What The Nickel Mines Response Could Teach Us About Revenge

The radical and non-violent response by the Amish to their
terrorist attack proved to be their most powerful witness ever.

You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but I say to you, do not resist an evildoer,... Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.

- Jesus

Do not repay evil for evil... Do not take revenge, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord"... If your enemy hunger, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

- Paul

What we are seeing in the Middle East is the result of a vicious cycle of revenge, each side justifying their violent responses as completely legitimate ways of evening the score, of executing justice. 

But how well is that working?

Among the tragic and unintended consequences of this most recent vengeance cycle has been the accidental shooting of a Ukranian passenger plane in Tehran, resulting in 176 precious lives lost. While Iranian authorities are now taking appropriate responsibility, it is highly likely that the victims of that terrible attack would still be alive if we had not responded to an alleged "imminent threat" in the way we did, thus putting the Iranian defense forces on hyper-alert status. 

I am in no way excusing the Iranian action, or reaction, but even in the case of responding to the worst possible kinds of bad actors, like Kim Jong Un, for example, we don't see it as being in the nation's best interests (and against international law) to kill him. The possibilities of untended and terrible consequences are simply too great, including the likelihood, in the case of Iran, of bringing about greater sympathy and support for the Iranian government and for its policy of seeking revenge against the U.S. in whatever ways possible, thus making us all less safe. 

Imagine our response if a foreign attack by some super power would have made a martyr of Colin Powell while he/we were plotting an invasion of Iraq in 2003? Would that kind of preemptive strike have been in an attacking country's best interest or would it have galvanized American resolve to get ever more revenge by whatever means possible? Which in fact is what drove the US to attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, which even the president who initiated those attacks to later acknowledge them as a mistake, particularly the invasion of Iraq.

I know most of my readers will dismiss Jesus's and Paul's teaching against exacting revenge as applying only to our personal relationships and not being applicable to nation states. But even a legitimate national right to defend is not the same as an unlimited right to attack.

These same readers may also see any comparison between how a nation should act and how the Amish responded to the attack on their children at the Nickel Mines School as ridiculous. But is it?

What would have happened if after the 911 tragedy, when we experienced an outpouring of sympathy and support from virtually all nations everywhere around the world, including Muslim ones, we would have responded in a manner more like that of the Amish?

At the very least the U.S. could have called for a high level meeting at the UN to probe every possible means of never having a tragedy like the 911 attacks to happen again anywhere in the world. 

But the Amish went much further, actually returning good for evil, raising money to help their attacker's family, attending his funeral service, and stating their unconditional forgiveness for his horrendous deed. This didn't take away from their sorrow or anguish, but it was their radical and Christ-like response to it.

(Parenthetically, I prefer to see forgiveness as being an appropriate response to either repentance or ignorance on the part of an offender. In other words, to forgive as God forgives, based on a change of heart and mind (repentance), or as Christ asked for God's forgiveness on the basis of "they know not what they do" (ignorance). In this case, the attacker was neither ignorant nor able to repent (as far as we know). But what the Amish offered was a supreme expression of unconditional agape love, even toward ones worst enemy.)

In the case of the Amish, it could be argued that their response--that of returning good for evil instead of exacting revenge--has actually made them safer rather than more vulnerable to attack. They have garnered the universal respect and support of people all over world in their witness against evil and for their faith in their Lord as the non-violent Prince of Peace.

But could that approach ever actually work as a national strategy?

We may never know, since it's hard to imagine any nation ever trying it. But we can say with near certainty that an "eye for an eye" approach (originally meant to limit rather than add to a cycle of vengeance) will never achieve lasting world peace, and only cause eventual blindness for all who engage in it.

Note: Years ago I read something on the theme above, someone raising the question of what might have happened if our nation had responded to 911 as the Amish did to the Nickel Mines tragedy, but I haven't been able to find the source. If anyone can find that, I would like to give appropriate credit.