Violence: A Christian and Scientific Perspective

Violence: A Christian and Scientific Perspective Philip G. Ney, MD, FRCP(C), FRANZCP, RPsych February 1989 Introduction Humans have not been able to understand or contain their violence to each other or to their environment. Christians ostensibly have no need to be violent but their track record is not good. Part of their difficulty, I believe, lies in the fact they have a vested interest in maintaining a concept of the roots of violence. Christians are able to and should know that violence is not a one-way interaction between perpetrator and victim. Because they do not have to believe they are innocent when they are not, they are able to see and know that violence arises from a complex transaction between the perpetrator, victim and observer. Violence is terrifying, terrible, stupid and above all, enigmatic. It is: 1) Ubiquitous - Though some peoples are gentler than others, violence is everywhere. Everyone is capable of violence, if not in action, then certainly in fantasy. The noble savage is a myth. In all the places I have visited and worked in, though I hoped it might be different, violence was there. The Sawi people of the New Guinea coast spent most of their lives at war and attempting to overcome their terror of the ghosts of those who were killed. The Danis of the New Guinea highlands practised chopping a finger off a little girl for each warrior killed. The Fijians, lovable people, were head hunters not long ago. The Maori, genial, jovial people, once cannibals, still enjoy bone crunching rugby. The wise and gentle Chinese have killed many millions in various wars and revolutions. 2) Unending - Although history records that violence goes in swings or cycles, the world has never been without war. Present rates of muggings, murders, suicides, infanticides and abortions are increasing. Time magazine, front cover headlines: "Armed America: More Guns, More Shootings, More Massacres" (1). There were over eight thousand Americans killed by handguns in 1985. The solution to violence in North America seems to be to arm yourself against those who might shoot you. Infanticide has become the most common cause of death in children, 0 - 6 months, in the USA (2). The most common cause of injury-related deaths in children, less than one, is murder, not vehicle accidents. From 1980 to 1985, 1250 murders of infants were reported in the U.S. Most were suffocated or strangled, others were drowned, stabbed or shot (3). Euthanasia claims the lives of more than eight thousand in Holland each year, with an increasing number of victims not giving their consent. 3) Unrewarding - Although there may be some transient personal profit, violence never solves the underlying problem. The war to end all wars obviously did not, even though many young people sacrificed their lives to that end. The mistreatment of children is probably the worst form of violence, partly because it's so undeserving. Child abuse, like other forms of violence, is maladaptive. Using a child for any kind of self gratification provides no joy. Violent punishment doesn't achieve the stated end of correcting the child. Nor does it really relieve the adults who let out their feelings of rage or frustration. Child abuse and neglect is transgenerational, going on to the third and fourth generation. For the last quarter of a century, I have treated the victims of abuse and done serious research resulting in over a dozen scientific papers. Yet I still don't fully understand why adults mistreat children. Child Abuse and Neglect Pictures of child abuse almost invariably produce in an audience of adults, a sense of horror, sadness, anger, revulsion, shame and sometimes, guilt. The guilt is felt, not just by people who have abused children but also by those who have known people who were abused, those who have been abused, those who have witnessed it and even those who pretend they know nothing about violence to children. There are good reasons for this sense of guilt. Child abuse occurs in every culture, in every class of society and every educational grouping. It is not confined to psychopathic, sick or ignorant parents or to unwanted children. Our evidence shows that, if anything, there is an inverse correlation between wantedness and child abuse (4). Eighty-five percent of the abused children in our sample were wanted children. Wantedness increases throughout pregnancy, being lowest during the first three months. The reason why wanted children are more abused might be because there are higher expectations placed upon them. Parents are more likely to over-discipline the children they find most disappointing. We found a significantly close correlation between rates of child abuse and the number of previous unmourned pregnancies. It appears that unresolved losses from miscarriages, stillbirths and abortions make it more difficult for the parents to bond to the babies of a subsequent pregnancy. the evidence from our studies and from demographic data (5) indicates that where there are high rates of abortion there will be a higher incidence of child abuse than where abortion is not so common. Using a visual analog scale, which allowed the child, parent and staff member to record any amount of abuse or neglect, we were able to investigate: a) physical abuse (hits, burnings, shaking), b) physical neglect (lack of food, clothing, medical care, etc.), c) verbal abuse (humiliations, demeaning, criticisms, etc.), d) emotional neglect (lack of affection, encouragement and intellectual stimulation, etc.) and e) sexual abuse (incest, rape, pornography, etc.). We found certain characteristics of the child were related to higher rates of abuse and neglect (6). It is almost as if the child contributed, if not by his actions, by certain constitutional and personality characteristics, to his own victimization. By their behaviour, children do help to initiate and maintain their own abuse. There are many examples of a badly abused child placed in a wonderful foster home soon creating such tension or irritation that the foster parents plead to have him removed. By his obnoxious, demanding behaviour, the child was making the kindly foster parent angry to the point of losing control. The greatest tragedy of child abuse is that it creates in the child a conflict which, because it is unresolved, seems to impel the child into recreating the problem over and over again. the abused child gains nothing from being abused again and again but too often they spit on, hit at or scream at their caregivers. Why? Children tend to blame themselves for being neglected or abused. Our research has shown that as the intensity of physical abuse increases, children tend to blame themselves less. Eventually they are able to conclude no one deserves to be treated so terribly. But as the intensity of sexual or verbal abuse increases, children tend to blame themselves more. Verbal abuse is particularly damaging even though the wounds are seldom visible (6). We found that the mother who experienced child abuse is, with statistical significance that varies with the extent an type of abuse, likely to abuse her own children in a similar way (7). We found that with higher probabilities, the mother will treat her child as she has been treated by her spouse. Moreover, we found that the mother tends to be treated by her spouse as she was treated as a child. This would seem to confirm clinical impressions that men and women tend to pick spouses that will mistreat them in ways similar to their experience as children. Evidence from other sources confirms this assortative mating. Abused and neglected people tend to find a husband or wife that will treat them as they were treated by a mother or father. In an attempt to explain the data, I have suggested that there is the necessary participation of the perpetrator, victim and observer (8). There is a complex interaction between them in such a way that they each contribute to any abuse and neglect. Too frequently, the young woman who was involved in an incestuous relationship with her stepfather will express the greatest anger toward her mother, ostensibly the bystander or observer. The mother could have or should have known and done something about it. Throughout history, the observers have played the strategic role. It seems reasonably safe to conclude that in all situations of violence there are no innocent bystanders. This triangle or triquetral of abuse rotates from one generation to the next. The child who was abused becomes an abusing parent, the victim becomes the perpetrator. Children who observe parents abusing each other learn to be abusive (9), and so the observer becomes the perpetrator. Not only does the triquetral rotate with time, it also changes with circumstance. A man who was jailed for molesting children is severely beaten when in prison, the perpetrator becoming the victim. In an attempt to explain why violence, particularly child abuse, is handed from one generation to the next, I have invoked the concept of entropy (7). Child abuse creates a conflict within the mind of the child. The conflict, at any stage of a child's development, creates internal disharmony or disunity which greatly reduces the efficiency of his energy utilization. He must either take in more energy or solve the problems that are creating the inefficient utilization of his personal resources. People try to solve their conflicts by meditating or by communicating with a friend. In most instances, where the problems are severe, they try to learn from their sad past by re-enacting conflicts from childhood. They unconsciously pick a spouse, boss, workmates or children to help them replay the tragedy of their past. When the action is well established, they hope to step off the stage for an objective view of the interplay. Unfortunately, too frequently they cannot, or do not, and so the action cycles from one time to another without anybody gaining much insight into why. These scientific explanations are useful in many ways, particularly in clinical settings, but there are still unanswered existential questions. Why is humankind so violent? Do we learn it from our culture? Certainly we can from our family or T.V., but why is the culture violent? It is, after all, only a reflection of collective humanity. Are humans violent because their basic needs are unmet? Frustration creates revolution which is seldom legitimate, but understandable. People follow any leader who has identified their needs and promises to fill them, even though they are intuitively aware they are more likely to become cannon fodder. If violence is innate, because man is a territorial animal, can any amount of genetic engineering get rid of that particular trait? The Christian View The Bible contains many episodes of violence graphically described. The Old Testament seemed to condone violence: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In actual fact, these ancient laws were to limit the amount of violence. In the New Testament Jesus said: If you are slapped on one side of the face, give the person the opportunity to slap you on the other; if somebody steals your coat, give him another garment; if a Roman soldier forces you to carry his pack for a mile, offer to carry it an extra one, "even in the heat and the dust". Surely, if Jesus expected people to carry out these instruction He must have first created an important basic difference in the people He was addressing. From Abel, who was murdered by his brother out of jealousy, to Stephen, who was killed by the religious community for their jealousy, the Bible describes violence in all its terror and stupidity. It is quite clear the Biblical view agrees with science. Violence is ubiquitous: all individuals, all societies. It is unending and transgenerational. David was clearly warned of this. It is unrewarding. There is no lasting peace between neighbours or friends or in families or within individuals and particularly, no lasting peace with God. It was obvious to everyone caught up in the repetitious violence that there had to be a new way which required a new man. The Bible clearly states that everybody is guilty. All, including the innocent bystanders, have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Saul watched Stephen being stoned and later admitted that he was consenting, i.e., contributing to Stephen's death. At the cross there were observing people representing many different points of views and different vested interests, but it was only one crucified thief that attempted to defend Jesus. The Bible clearly states that humans were not created violent. Sin was brought into the world by Satan. Humans were corrupted and remained corruptible, with vulnerabilities and rebellious tendencies. Because of sin, no human could, by goodness or piety, stop the violence inside himself. The Apostle Paul is a prime example, "Oh miserable man that I am, who can save me from this vicious cycle of sin and death? The good that I would do, I cannot. The evil that I abhor, I find myself doing." There has to be a solution and there is a solution. The solution to violence lies in scapegoating -scapegoating of the right kind. The three kinds of scapegoating are: 1) Enforced, e.g. the wanton killing of Jews and Gypsies who were blamed for any difficulties the Nazi State brought upon itself. 2) Survival, e.g. the child who wedges himself between his quarrelling parents to redirect their anger from each other onto himself in an effort to promote his own survival. He knows that it is better to be injured than to have his parents, whose existence he depends upon, keep quarrelling and possibly leave. 3) Self-sacrificing, e.g. times in history when a person volunteers to be punished for others. In those instances, the scapegoat produced temporary stability in that system and, occasionally, reconciliation between enemies. Scapegoating of the wrong kind involves these characteristics: 1) not taking our part of the responsibility. We were just Ôinnocent bystanders.' Observers always seem to have a perfect alibi, "I didn't know. How could I have known, and even if I did, what could I have done?" Those who insist on being innocent bystanders or innocent victims will have a need to find a scapegoat. 2) blaming someone else for the violent deed, to achieve a sense of guiltlessness or innocence. 3) giving the scapegoat attributes we dislike in ourselves in order to achieve a sense of goodness. 4) giving the scapegoat motives we deny ourselves, in order to achieve a sense of purity. 5) punishing the scapegoat. We congratulate ourselves because justice is done and we have all the characteristics that the scapegoat is without. There are many clinical examples of scapegoats in my practice. Andrew, fourteen years old, who grew up in a wealthy family, had been terribly abused and neglected. But it was Andrew, rather than those who had abused him, who was placed in a foster home for four years, ostensibly because he was uncontrollable. In our study of the Calgary Young Offenders Centre, we found that eighty-five percent of these young people, incarcerated for a wide variety of crime including murder, were abused and neglected. One boy, whose violent behavior resulted in a long sentence, was "disciplined" by his mother with violence. In one instance, she called him for punishment because he had casually tossed a butter knife at his brother. When he arrived, she said "Turn around", and then stabbed him in the back three times. She kept him from medical attention for two days, even though he was bleeding profusely. There are a number of noble examples of self-sacrifice that have resulted in a temporary stabilizing of a social system and the reconciliation of enemies. "The day's work had ended; the tools were being counted as usual. As the party was about to be dismissed, the Japanese guard shouted that a shovel was missing. He insisted that someone had stolen it to sell to the Thai's. Striding up and down before the men, he ranted and denounced them for their wickedness, and most unforgivable of all, their ingratitude to the Emperor. As he raved, he worked himself up into a paranoid fury. Screaming in broken English, he demand that the guilty one step forward to take his punishment. No one moved. The guard's rage reached new heights of violence. "All die, all die," he shrieked. To show that he meant what he said, he cocked his rifle, put it to his shoulder and looked down the sights, ready to fire at the first man at the end of the line. At that moment, the Argyle (Highlander) stepped forward, stood stiffly to attention and said, "I did it." The guard unleashed all his whipped up hate. He kicked the helpless prisoner and beat him with his fists. Still the Argyle stood rigidly to attention with the blood streaming down his face. His silence goaded the guard into an excessive rage. Seizing his rifle by the barrel, he lifted it high over his head and with a final blow, brought it down on the skull of the Argyle, who sank limply to the ground and did not move. Although it was perfectly clear that he was dead, the guard continued to beat him and stopped only when exhausted. The men of the work detail picked up their comrade's body, shouldered their tools and marched back to camp. When the tools were counted again at the guardhouse, no shovel was missing (10)." This, and other episodes of self-sacrifice, changed the prisoner of war camp in which the author struggled. It had been a miserable, terrifying place of dog eat dog, with people trying hard to survive at the expense of others. Following this scapegoating, the prisoners, even in these most horrible circumstances, began to care for each other. Morale and survival markedly improved. The scapegoat of the Old Testament was chosen by lot. Neither the scapegoat nor the person who led him into the wilderness had a choice. After the sins of the congregation were placed on the head of the goat by the High Priest, the goat was led into arid wasteland. Somehow the Jewish people understood this was a foreshadowing of events to come. They understood, like we all do, that violence is everywhere and in everyone; that people seldom learn from it and it seldom results in a solution. This scapegoat, although it produces a temporary stabilizing and reconciliation had to be repeated over and over but still people were violent. We have to ask ourselves, what if there was a universal, all-time, all purpose scapegoat, that could put an end to all enmity and violence? What if that scapegoat produced a basic change in the system so that all forces and factors that resulted in violence could be nullified? What if that scapegoat would produce a change in people so that they were truly good, righteous and pure in their motives? What if that scapegoat could produce the reconciliation of all enemies? Would we go for it? Logically, we should, but we do not. Christ is that universal, all-time scapegoat. Christ died for our sins, the just for the unjust. He died for all our sins, for all of us, and He satisfied the system that God had created. God did not just make a scapegoat of Jesus. No, God was "in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself" ( ). By God's design, those who believed in Christ as their scapegoat became sons of God. They became a new creation. They were given the appointment of "ambassador for Christ" ( ) and entrusted with the message of reconciliation. Now there is no need for war, or even jails. Anybody or everybody who is a victim, perpetrator or observer now has a perfect scapegoat. Tragedy does not need to repeat. The only problem with this new agreement or testament with God is that we must honestly accept the sacrifice of Christ as our volunteer scapegoat. We must admit that we are people who tend to be violent and have committed violence in some kind of thought or word or deed. Even by watching violent television, which encourages the production of more violent television which results in violent behavior, we have committed violence. We must admit that we are partly responsible for the violence around us. We must admit that we need a scapegoat for we cannot change ourselves nor satisfactorily commend ourselves. Once having accepted Christ as our scapegoat and His death on our behalf, we must accept Him as Lord of our life. Having experienced the miracle which follows, God making us new creatures, we announce it to the world so that they will understand and also to make Christ Lord of their lives. The instant miracle is not that Christ gives us a new body or a new personality, but He places His Spirit within us. This creates a new aliveness in our spirit and a new direction to our thinking. Is that good news? It is to me. It makes, and has made, good, logical, intuitive and experiential sense. Conclusion Science and Christianity agree violence is not a solution to anything. It is a complicated triangle in which there are no innocent bystanders. The solution to the never ending cycle of violence is that we find the universal scapegoat, that we accept Jesus Christ, God's Son, as our Saviour. Once having become Lord of our lives, we find He creates in us a new non-violent orientation. We can then be His messengers, telling of His work of reconciliation. References 1. Beaty, J., Shannon, E., Woodbury, R. The Other Arms Race. Time magazine, Feb. 6, 1989. pp 18-25. 2. Schmitt, B.D., Kempre, C.H. Child Abuse: Management and Prevention of the Battered Child Syndrome. Basle: Ciba-Geigy, 1975. 3. Waller, A. Report from the Injury Prevention Center, John Hopkins University. Times Colonist, Victoria, B.C. March 1, 1989. 4. Ney, P.G., Moore, C., McPhee, J., Trought, P. Child Abuse: A Study of the Child's Perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect 10: 511-518, 1986. 5. Ney, P.G. Relationship between abortion and child abuse. Can J Psychiatry 24: 610-620, 1979. 6. Ney, P.G. Does Verbal Abuse Leave Deeper Scars: A Study of Children and Parents. Can J Psychiatry 32: 371-378, 1987. 7. Ney, P.G. Transgenerational Child Abuse. Child Psychiatry & Human Develop 18: 151-168, 1988. 8. Ney, P.G. Triangles of Abuse: A model of Maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect 12: 363-373, 1988. 9. Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S., Zak, L. Similarities in behavioral and social maladjustment among child victims and witnesses to family violence. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 56: 142-146, 1986. 10. Gordon, E. Miracle on the River Kwai. Glasgow: William Collins, 1963.