a result of our non-violence is an option."
But how do we know going into a situation that a violent option wouldn't end up getting us or others killed? There's no guarantee of a positive resolution with either violent or non-violent responses in cases like this.
That said, it appears in this case that the offer of a glass of wine disarmed the opponent as effectively as other means did.
But Ryan, you end your story with the admonishment that we all should keep a bottle of "good wine" handy. I've never tasted Malescot St-Exupéry, and I'm sure I couldn't afford it!
;-)
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 13, 2007 5:48 PM
Well, I should have written, ...it appears in this case that the offer of a glass of wine disarmed the opponent as effectively as other means MIGHT.
D
Posted by: Don | July 13, 2007 5:49 PM
Don,
We don't know if the "gunman" was really armed. We have no idea whether or not the gun was loaded.
Maybe they managed to warm-fuzzy their way out of a dangerous confrontation with a gunman. And maybe all they were dealing with was a scared, kid who was bluffing the whole time.
Like I said before, the guest who offered the wine is to be congratulated for lateral thinking that defused a very bad situation, and all of the guests deserve credit for staying calm. But if anyone thinks this proves the absurdity of self-defense, they really need to think through all the possibilities.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 14, 2007 11:45 AM
"But if anyone thinks this proves the absurdity of self-defense, they really need to think through all the possibilities"
Wolverine, did I say that self-defense was absurd? Please don't put words in my mouth. I only said there's no guarantee of a positive resolution whichever possible method we choose. That's all I said.
D
Posted by: Don | July 14, 2007 12:15 PM
Ah, the calming effects of wine. Why not have Tequila Jello shots on hand - they work quicker!
Posted by: rk | July 14, 2007 2:02 PM
Don,
Fair point: the "absurdity" reference was in the original article, not any of your posts.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 14, 2007 2:36 PM
"Yes, and sometimes getting killed or watching others get killed as a result of our non-violence is an option."
Isn't that what our Savior did?
Posted by: Rachel | July 14, 2007 10:35 PM
Rachel,
A non sequitur. We have no evidence of what Jesus did, or didn't do if others around him faced the possibility of violence. Those who say that the use of force is never a proper response to potential violence are just as wrong as those who say it always is.
I suspect that I have faced more real and potential violence than most if not all of those posting here, and I find these simplistic platitudes nothing short of nausiating.
cheers, Paul
Posted by: paul | July 15, 2007 12:25 PM
"Isn't that what our Savior did?"
He didn't watch people get killed. Neither did he himself get killed for the purpose of showing the absurdity of violence. He died for our sin, and to give us the gift of grace.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 15, 2007 10:21 PM
[Neither did he himself get killed for the purpose of showing the absurdity of violence. He died for our sin, and to give us the gift of grace.]
No, Kevin, one thing he was doing was showing the absurdity of violence. And even if you refuse to see that; you have to admit that he gave us strict instructions to not use violence.
Posted by: Deryll | July 16, 2007 2:23 PM
Deryll,
Sorry Deryll, if Jesus stance on the use of force was as clear and catagorical as you claim, then Simon Peter would not have been armed, nor acted the way he did in the garden. How many people could spend 3 minutes, much less 3 years following sojourners teachings and act that way? Did Jesus respond to the excesses he saw, certainly, but the Sojourners caracature of Jesus bears little resemblance to the real one.
cheers, Paul
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2007 12:20 PM
An old saying: "Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword".
Another saying comes to mind, concerning the episode in question: "In vino veritas".
Violence breeds violence, another saying.
But I say: I would act more like apostle Peter who cut the Roman's ear (and Roman soldiers were well armed ans trained), when he tried to take his Master. Jesus asked then for peace and put back the Roman's ear - there was a greater Work to achieve.
Jesus never ignored the defense of the weak when abused by the stronger.
Should I not defend my children from violence if they are at stake? os my friends? This is not simple.
I myself have been held at gunpoint by a soldier in Africa who thought himself powerful because of a gun. Things were so difficult then that I forgot to be afraid and talked to the chap. My luck! In the end, he said he was "protecting me".
I believe Someone was.
Posted by: Eillenna | July 18, 2007 11:46 AM
Does anyone else after reading the article find it interesting that the would be robber said "I think I may have come to the wrong house,". So if he had arrived at the 'correct house' what would he have done. I see nothing about a police report being filed so we will never know if he ever found the correct house - nor have they warned the police about this person. I believe that this story is right up there with Charlie finding the Golden Ticket or a Frog becoming a Prince. (although the currect Prince of Wales might be a good argument that it could happen - just kidding) Little contrived - nice story.
Have a great day - Caviar Dreams and Champane Wishes.
.
Posted by: moderatelad | July 18, 2007 4:16 PM
As someone who considers myself a pacifist, I often feel frustrated that the conversation revolves around how we *react* to threats rather than whether we in some way cause violence. A true pacifist works to prevent violence and war, often by addressing the root causes. I don't have any problem with the idea that I might need to kill a burglar in order to save my child, and that doesn't make me any less of a pacifist. What would make me less of a pacifist is if I turn a blind eye to government policies or even my own shopping habits that result in violence and death elsewhere in the world.
The story of Jesus healing His enemy's ear is one of the most powerful testimonies to nonviolence in the Bible. Nowhere does He condemn Peter for striking the soldier in His defense. But by healing the ear, He is showing that loving he who would kill Him is greater than violence. Yes, in the immediate moment we may prayerfully have to use violence to protect ourselves, but we must be open to the fact that often there are other options. And yes, when you're confronted with a life-threatening situation a prayer can take only a nanosecond and yield more insight than a day of fasting.
Posted by: Peter | July 19, 2007 5:27 PM
Paul,
Jesus was clearly showing his disciples the absurdity of violence in problem solving when he asked (before the left the upper room) "DOES ANYONE HAVE A SWORD ALONG"?. (they had 2) Jesus definitely knew what was going on in Peter's head, and literally INVITES him to take a sword along to show the futility of violence. Picture Peter having NO Sword at Jesus arrest! He would have always regretted not being able to "defend" his beloved Lord. Can Jesus lesson to us be any clearer that that act of foreknowledge?
Jesus response was to "heal" Peter's desperate human attempt to protect his Lord. Lewis
Posted by: Lewis Overholt | July 20, 2007 9:18 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?