What do you think?
Rate this book
What Would You Do?
What would you do if someone attacked your grandmother, wife, daughter (or grandfather, husband, son)? Yoder explores the pros and cons of a nonviolent response. Expanded edition, 148 pages.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
13 people are currently reading
188 people want to read
About the author
John Howard Yoder
119 books69 followersYoder was a Christian theologian, ethicist, and Biblical scholar best known for his radical Christian pacifism, his mentoring of future theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas, his loyalty to his Mennonite faith, and his 1972 magnum opus, "The Politics of Jesus".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
November 10, 2024
John Howard Yoder is a Christian ethicist who's a big proponent of Christian pacifism. The first question a pacifist gets asked is, "What would you do if someone broke into your home and was going to kill your wife/daughter/mother?" Yoder argues that this example is distinct from violence in war in many ways; in war, we are uncertain that the violence we use will bring about peace, we may not be defending someone innocent, and the violence is on a large scale and will certainly result in the deaths of innocent people.
Yoder argues from a distinctly Christian perspective that we can't love our enemies when we kill them. This is a pretty straightforward biblical argument: turn the other cheek, love those who persecute you, the crucifixion itself, etc. Yoder also points out that faith in God requires us to trust that if we follow his commands, good things can and do happen. The third part of the book is a collection of stories of people who have tried creative acts of nonviolence when they were in danger and were surprised at how effective they were. Violence, on the other hand, is a destructive, prideful act, degrading the dignity of the offender and implying that we can trust our own power over God's.
There's no guarantee that peace and nonviolence will bring about the right consequences, at least not immediately. Any pacifist has to accept that martyrdom is a possibility, but of course, there's a long tradition of Christians embracing martyrdom, going back to the cross itself.
Ultimately, I'm not sure if I am a pacifist. It's not exactly the most relevant moral question for me, as I am rarely facing violence. Regardless, I think this book pushes me in that direction; once you give up violence as an option, you're forced to think creatively about ways to solve problems in ways that respect the humanity of everyone involved, including the offender. I def think the burden of proof is on any Christian proponent of violence, seems extremely difficult to justify.
Quotes
But Jesus goes well beyond this kind of moral superiority. In his own life and career and in his instructions to his disciples, the enemy becomes a privileged object of love. We confess that the God who has worked out our reconciliation in Christ is a God who loves his enemies at the cost of his own suffering. Hence, we are to love our enemies beyond the extent of our capacity to be a good influence on them or to call forth a reciprocal love from them. In other ethical systems, the "neighbor" may well be dealt with as an object of our obligation to love. But Jesus goes further and makes of our relation to the adversary the special test of whether the love we have is derived from the love of God.”
The real temptation of "good" people like us is not the crude, the crass, and the carnal. The really refined temptation, with which Jesus himself was tried, is that of egocentric altruism. It is to claim oneself to be the incarnation of a good and righteous cause for which others may rightly be made to suffer. It is stating one's self-justification in the form of a duty to others
"Where people take their place in this self-movement of the Gospel, there opens, usually by surprise, a door by which they can get on in their earthly life. To be sure most of the time this door is only visible in the last moment. One must have enough faith to run against a door-less wall up to the last centimeter, in the certain hope that God who leads one in this way will not allow his people to break their heads. . . . More than once we have believed ourselves to be finished. . . . Then in the last minute God stepped in and made it clear to us, so clear that we were ashamed of ourselves, so that he only needs to move a little finger to make things come out quite otherwise than we could have foreseen."
That is not speculative, logical, ethical theory; it is testimony with living experience to illustrate it.
Yoder argues from a distinctly Christian perspective that we can't love our enemies when we kill them. This is a pretty straightforward biblical argument: turn the other cheek, love those who persecute you, the crucifixion itself, etc. Yoder also points out that faith in God requires us to trust that if we follow his commands, good things can and do happen. The third part of the book is a collection of stories of people who have tried creative acts of nonviolence when they were in danger and were surprised at how effective they were. Violence, on the other hand, is a destructive, prideful act, degrading the dignity of the offender and implying that we can trust our own power over God's.
There's no guarantee that peace and nonviolence will bring about the right consequences, at least not immediately. Any pacifist has to accept that martyrdom is a possibility, but of course, there's a long tradition of Christians embracing martyrdom, going back to the cross itself.
Ultimately, I'm not sure if I am a pacifist. It's not exactly the most relevant moral question for me, as I am rarely facing violence. Regardless, I think this book pushes me in that direction; once you give up violence as an option, you're forced to think creatively about ways to solve problems in ways that respect the humanity of everyone involved, including the offender. I def think the burden of proof is on any Christian proponent of violence, seems extremely difficult to justify.
Quotes
But Jesus goes well beyond this kind of moral superiority. In his own life and career and in his instructions to his disciples, the enemy becomes a privileged object of love. We confess that the God who has worked out our reconciliation in Christ is a God who loves his enemies at the cost of his own suffering. Hence, we are to love our enemies beyond the extent of our capacity to be a good influence on them or to call forth a reciprocal love from them. In other ethical systems, the "neighbor" may well be dealt with as an object of our obligation to love. But Jesus goes further and makes of our relation to the adversary the special test of whether the love we have is derived from the love of God.”
The real temptation of "good" people like us is not the crude, the crass, and the carnal. The really refined temptation, with which Jesus himself was tried, is that of egocentric altruism. It is to claim oneself to be the incarnation of a good and righteous cause for which others may rightly be made to suffer. It is stating one's self-justification in the form of a duty to others
"Where people take their place in this self-movement of the Gospel, there opens, usually by surprise, a door by which they can get on in their earthly life. To be sure most of the time this door is only visible in the last moment. One must have enough faith to run against a door-less wall up to the last centimeter, in the certain hope that God who leads one in this way will not allow his people to break their heads. . . . More than once we have believed ourselves to be finished. . . . Then in the last minute God stepped in and made it clear to us, so clear that we were ashamed of ourselves, so that he only needs to move a little finger to make things come out quite otherwise than we could have foreseen."
That is not speculative, logical, ethical theory; it is testimony with living experience to illustrate it.
January 2, 2009
Not every Christian is a pacifist but it is hard to disagree with pacifism on moral grounds. Mostly people point to how impractical pacifism is in the face of real evil. Often people argue against pacifism by pointing to the position's so called Achilles heel, "What if some one attacked your wife/child/family/loved one?"
John Howard Yoder, the late Mennonite theologian wrote this book to answer that question. In part 1 he gives his own reasoned answer to this question. His answer illustrates the way this particular question over simplifies the issue and demands a deterministic response (i.e. violence is the only way to stop violence)In part 2 other pacifists give their answer to the question. Part 3 presents anecdotes from various sources of how the non-violent response actually worked to quell violence.
This was a very good and accessible response to the issue from an intelligent pacifist perspective. It is simple and certainly not Yoder's best or most creative work. But it certainly was good.
John Howard Yoder, the late Mennonite theologian wrote this book to answer that question. In part 1 he gives his own reasoned answer to this question. His answer illustrates the way this particular question over simplifies the issue and demands a deterministic response (i.e. violence is the only way to stop violence)In part 2 other pacifists give their answer to the question. Part 3 presents anecdotes from various sources of how the non-violent response actually worked to quell violence.
This was a very good and accessible response to the issue from an intelligent pacifist perspective. It is simple and certainly not Yoder's best or most creative work. But it certainly was good.
May 5, 2021
There is little I didn’t agree with in this book. I just didn’t find the formatting or writing very compelling. I found a lot of it useful in helping me think through dialogue. I personally am less intrigued by the arguments for pacifism that aren’t drawn from scripture, but I do see validity in them. I love the faith it requires not to take matters into your own hands, thus living your life in such a way that it demands a divine answer. The example of running headlong at a wall with full anticipation of God opening a door at the last second was a great visceral image of that sort of faith.
July 30, 2024
Fantastic book on Christian nonviolence. The main premise is responding to the hypothetical of “What if someone was trying to kill someone close to you?” And the essays handle it as best as a Christian can. Would recommend for every Christian or not wondering if nonviolence can actually be effective or not.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "What would you do?" edited by John Howard Yoder.
I was left unsupervised at a used bookstore (as many of my stories began) and saw another Yoder book. I had to buy it. It seems this book poses the question "so if someone was hurting a member of your family what would you do?" Since the writer, editor and the current reader are pacifists such is not a new question. It seems that everyone wants to have a "gotcha" question for pacifists because that whole "love your enemies" thing which that guy...Jesus, yeah, Jesus...said, we cant have any of that. Go make war. And war and violence is specifically what this book is about. It mentions how a military recruiter may say in reply to being told that one is a pacifist "what would you do if...."
Yoder immediately points out that this model broken down to the personal level doesnt correspond to war for many reasons. Personally, and one he has yet to state, is because wars are, and have historically been seen as the King's wars. They are made by the state powers and are not of my devising. Also, in many, if not most, of the wars of u.s. involvement the model falls apart. The criminal in the model knows he is a criminal. North Vietnam didnt think they were. The criminal will have to deal with judicial ramifications that are in play in the location the crime is committed. The NVA didnt have this. A model which corresponds to the Vietnam catastrophe would be that a neighbor breaks into my house and holds a loved one captive because they fear another neighbor may break into his house. That is all kinds of nonsense which I doubt a military recruiter would use.
Yoder then reduces the model back down to the personal rather than the industrial (as in military complex). He shows that the "what would you do...." is a false dichotomy because the asker seems to assume, or the implication of such a question is, presupposed to be logically xVy, fight or allow the hostage to be a victim. This is a false dichotomy because there are other ways to handle the situation which disappear as soon as x (fight) is chosen. No I'm not going to spell these out because the ones who are--pro or con--actually interested need to borrow or buy the book to follow this train of thought.
This topic is a hot one. The thing to remember is when one hears the call of Christ if what they hear is only a promise of rainbows and unicorns rather than bearing ones cross they are not hearing the voice of the one who said to love your enemies. Christ's way is not the easy way, it is the best way--His way--toward seeing all things reconciled to Him.
"So the answer for the Christian to the 'what if...?' question is seeking to deal with the aggressor as God in Christ has dealt with me--or as I would like to be dealt with. [...] The simple loving Christian who has never thought through the situation but who responds out of Gods love for him or her may well be nearer to obedience than those of us who think we must logically process the kinds of concerns...," p 38.
Moving on the next section is by Tolstoy.
"There are actions which are morally impossible, just as others are physically impossible. As a man can not lift a mountain, and as a kindly man can not.kill an infant, so a man living a Christian life can not take part in deeds of violence," p 45.
These sections are brief so maybe just a quote unless a streak of uber brilliance (brilliance beyond what the text already is) shines through.
S.H. Booth-Clibborn (an article published during WWI):
This guy writes with some passion. They are already in the middle of war and his is a call to Christian's to act like their master. When the "patriot" springs their trap of "what would you do...?" he doesnt fall for it. He calls it a bad model and substitutes a different and more appropriate model, one of cock fighting. This model is where, for our owners pleasure, we (the birds) draw blood of the other while letting ours flow, and let feathers fly both for the amusement and gain of our masters safe on the sidelines who either win or loose based on our performance. That is a proper model of war, not a stranger with a gun to the head of a loved one.
C.J. Furness (writing during WWII):
This is interestingly written as dialogue between "Militarist" and "Pacifist." Militarist asks Pacifist if Hitler were trying to land on u.s. shores would Pacifist just try to pray him away.
"Many people claim to be Christians but dont really believe that Christ's teachings are practical. They dont have enough faith in them to try them," p 55.
Pacifist says he would meet him and try to appeal to that dim light of (my words) imago Dei in him while totally prepared to die.
Henry T. Hodgkin:
"The last resort [using violence] in the mind of Jesus seems to have been the supreme appeal of forgiving love. If that failed, nothing else would succeed for the end He had in view. With a revolver in our pocket, so to speak, we miss the power to make the final appeal of good will," p 61.
Joan Baez:
This was written during Vietnam and is again dialogue between her as a pacifist and someone who sounds like they are just out of the military. This has to be the best exchange thus far because it is so funny. He poses the "what if...? about grandma and then that fails he inserts the pacifist as driving a bus down a road with a child who cant walk in the middle of the road, a landslide on the left and a cliff on the right. It just gets funnier. But the moral is still 1) the violence it seems non pacifists want to see a pacifist respond with is really gross, they wont stop unless they get a hypothetical kill from another 2) we need to learn to respond differently if we want to be better and more Christlike, and thinking of killing is not more Christlike.
Dale W. Brown:
I think my take away from here is that hypothetical questions deserve hypothetical answers. Doing this gives the one answering (the one under investigation) the ability to leverage the conversation.
Dale Aukerman:
"When defense is needed, Christian's should look to Jesus as the model. In Jesus we are shown we are shown what it is to be the kind of person God wants. 'He who says He abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 Jn. 2:6). Would God ever expect from us a mode of defense which we do not at all see in Jesus?," p 76.
Though small this was a very good and thought provoking book. I wish people who think of peace as the last option of an option at all would try it.
I was left unsupervised at a used bookstore (as many of my stories began) and saw another Yoder book. I had to buy it. It seems this book poses the question "so if someone was hurting a member of your family what would you do?" Since the writer, editor and the current reader are pacifists such is not a new question. It seems that everyone wants to have a "gotcha" question for pacifists because that whole "love your enemies" thing which that guy...Jesus, yeah, Jesus...said, we cant have any of that. Go make war. And war and violence is specifically what this book is about. It mentions how a military recruiter may say in reply to being told that one is a pacifist "what would you do if...."
Yoder immediately points out that this model broken down to the personal level doesnt correspond to war for many reasons. Personally, and one he has yet to state, is because wars are, and have historically been seen as the King's wars. They are made by the state powers and are not of my devising. Also, in many, if not most, of the wars of u.s. involvement the model falls apart. The criminal in the model knows he is a criminal. North Vietnam didnt think they were. The criminal will have to deal with judicial ramifications that are in play in the location the crime is committed. The NVA didnt have this. A model which corresponds to the Vietnam catastrophe would be that a neighbor breaks into my house and holds a loved one captive because they fear another neighbor may break into his house. That is all kinds of nonsense which I doubt a military recruiter would use.
Yoder then reduces the model back down to the personal rather than the industrial (as in military complex). He shows that the "what would you do...." is a false dichotomy because the asker seems to assume, or the implication of such a question is, presupposed to be logically xVy, fight or allow the hostage to be a victim. This is a false dichotomy because there are other ways to handle the situation which disappear as soon as x (fight) is chosen. No I'm not going to spell these out because the ones who are--pro or con--actually interested need to borrow or buy the book to follow this train of thought.
This topic is a hot one. The thing to remember is when one hears the call of Christ if what they hear is only a promise of rainbows and unicorns rather than bearing ones cross they are not hearing the voice of the one who said to love your enemies. Christ's way is not the easy way, it is the best way--His way--toward seeing all things reconciled to Him.
"So the answer for the Christian to the 'what if...?' question is seeking to deal with the aggressor as God in Christ has dealt with me--or as I would like to be dealt with. [...] The simple loving Christian who has never thought through the situation but who responds out of Gods love for him or her may well be nearer to obedience than those of us who think we must logically process the kinds of concerns...," p 38.
Moving on the next section is by Tolstoy.
"There are actions which are morally impossible, just as others are physically impossible. As a man can not lift a mountain, and as a kindly man can not.kill an infant, so a man living a Christian life can not take part in deeds of violence," p 45.
These sections are brief so maybe just a quote unless a streak of uber brilliance (brilliance beyond what the text already is) shines through.
S.H. Booth-Clibborn (an article published during WWI):
This guy writes with some passion. They are already in the middle of war and his is a call to Christian's to act like their master. When the "patriot" springs their trap of "what would you do...?" he doesnt fall for it. He calls it a bad model and substitutes a different and more appropriate model, one of cock fighting. This model is where, for our owners pleasure, we (the birds) draw blood of the other while letting ours flow, and let feathers fly both for the amusement and gain of our masters safe on the sidelines who either win or loose based on our performance. That is a proper model of war, not a stranger with a gun to the head of a loved one.
C.J. Furness (writing during WWII):
This is interestingly written as dialogue between "Militarist" and "Pacifist." Militarist asks Pacifist if Hitler were trying to land on u.s. shores would Pacifist just try to pray him away.
"Many people claim to be Christians but dont really believe that Christ's teachings are practical. They dont have enough faith in them to try them," p 55.
Pacifist says he would meet him and try to appeal to that dim light of (my words) imago Dei in him while totally prepared to die.
Henry T. Hodgkin:
"The last resort [using violence] in the mind of Jesus seems to have been the supreme appeal of forgiving love. If that failed, nothing else would succeed for the end He had in view. With a revolver in our pocket, so to speak, we miss the power to make the final appeal of good will," p 61.
Joan Baez:
This was written during Vietnam and is again dialogue between her as a pacifist and someone who sounds like they are just out of the military. This has to be the best exchange thus far because it is so funny. He poses the "what if...? about grandma and then that fails he inserts the pacifist as driving a bus down a road with a child who cant walk in the middle of the road, a landslide on the left and a cliff on the right. It just gets funnier. But the moral is still 1) the violence it seems non pacifists want to see a pacifist respond with is really gross, they wont stop unless they get a hypothetical kill from another 2) we need to learn to respond differently if we want to be better and more Christlike, and thinking of killing is not more Christlike.
Dale W. Brown:
I think my take away from here is that hypothetical questions deserve hypothetical answers. Doing this gives the one answering (the one under investigation) the ability to leverage the conversation.
Dale Aukerman:
"When defense is needed, Christian's should look to Jesus as the model. In Jesus we are shown we are shown what it is to be the kind of person God wants. 'He who says He abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 Jn. 2:6). Would God ever expect from us a mode of defense which we do not at all see in Jesus?," p 76.
Though small this was a very good and thought provoking book. I wish people who think of peace as the last option of an option at all would try it.
January 9, 2011
John Yoder, famous Mennonite pacifist theologian, answers the question posed to many pacifists: What would you do if a violent person tried to attack a loved one? He breaks down the assumptions implicit in the question (for example, that the violent person is going to commit heinous acts regardless of how he/she is received). After the philosophical conversation, he includes several really good essays by famous people, not necessarily famous for pacifism. My favorite part of the book, though, were the stories at the end: INCREDIBLE true stories of people who faced violent sitations and reacted with love and understanding to diffuse the situation.
October 10, 2015
I read this one 3 or 4 times before but it's a wise and intelligent antidote to the current mentality that says the only way to be safe and defend yourself or a loved is to be armed and prepared to use deadly violence against anyone you suspect of being a threat. In spite of the author's behavior problems that injured others, this book is still a significant contribution to the world, and demonstrates, as many Bible stories do, that people who do a lot of harm can also do a lot of good. It's a complex world, and people are just as complex as the world in which they live. It's a good reason to always seek a peaceful solution to violent threat.
August 7, 2019
This world is crazy, but it always has been, all the way back to Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel. The recent news of even more mass shootings in the US continues to break my heart, and I know that my fellow Americans are living with a constant underlying, background trauma, asking themselves, "What should I do if I'm at Wal-Mart, or school, or work, and a shooter comes in?" (We have different stressors here in Japan: earthquakes, volcanoes, and Kim Jong Un next door firing missiles in our direction, but they are always there, ready to erupt in their own way.)
When it comes to self-defense, as a child I'd always swallowed the prevailing view in the US (though my parents didn't have guns, thank goodness): keep a gun in your bedside table and be ready to shoot on sight. By the time I got to college, even in the first few weeks of the first semester, my mind was already beginning to change. My boyfriend at the time called me in my dorm room from Florida telling me that he'd joined the army. My first question to him: "Will you be ready to kill someone if they tell you to? That might be required." He scoffed and said my liberal college had gotten to my brain already. What he didn't know is that none of my professors were talking about this--I had only been there a few weeks and it was my own mind and heart that my words were flowing from.
As I've continued to shift direction over the years from mainstream US thought, I was ready for this book by John Howard Yoder last week: If a Violent Person Threatened To Harm a Loved One...What Would You Do?
(On a side note, I found out after I finished the book that Yoder had a lot of personal problems and sexually harrassed and abused women in the college where he was a professor. If I had known that before, I would not have read this book. Thankfully, the words encouraged me without that background knowledge. I do not condone his illegal and harmful behavior one bit.)
What impressed me the most from these pages was the ability of the Holy Spirit to help us think creatively in any situation. That doesn't mean that all hurtful people can have their minds changed in any given scenario, but from reading the actual stories in the second half of the book of real people who have experienced a turnaround in a dangerous situation using nonviolence, there is a possibility for change.
From pages 127 and 128:
"Creating the context for conversion means doing something wonder-ful--nonthreatening, unexpected. Wonder not only disarms; it tends to focus attention on whatever caused the wonder and places the recipient in a suggestible state of mind. When the human psyche focuses on what causes wonder, a desire to imitate tends to occur. Just as we have to cultivate within ourselves the desire for the assailant's [physical and spiritual] safety, so we cultivate within the assailant a desire for our safety. 'If you want to conquer another,' said nonviolent strategist Richard Gregg, 'do it not by outside resistance but by creating inside their own personality a strong new impulse that is incompatible with the previous tendency.'
With the assailant temporarily thrown off balance by an unexpected, nonthreatening response on the part of the victim, it is possible to move the interaction to a different level. Gregg termed this dynamic moral jujitsu."
What I took away from the book was the fact that God can work creatively through his Spirit inside someone who could potentially be attacked and in the attacker as well. My favorite example was an elderly lady walking home carrying a bag of groceries in each hand. Two guys approached her, one on each side, and she knew what they were up to immediately. With quick thinking and God's Spirit prompting her, she suddenly said something like, "Oh my! Thank you so much! You knew these groceries were heavy for an elderly lady and you came to help me! I really appreciate it!" and she shoved a grocery bag into the hands of each man. Surprised, they carried her groceries home for her and changed their minds about their initial plans.
That won't always work. But the potential for a better outcome is there and we don't need to be limited by tactics of violent defense, which actually do not always work either. Carry a knife or a gun and they can be taken and used on you. Walk with God's Spirit and whatever the outcome, he is with you and you don't have to be afraid. He will give you the right words at the right time. That gave me a lot of confidence in the creativity of the One who made me and who made the person who at some point could be a potential assailant. I hope I never have to use any of the ideas in this book, but I'm thankful that I read it and that I was buoyed by the trust and faith of those who have gone before me.
When it comes to self-defense, as a child I'd always swallowed the prevailing view in the US (though my parents didn't have guns, thank goodness): keep a gun in your bedside table and be ready to shoot on sight. By the time I got to college, even in the first few weeks of the first semester, my mind was already beginning to change. My boyfriend at the time called me in my dorm room from Florida telling me that he'd joined the army. My first question to him: "Will you be ready to kill someone if they tell you to? That might be required." He scoffed and said my liberal college had gotten to my brain already. What he didn't know is that none of my professors were talking about this--I had only been there a few weeks and it was my own mind and heart that my words were flowing from.
As I've continued to shift direction over the years from mainstream US thought, I was ready for this book by John Howard Yoder last week: If a Violent Person Threatened To Harm a Loved One...What Would You Do?
(On a side note, I found out after I finished the book that Yoder had a lot of personal problems and sexually harrassed and abused women in the college where he was a professor. If I had known that before, I would not have read this book. Thankfully, the words encouraged me without that background knowledge. I do not condone his illegal and harmful behavior one bit.)
What impressed me the most from these pages was the ability of the Holy Spirit to help us think creatively in any situation. That doesn't mean that all hurtful people can have their minds changed in any given scenario, but from reading the actual stories in the second half of the book of real people who have experienced a turnaround in a dangerous situation using nonviolence, there is a possibility for change.
From pages 127 and 128:
"Creating the context for conversion means doing something wonder-ful--nonthreatening, unexpected. Wonder not only disarms; it tends to focus attention on whatever caused the wonder and places the recipient in a suggestible state of mind. When the human psyche focuses on what causes wonder, a desire to imitate tends to occur. Just as we have to cultivate within ourselves the desire for the assailant's [physical and spiritual] safety, so we cultivate within the assailant a desire for our safety. 'If you want to conquer another,' said nonviolent strategist Richard Gregg, 'do it not by outside resistance but by creating inside their own personality a strong new impulse that is incompatible with the previous tendency.'
With the assailant temporarily thrown off balance by an unexpected, nonthreatening response on the part of the victim, it is possible to move the interaction to a different level. Gregg termed this dynamic moral jujitsu."
What I took away from the book was the fact that God can work creatively through his Spirit inside someone who could potentially be attacked and in the attacker as well. My favorite example was an elderly lady walking home carrying a bag of groceries in each hand. Two guys approached her, one on each side, and she knew what they were up to immediately. With quick thinking and God's Spirit prompting her, she suddenly said something like, "Oh my! Thank you so much! You knew these groceries were heavy for an elderly lady and you came to help me! I really appreciate it!" and she shoved a grocery bag into the hands of each man. Surprised, they carried her groceries home for her and changed their minds about their initial plans.
That won't always work. But the potential for a better outcome is there and we don't need to be limited by tactics of violent defense, which actually do not always work either. Carry a knife or a gun and they can be taken and used on you. Walk with God's Spirit and whatever the outcome, he is with you and you don't have to be afraid. He will give you the right words at the right time. That gave me a lot of confidence in the creativity of the One who made me and who made the person who at some point could be a potential assailant. I hope I never have to use any of the ideas in this book, but I'm thankful that I read it and that I was buoyed by the trust and faith of those who have gone before me.
February 17, 2021
Thoughtful, inspirational response to a common question.
Favorite quotes:
Christianity relativizes the value of self and survival as it affirms the dignity of the enemy and offender. True, the potential victim is my neighbor and thus deserving of my help. But the attacker also at that moment becomes a neighbor. It is also a form of egoism to make any attempt to distinguish between these two and say that the nearness of my family member as preferred neighbor takes precedence over that of my attacker.
So the answer for the Christian to the “what if…? question is this: I seek to deal with the aggressor as God in Christ has dealt with me— or as I would wish to be dealt with.
As a man cannot lift a mountain, and as a kindly man cannot kill an infant, so a man living the Christian life cannot take part in deeds of violence.
The fact is that the resort to force in most cases implies a disbelief in God and in man. It is a surrender of the higher method for a lower, easier, and, be it noted, a less ultimately effective way of meeting evil.
“Do I have a gun?”
“Yes.”
“No. I’m a pacifist, I don’t have a gun.”
“You are probably right. We probably don’t have enough time. So far we’ve been a glorious flop. The only thing that’s been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.”
The pacifist, however, lives in the faith that, in the long run, just means are more likely to gain just ends.
That ever- repeated question does have great emotional power: What would I do if someone was about to rape and kill my wife, or kill a child of mine? However, if I am a Christian, there is a prior and more determinative question: Do I see Jesus as Lord of my life also for such a situation? If I hold to this Lord, I cannot move against the life of the attacker.
Killing or trying to kill an attacker cannot be done in love or with clear expression of love. Women committed to Christian nonviolence may do well to take a course in women’s self- defense, though they may reject for themselves some of the options presented.
“Our glances locked and held for seconds that seemed ages long. Then I smiled down at him, and it was like a spring thaw melting the ice on a frozen river. The hatred vanished and, after a sheepish moment, he smiled back!”
What I had wanted to do with muscle had been accomplished with kind words.
If someone takes one garment, the owner is advised to hand over the other. Why? In that climate, without both garments one will suffer from exposure to the elements. So, Jesus counsels, give away the cloak also. Let your adversary see in your nakedness the truth of what he is doing. Do something wonderful and open his eyes.
Jesus also says, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile” (Matt. 5: 41, NRSV). This means walking the extra mile for an enemy, the Roman soldiers, who have the right to impress any Jew to carry their gear for one mile. For the first mile, the soldier has the power. But imagine the Jew refusing to lay down the burden after the first mile and walking on, freely, for the second mile. Who has the power after the first mile? Power relationships change. During the second mile, the Jew has the chance to work on the soldier, to help him come to insight about his actions, to help him see this Israelite as a person and not an object.
Favorite quotes:
Christianity relativizes the value of self and survival as it affirms the dignity of the enemy and offender. True, the potential victim is my neighbor and thus deserving of my help. But the attacker also at that moment becomes a neighbor. It is also a form of egoism to make any attempt to distinguish between these two and say that the nearness of my family member as preferred neighbor takes precedence over that of my attacker.
So the answer for the Christian to the “what if…? question is this: I seek to deal with the aggressor as God in Christ has dealt with me— or as I would wish to be dealt with.
As a man cannot lift a mountain, and as a kindly man cannot kill an infant, so a man living the Christian life cannot take part in deeds of violence.
The fact is that the resort to force in most cases implies a disbelief in God and in man. It is a surrender of the higher method for a lower, easier, and, be it noted, a less ultimately effective way of meeting evil.
“Do I have a gun?”
“Yes.”
“No. I’m a pacifist, I don’t have a gun.”
“You are probably right. We probably don’t have enough time. So far we’ve been a glorious flop. The only thing that’s been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.”
The pacifist, however, lives in the faith that, in the long run, just means are more likely to gain just ends.
That ever- repeated question does have great emotional power: What would I do if someone was about to rape and kill my wife, or kill a child of mine? However, if I am a Christian, there is a prior and more determinative question: Do I see Jesus as Lord of my life also for such a situation? If I hold to this Lord, I cannot move against the life of the attacker.
Killing or trying to kill an attacker cannot be done in love or with clear expression of love. Women committed to Christian nonviolence may do well to take a course in women’s self- defense, though they may reject for themselves some of the options presented.
“Our glances locked and held for seconds that seemed ages long. Then I smiled down at him, and it was like a spring thaw melting the ice on a frozen river. The hatred vanished and, after a sheepish moment, he smiled back!”
What I had wanted to do with muscle had been accomplished with kind words.
If someone takes one garment, the owner is advised to hand over the other. Why? In that climate, without both garments one will suffer from exposure to the elements. So, Jesus counsels, give away the cloak also. Let your adversary see in your nakedness the truth of what he is doing. Do something wonderful and open his eyes.
Jesus also says, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile” (Matt. 5: 41, NRSV). This means walking the extra mile for an enemy, the Roman soldiers, who have the right to impress any Jew to carry their gear for one mile. For the first mile, the soldier has the power. But imagine the Jew refusing to lay down the burden after the first mile and walking on, freely, for the second mile. Who has the power after the first mile? Power relationships change. During the second mile, the Jew has the chance to work on the soldier, to help him come to insight about his actions, to help him see this Israelite as a person and not an object.
November 22, 2024
Yoder's book asks and offers different answers to a question that many Christian pacifists have been faced with over the years. How would you respond if your wife/mother/child was threatened with violence? Yoder identifies some of the central problems with this question. He then presents answers offered by a variety of different people in the second half of the book. Overall, this book offers some good questions to ask about how to respond to these sorts of questions with more nuance.
December 12, 2018
For anyone who is interested in exploring the concept of Christian nonviolence, this is an excellent introductory text. Yoder lays out the basics in his own words, and he then devotes more than half of the book to other writers' perspectives on the issue. It is a quick read that makes a compelling case regarding an important subject.
July 8, 2024
I thought this was very thought-provoking, just too brief to really cover the subject well. I suppose it's supposed to be brief so people will read and it and then want to learn more and read books that go deeper into the subject.
September 24, 2015
The following is a restatement of the major points made by John Howard Yoder in his book What Would You Do? The stated question is the proverbial challenge to any pacifist, Christian or otherwise. Yoder crafts an excellent expose of the fallibility of many of the arguments that lie within that challenge, with the second half of the book including essays and statements of historic and contemporary pacifists. We hope you will find the book as provocative yet refreshing as we have (I can only playfully imagine that the title is a thinly veiled pun, playing off the popular “What Would Jesus Do” slogan, but cannot be entirely sure).
The first dependent assumption we might recognize in such a loaded question is that of determinism on the defender’s (your) part – that you have the only decision to make, and that it is only your decision that will provide resolution. If you do not act, the attacker will kill the victim, and your course of action will end in the death of the attacker. The accuser insists that the attacker is motivated only by pure evil, that there exists no hope of redemption. However, no crime is ever without motive; there is in fact something that will satisfy any attackers’ purpose for violent action (cooperating with their demand for money, safe harbor, etc.). It is simply unreasonable to believe that the only possible course must inevitably lead to death (the victim’s at the hand of the attacker, or the attacker’s at your own hand). No course is predetermined; the only limit to nonviolence is one’s own creativity and commitment.
The second assumption is that of omnipotence, that you somehow have absolute control and that your course of action will undoubtedly result in success. We cannot know for certain, in any instance, that our own decision will unfold without event or unseen consequence. Furthermore, both the victim and the attacker are assumed to be incapable of sentient thought or free will; their reflexes and instincts are considered immaterial to the argument. It is ridiculously optimistic to pretend that any agent, acting in concert with such unpredictable variables as a deranged attacker and a terror-stricken assailant, could enjoy absolute control over any situation, violent or otherwise. Another assumption related to omnipotence is that of omniscience, the idea that you know with absolute certainty how your course of action will unfold. After all, the obligatory conclusion is that of death. You are expected to be able to operate without doubt, a convenience no person in history has ever been able to enjoy in such an event. In any and all situations, we can be sure of only one thing, that we know nothing for certain and must act out of consideration for the unpredictability of the situation.
A third assumption our inquisitor relies upon is individualism, the belief that only my own interests are to be considered relevant. However, the victim’s relationship to me must inform my decision; I should not act outside their interests. If the victim shares my commitment to nonviolence, it would not be their desire that I use lethal force to save them from whatever catastrophe awaits them. If they do not subscribe to nonviolence, Yoder would argue that the desire to use a disproportionate amount of force against one’s attacker would be founded in selfcentrism (on either the part of the victim or the defender), an evil that already must have motivated the attacker. Put simply, true justice has in mind even the interests of the criminal. A defender cannot justify adopting the role of judge, jury, and executioner alone and hope to be protected by the claim of having objectively served justice. Furthermore, when a person is reduced to a possessive object, such as the case when it is assumed that the victim has no capacity to influence what must be exclusively my decision, it becomes an act of self-interest disguised as a virtue.
Stemming from the last issue comes the presumption of righteousness. Your actions are immediately considered ethically superior to those of the attacker. However, you lose any credibility as judge and jury when your own interests and welfare are a part of your decision. Your objectivity is compromised. It is then that people often claim, falsely, that their decision is effectively determined by the actions of the attacker (“they made me do it”). Once the ‘victim card’ is played, your actions become sanctioned by a fabricated sense of moral superiority. Far from being justified, you become the evil you had hoped to conquer. After all, it is violence and hostility that produces the attacker in the first place. Such are products of a culture so misled about true justice that it teaches its members not to murder by murdering murderers. Those who would use violence so readily have seldom been shown the prophetic power of love to destroy fear. The Hitler’s of the world only know hatred and fear precisely because they have never been shown grace and reconciliation. Even if it means sacrificing my own life, I will not become a victim to the myth of redemptive violence.
The first dependent assumption we might recognize in such a loaded question is that of determinism on the defender’s (your) part – that you have the only decision to make, and that it is only your decision that will provide resolution. If you do not act, the attacker will kill the victim, and your course of action will end in the death of the attacker. The accuser insists that the attacker is motivated only by pure evil, that there exists no hope of redemption. However, no crime is ever without motive; there is in fact something that will satisfy any attackers’ purpose for violent action (cooperating with their demand for money, safe harbor, etc.). It is simply unreasonable to believe that the only possible course must inevitably lead to death (the victim’s at the hand of the attacker, or the attacker’s at your own hand). No course is predetermined; the only limit to nonviolence is one’s own creativity and commitment.
The second assumption is that of omnipotence, that you somehow have absolute control and that your course of action will undoubtedly result in success. We cannot know for certain, in any instance, that our own decision will unfold without event or unseen consequence. Furthermore, both the victim and the attacker are assumed to be incapable of sentient thought or free will; their reflexes and instincts are considered immaterial to the argument. It is ridiculously optimistic to pretend that any agent, acting in concert with such unpredictable variables as a deranged attacker and a terror-stricken assailant, could enjoy absolute control over any situation, violent or otherwise. Another assumption related to omnipotence is that of omniscience, the idea that you know with absolute certainty how your course of action will unfold. After all, the obligatory conclusion is that of death. You are expected to be able to operate without doubt, a convenience no person in history has ever been able to enjoy in such an event. In any and all situations, we can be sure of only one thing, that we know nothing for certain and must act out of consideration for the unpredictability of the situation.
A third assumption our inquisitor relies upon is individualism, the belief that only my own interests are to be considered relevant. However, the victim’s relationship to me must inform my decision; I should not act outside their interests. If the victim shares my commitment to nonviolence, it would not be their desire that I use lethal force to save them from whatever catastrophe awaits them. If they do not subscribe to nonviolence, Yoder would argue that the desire to use a disproportionate amount of force against one’s attacker would be founded in selfcentrism (on either the part of the victim or the defender), an evil that already must have motivated the attacker. Put simply, true justice has in mind even the interests of the criminal. A defender cannot justify adopting the role of judge, jury, and executioner alone and hope to be protected by the claim of having objectively served justice. Furthermore, when a person is reduced to a possessive object, such as the case when it is assumed that the victim has no capacity to influence what must be exclusively my decision, it becomes an act of self-interest disguised as a virtue.
Stemming from the last issue comes the presumption of righteousness. Your actions are immediately considered ethically superior to those of the attacker. However, you lose any credibility as judge and jury when your own interests and welfare are a part of your decision. Your objectivity is compromised. It is then that people often claim, falsely, that their decision is effectively determined by the actions of the attacker (“they made me do it”). Once the ‘victim card’ is played, your actions become sanctioned by a fabricated sense of moral superiority. Far from being justified, you become the evil you had hoped to conquer. After all, it is violence and hostility that produces the attacker in the first place. Such are products of a culture so misled about true justice that it teaches its members not to murder by murdering murderers. Those who would use violence so readily have seldom been shown the prophetic power of love to destroy fear. The Hitler’s of the world only know hatred and fear precisely because they have never been shown grace and reconciliation. Even if it means sacrificing my own life, I will not become a victim to the myth of redemptive violence.
October 19, 2020
Love the style of this book—a collection of perspectives on the question in the title. Drawing from a wide range of people and world views, Yoder makes a compelling case for Christian non-violence.
September 8, 2012
I bought this awhile ago and kept putting off reading it because I thought it would be dry. It was anything but. I enjoyed that there were a number of approaches to Christian nonresistance and nonresistance in general and that there were also examples of how it's worked. A great read! I would recommend it to anyone who is thinking about Christian ethics and what it means to live like Christ.
March 31, 2021
A simple, and yet insightful, book on the creativity and commitment of the pacifist response. For stories of successful nonviolence in the midst of personal danger, this is a great resource.
*though I appreciate Yoder’s writings, we cannot compartmentalize or ignore his sexual violence. We should acknowledge this tension.
*though I appreciate Yoder’s writings, we cannot compartmentalize or ignore his sexual violence. We should acknowledge this tension.
January 23, 2009
Yoder is WONDERFUL. If you don't have time to read The Politics of Jesus, then check out this teeny yet very persuasive argument for an active Christian pacifism. READ IT... even if you don't agree with pacifism.
Read
August 6, 2011A great concise book on alternatives to violence that can disarm and transform your attacker. i think this is good because it prepares you to find another solution in creative and mutually beneficial ways.
April 6, 2012
A compilation of essays and articles answering the age-old question thrown at Christian pacifists ("what if you wife/child/mother were being attacked. Would you kill to save her/him?) Yoder's introduction is one of the most thoroughly thought out and articulate answers I have ever read.
July 7, 2012
A good response to the question most often posed to pacifists "What would you do if someone broke in your house and threatened your family?". This short book is both a presentation of answers to and real-life experiences of this question.
July 2, 2007
This is enlightening and helpful---especially if you believe in Christian pacifism.
December 1, 2012
Something to think about.......
January 13, 2013
interesting points to ponder, but overly simplistic and idealistic
November 26, 2007
Less compelling than the rest of Yoder's book that i've read.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews