Moral Injury in War

This link is to a video of Stanley Hauerwas discussing the moral injury of war.  Hauerwas is a Professor at Duke Divinity School in Christian Ethics.

Music and Scripture Meet: 4'33" and Genesis 1

            Genesis 1:1-2 – “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters (NRSV),” can be put into an artistic conversation with a composition by twentieth century experimental composer, John Cage, called 4’33” (Four Minutes and Thirty-Three Seconds).  The void (as described below) created by 4’33” and the “music” that comes from that void can be compared and contrasted with God’s creation of the heavens and the earth from nothing but a formless void.

            John Cage (1912-1992) was an American composer who at one point (and most famously) in his career focused on indeterminacy, a compositional technique where “music” is determined only by limited, if any, guidelines, giving much freedom to the performer(s).[1]  Cage held a very liberal view of the definition of music.  He said that music is “’sound’ defined in the broadest possible sense, encompassing all types of incidental sounds [talking, machines, movement, etc.—My examples] as well as ‘normal’ musical events…”[2] Indeterminacy, according to Cage, is such a radical compositional technique that it allows the composer to abandon all control and allow the listener to hear the sounds as Cage’s composition, 4’33” (Four Minutes and Thirty-Three Seconds) may be the signature piece of his musical philosophy.[3]  In 4’33”, the performer(s) bring their instruments and/or body to appear ready to play or sing, and then they remain silent for four minutes and thirty-three seconds.  The music is found in the silence created by the performer(s) in such things as the conversations, laughing, coughing, other sounds of the audience, the chair creaking sounds, the sounds of the heating or air system, and audible sounds from outside.  John Cage’s musical influence came as a result of his fascination with Eastern religions and philosophies including the I Ching [Book of Changes], Chinese book of oracles, Eastern mysticism, and especially Zen Buddhism.[4]  Though this piece is not directly influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview, it is very reminiscent of the Creation Story in Genesis 1.

            In the first two verses of Genesis 1, the “formless void” is a major detail.  This detail serves to proclaim God’s infinite power.  It describes God’s transcendence above all things (and non-things) because of being an all-powerful God who can even take nothing, a concept that is very difficult for humans to understand, and create all that exists.  The absolute power of God may be most evident in this passage (Genesis 1:1-2) from the Priestly source of the Torah.[5]

            Just as 4’33” creates “music” out of a void, God creates the heavens and the earth from a void.  God’s power and majesty is declared in the ability to create everything out of nothing.  From the great abyss, God made all that exists.  In 4’33”, John Cage allows his definition of music to be created out of silence.  In both cases, where there is nothing, a new creation comes into being.  Gods creation comes into being through God’s spoken word in the formless void, while in 4’33” the music emerges from nothing; silence.

            Though 4’33” and Genesis 1:1-2 have much in common, there are significant differences.  Genesis 1 tells of a creative God who knows exactly what the “final product” will be.  God goes through an ordered process in creating all of creation.  In contrast, every performance of 4’33” will, by definition of the compositional style, be different and indeterminable.  In the remaining verses of Genesis 1, God creates the heavens, earth, and their inhabitants in a specific and well-defined order.  By contrast, John Cage shuns any notion of order and definition in this composition.  What is heard or what is not heard is by accident and by chance.  However, both the Scripture and the composition are meant to be taken seriously.  Though there are significant differences, there are significant commonalities.  Readers and/or listeners have misunderstood both. Some people read Genesis as a “science or history book” of creation rather than its “narration of ancient Israel’s traditions and concepts of the past”[6] and it’s amazing description of God’s power. Similarly, listeners have misunderstood 4’33” to be humorous or have even rejected it as a music altogether rather than recognizing it as revolutionary composition.  A simple youtube.com search [by typing “4’33”” in the search menu] can prove this through the many performances on this sight.

            While reading Genesis one day, and especially these two verses, my mind as a trained and former semi-professional musician and music teacher was immediately drawn to my first experience of “hearing” 4’33” in a Twentieth Century Music History Class in my undergraduate education.  The professor played this composition (and yes, there are recordings of 4’33”) and then explained the significance of this piece.  Both the composition and the Scripture are reliant on “nothing” whether “nothing” is a formless void or a time of silence.  And, out of “nothing” something is created.  The final result of 4’33” is different from Genesis 1:1-2 in that the “music” is undefined while God’s final creation is defined (later in Genesis 1), but both form the creation of a work of art out of nothing.  In 4’33”, John Cage does not need a certain grouping of instruments or vocalists or even a musical score to perform this work; only silence is needed.  Similarly, in Genesis 1, God does not need anything to make the greatest work of art of all: the heavens and the earth.  All God “needs” is God’s own spoken words, “Let there be…”. 

---

[1] Robert P. Morgan, Twentieth Century Music- A History of Musical Style in Modern Europe and America, (New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 1991), 359.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 363.

[4] Ibid., 362.

[5] Footnote from The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV, Harold W. Attridge, ed. Revised Edition, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), 5.

[6] Harper Collins Study Bible, 4.

2 Conversations Most Pacifists Will Have

            OK, I admit it, I used the word “donkey” so I didn’t begin with the word I really meant… “ass.”  But, when someone comes out as a pacifist, or if they say they are exploring pacifism, the following is usually the conversation.   This eventually leads to the pacifist calling the tormentor an “ass” or vice versa. 

 The Donkey Conversation #1  (This idea of this conversation is borrowed from John Howard Yoder’s What Would You Do?).

(Key:  P=Pacifist, NP=Non Pacifist)

NP:  So, you’re a pacifist?

P:  Well, yeah, I’m pretty sure this is what God expects of us.

NP:  So what would you do if someone were holding a gun at the head of someone you love?

P:  Well, I guess I’d be upset.

NP:  You wouldn’t shoot them?

P:  I don’t have a gun, and I doubt spitballs would do much good in this situation.

NP:  OK, you have a gun.

P:  Well, I’d expect the person would break in without much warning and I wouldn’t  have time to grab the gun even if I wanted it.

NP:  OK, forget about how it happens, but you have a gun, and someone is threatening to kill someone you love.

P:  Am I a good shot?

NP:  Yes…a very good shot.

P:  OK, that’s easy…I’d shot the gun out of the criminal’s hand.

NP:  You’re not that good…

P:  How do you know…have you ever seen me shoot a gun? 

NP:  No…but that’s not the point…Why wouldn’t you just kill the criminal?

P:  Because it never works that way.  If I shot, the criminal would shoot at the sound of my shot, and then we’d have 2 dead people.

NP:  You’re being impossible.  OK…if you shoot, the criminal can’t.  If you don’t shoot, the criminal will.

P:  Oh, well you’ve made it easy.  I know exactly what I’d do.  I’d dance.

NP:  Dance?  Why would you dance at a time like this?

P:  Have you ever seen me dance?

NP:  Well, no…but what does dancing have to do with this situation?

P:  A lot!  I can clear a room if I start dancing.  The criminal couldn’t stand seeing my                         gyrations that he/she would have to leave.  Trust me, my dancing should be outlawed!

NP:  That’s stupid.  That’s not how the scenario goes.

P:  Why do you get to make up how it goes?  Are you going to break into my house?

NP:  Of course not…I’m just trying to prove that…Ugh…You know, you’re being a smartass!

P:  Well, that’s because you’re being a dumbass!

            The problem with the above conversation is that it implies there are only 2 options.  Kill the criminal or the criminal kills the loved one.  But, I’ve never heard of a situation working like that…ever!  Criminals don’t enter with much warning, so unless one keeps a gun on a holster at all times, the chances of getting to the gun would not be great.  Even if one could get to the gun, what if it scares the criminal into killing the loved one?  And then, come to think of it, aside from very few instances, I’ve never heard of a home invasion where the sole purpose was to kill one person.  Most home invasions are to steal goods or money. 

            So, while the above may be someone’s vain attempt to “prove” that someone can’t be a pacifist, the logic and flow of events is quite unlikely.  It fails to prove anything.  The problem comes when the pacifist agrees to fall into the trap of this conversation by allowing that it “could happen” just this way.  In that event, many pacifists will admit they would kill to save a loved one.  But, we must remember that the logic of that conversation (and most like it) is flawed and inaccurate.

The Donkey Conversation #2

            If one who claims to be a pacifist “wins” conversation #1, the following conversation usually ensues…assuming that the non-pacifist doesn’t mind being called a “dumbass,” doesn’t storm off, or doesn’t bring severe bodily harm to the pacifist (thus challenging how passive the pacifist truly can be).

NP:  OK, what if our country was invaded by some other country?

P:  That would stink.

NP:  What would you do?

P: Probably try to be somewhere safe, or at least as far away from the battles as I can get.

NP:  You mean you wouldn’t defend your country?

P:  I didn’t say that…

NP:  Not directly…but you said you’d get away from the fighting.

P:  Why do I have to be near gunfire to defend my country?

NP:  You’d have to shoot the opposing army.

P:  I don’t have a gun, remember?

NP:  What if you did?

P:  Well, if I were to use a gun (which I wouldn’t), I doubt a shotgun or hunting rifle is going to match up to military weapons.

NP:  OK, fine…You have a machine gun…or a grenade launcher…or….

P:  You mean they’re just handing those things out to anyone?  And we’re worried about an invading army?  It seems we have other issues to worry about now.

NP:  The nation needs defended, so the government is giving weapons to people to defend it.

P:  What if one of those weapons is given to the person who came into my house to shoot my loved one?           

NP:  What does that person have to do with this conversation?

P:  Well, if that person is so deranged to invade my house just to kill a loved one or to be killed, what would stop that person from doing it in a time of war?

NP:  Because that person is now defending the country…like you should be doing.

P:  Why does this person hate me so much?  And what happens if the country is successfully defended?  Would that home invader come back?

NP:  You’re being a smartass again!

P:  Well, you’re being…oh, never mind.

NP:  So you wouldn’t defend the nation?

P:  I didn’t say that…you did.

NP:  OK, so you would?

P:  I would defend freedom and fight oppression.

NP:  So you would fight?

P:  Of course I’d fight (assuming the invaders were oppressors – come to think of it, what if they were just lost, and people started shooting at them, and they started shooting back…what if it’s not an invasion at all but a misunderstanding?).           

NP:  I’m going to ignore that and just ask how you’d defend the country.

P:  By fighting the oppression.

NP:  So you’re not a pacifist? Gotcha!

P:  Yes I am…Pacifists fight.

NP:  How?  Are you going to throw stones at the invaders?

P:  That would be violent…I doubt I’d do that.

NP: So, what would you do?

P:  Fight.

NP: How?

P:  Speaking out, protesting, creating disturbances to the oppressors, you know…stuff like Gandhi did.

NP:  Well, that stuff is illegal under the invaders.

P:  And shooting them isn’t?

NP:  Well, of course it is…but at least shooting would work.

P:  Not necessarily…what if the shooters on our side are bad at aiming? Or we have inferior weapons?

NP:  We don’t…don’t you see that we have the best military in the world?

P:  Well, then why aren’t they defending the country?

NP:  They are...they just need our help.

P:  If they need our help, then technically they wouldn’t be as good as the invaders.

NP:  OK, fine…you’re really irritating me…they don’t NEED us, but to be patriotic you’d have to fight.           

P:  I already told you I would and how I’d do it.

NP:  But your way won’t work!

P:  First of all, how do you know?  And second of all, why is your version of success the only acceptable success in this event?

NP:  We don’t want them taking us over!

P:  Right!  So that’s why I’d speak out, protest, etc.

NP:  How can “fighting” that way work?

P:  Well, I guess a lot of that has to do with God.  What about “turning the other cheek,” “loving our enemies,” “blessed are the peacemakers,” and other stuff like that?

NP:  You’d love our invaders?

P:  Well, I’m probably not going to marry any of them…my wife wouldn’t approve anyway.  I certainly wouldn’t like what they’d be doing, and I probably wouldn’t want to have tea and crumpets with them, but yeah, I’d love them the way I love all of God’s creation.  It’s not perfect love, but I’d try none the less.

NP:  So now you’re bringing God into this?

P:  I didn’t bring God in…God’s always been in.

NP:  Not in this scenario…

P:  How is God not somehow involved in everything?

NP:  OK, fine, God is involved, but God wants you to shoot the enemy.

P:  You talked to God???  You mean you actually heard God say that???

NP:  Of course I didn’t talk to God…well, I pray…but…you know…you’re very                         difficult…I guess I just can’t talk sense into you.

P:  You’re probably right.  You can’t talk sense into me.  And, didn’t Paul say something about God using the foolish to shame the wise?

NP:  I really want to hit you now!

P:  If you do, I’ll turn the other cheek, but you’ll have to look me in the eye when I do.

NP:  Ugh!!!! (Storms off).

            When countered with biblical evidence against killing (“Turn the other cheek,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” etc.), it is hard to claim that it is God’s will to wage war.  The Book of Joshua may be thrown in as “counter-evidence” to defend killing.  If that happens, we have to take a close look at what Joshua is really about.  Is the killing a true genocide?  Does it symbolize “killing idolatry?”  Aren’t those people also God’s creation?  And, even if it does condone killing, notice that the killing is directed solely by God.  Never does a person decide whom to kill. 

Conclusions:

1.    1.   It seems that God desires pacifism even in the face of danger. One can do a long detailed study, but there are enough small anecdotes that prove this.  Heck, Jesus even yelled at Peter after he cut off the guard’s ear…the same guard who was arresting Jesus.  Then, if that wasn’t enough, he put the ear back on the guy.

2.    2.   People often say pacifism won’t work.  That depends on what the definition of success is.  By not killing, a person succeeds at not having blood on his or her hands.  If the definition of success is winning an intended goal, there are examples such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi who never fired a shot, and both of them succeeded.

3.     3.  There is still the question of “duty of care.”  If we had a time machine and could kill Hitler to save all those he killed, would it be ok to kill?  That is a tough question, but also an impossible question.  There is no way of knowing if by killing anyone (including Hitler) if the intended results will prevail.  What if one of the other Nazis came into power after Hitler’s death and was more brutal?  This does not mean caring for the weak or those who can’t defend themselves is forbidden.  But, look at how Jesus defended the woman caught in adultery.  She was supposed to be stoned.  He got in the middle and said whoever hasn’t sinned could cast the first stone.  He put himself at risk while still defending the woman.  Each scenario is different, but there is always a non-killing option.

Funny E Mail Forwards

Cleaning out some of our old paperwork, my wife found print-outs of old e mail forwards.  She gave them to me and then listened to my laughing (sometimes hysterically) for the next half hour.  Here are of them.  IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, FIND ONE, OR DON'T READ.

Ways to Maintain a Healthy Level of Insanity
* At your lunch break, sit in your parked car with sunglasses on and point a hair dryer at oncoming cars....see if they slow down.
*Page yourself over the Intercom...Don't Disguise your voice.
*(My Personal Favorite)- Finish all your sentences with "In accordance with the prophecy."
*As often as possible, skip rather than walk.
*Sing along at the opera.
*5 days in advance, tell your friend you can't attend his/her party because you're not in the mood.
*Make your co-workers address you by your professional wrestling name: "Rock Bottom."
*When money comes out of the ATM, start screaming "I Won! I Won!"
*(You have to have a sense of humor for this one)  At dinner, tell your children, "Due to the downturn in the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."

Little Golden Books That Never Made It

"You Are Different and That's Bad"
"The Boy Who Died From Eating All His Vegetables"
"Fun four-letter Words to Know and Share"
"Hammers, Screwdrivers and Scissors: An I-Can-Do-It Book"
"The Kids' Guide to Hitchhiking"
'Kathy Was So Bad Her Mom Stopped Loving Her"
"Curious George and the High-Voltage Fence"
"All Cats Go to Hell"
"The Little Sissy Who Snitched"
"Some Kittens Can Fly"
"That's it, I'm Putting You Up for Adoption"
"The Magic World Inside the Abandoned Refrigerator"
"The Pop-Up Book of Human Anatomy"
"Strangers Have the Best Candy"
"Whining, Kicking and Crying to Get Your Way"
"You Were an Accident"
"Things Rich Kids Have, But You Never Will"
"Pop! Goes The Hamster...And Other Great Microwave Games"
"The Man in the Moon Is Actually Satan"
"Your Nightmares Are Real"
"Where Would You Like to Be Buried?"
"Eggs, Toilet Paper, and Your School"
"Why Can't Mr. Fork and Ms. Electrical Outlet Be Friends?"
"Places Where Mommy and Daddy Hide Neat Things"
"Daddy Drinks Because You Cry"

Redneck Haiku

Damn, in that tube-top
You make me almost forget
That you're my cousin.

Naked in repose,
Silvery silhouette girls
Adorn my mudflaps.

A painful sadness.
Can't fit big screen TV through
Double-wide's front door.

In WalMart toy aisle,
Wailing boy wants wrestling doll.
Mama whups his ass.

Distant siren screams.
Idiot Verne's been playing with
Gasoline again.

Flashlights pierce darkness.
No nightcrawlers to be found.
Guess we'll gig some frogs.

I curse the rainbow
Emblazoned upon his hood.
I hate Jeff Gordon.

Tonight we hunger.
Grandma sent grocery money
To Jimmy Swaggart.

Set the VCR:
Dukes of Hazzard Marathon
At 9 O'Clock.

Sixty-five dollars
And cyclone fence keeps me from
My El Camino.

Educational Policies of Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, a former US Senator is running for the presidency in 2012.  After reading a quote he made about education, I sent him the following e mail via townhall.com and his Presidential Campaign FaceBook Page.  Ironically, there is no link to contact him on his official Campaign Website.

Dear Senator Santorum,

In this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-santorum-iowa-2012_n_919266.html), you were quoted as saying that our “schools indoctrinate our children.”  You went on to say that surveys show that students find socialism to be better than capitalism, and the ultimate reason is that is because “they don’t understand America.”

From this website (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm#Education) , I found your voting record while you were in the US Senate of the votes pertaining to education. From that website, I have selected just a few issues from 2001-2005:

            *You Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct                                     2005)

            *You Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)

            *You Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar                                     2005)

            *You Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)

            *You Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)

            *You Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr                                     2001)

If this account of your voting is inaccurate, I would appreciate a correction.

Senator Santorum, I have to agree with you that our schools DO, in fact, indoctrinate our nation’s children.  But, that indoctrination does not stem from a fundamental flaw with public education, nor does it stem from inadequate teachers (I will grant you that there are inadequate teachers, but that is not our immediate problem).

As for my background, I have been a public school teacher for 10 years.  During those years, I taught mainly in high-poverty communities with few exceptions.  I hold a BA in Music Education, an M.Ed. in Educational Administration, and I am working on my M.Div. degree in Pastoral Ministry.  I am proud to be serving as the pastor of a church, and I am even more proud to be the husband of a former teacher and the father of 2 small children ages 2 and 5. 

As stated before, our schools do indoctrinate our children.  What you call socialism, teachers call “sharing.”  From day one of Kindergarten, children are taught to share their toys, learning materials, and ideas.  While you see this as a Communist plot, we call it “learning to work with others,” something that sadly you and many other politicians failed to learn as is proven almost every time the nation requires cooperation across party lines.

Your voting record may indicate why children say that socialism is better than capitalism.  As I said, most of my teaching career was in high-poverty communities.  Because of the lack of funds to these schools (and your voting record is clear that you supported this lack of funding), we had to ration things such as paper and pencils.  Teachers continue to be limited in the number of copies they can make because the school budget does not allow for such “luxuries.”  Senator Santorum, from your own record, it is obvious that you took part in creating this situation.  So, rather than “survival of the fittest,” and allowing the “more motivated” students have access to the pencils and paper, many of us teachers used socialistic techniques such as “rationing,” “sharing,” and “recycling.” 

You voted to fund private tutors rather than reducing class sizes, but yet the “No Child Left Behind Act” states that ALL students should be competent in the tested subjects.  Do you find it ironic that by stating that all must be equal, The NCLB Act supports a socialistic agenda?  I’m certain, however, that you were only using socialism to actually root out the “lower performing students,” and allow the “gifted students” to rise up as would be part of a true capitalistic agenda based on competition and success through personal effort.  Through the NCLB, you can, in effect deny funding to those schools that do not perform as arbitrarily decided by people who have little to no educational background.  Sadly, you did not make it clear to teachers or school administrators that this was your agenda.  So, in the spirit of socialism, schools attempt to teach EVERY child to reach his or her highest potential, and schools have jumped aboard and teach to the arbitrary standards (which, as I’m sure an expert on education such as yourself would know are not statistically valid measures of actual educational goals).  Despite the large class sizes, teachers try to give their time equally to all students with added time during their lunch breaks, planning periods, or recess to assist the lower performing students.  So that we know unequivocally that you do not support these socialistic techniques, will you please go on the record and state that education is ONLY for those who can compete at the top notch? 

Again, as one who sees public education as the enemy as it is in its current form, I, and many Americans would like your answers to the following questions:

            *Though you attended Butler (PA) Area School District in your youth, you graduated from Carmel High School in Illinois (a Private Catholic School).  Though I don’t think many would begrudge your private education, could you please let the public know how this qualifies you to legislate public school policy?

            *As a person of faith and a pastor, I believe most certainly that God created the universe.  If you will permit me to assume that from your “Santorum Amendment” to the NCLB which basically says that schools should be required to teach Intelligent Design and promote the idea that the evolutionary theory is flawed, why do you also state “Compassionate Conservatism relies on healthy families, freedom of faith…(emphasis is my own)” (November 17, 2005: "The Conservative Future: Compassion". http://townhall.com/columnists/ricksantorum/2005/11/17/the_conservative_future_compassion)?  How does promoting this religious belief in public education allow for “freedom of faith?”

            *In order for schools to be able to avoid vicariously teaching socialistic concepts such as sharing, rationing, and recycling, would you please go on the record that you in fact support funding schools so that each student can have his/her own piece of paper, pencil, textbook, etc. and that teachers will be provided with adequate educational essentials so they do not have to spend money out of their own pockets (taking away from their families and their own wellbeing)?

            *Finally, so that the idea of competition to achieve a desired end can be taught and practiced, will you please go on the record and advocate for the complete repeal of the NCLB which in fact promotes a socialistic agenda saying that ALL students are equal?

Senator Santorum, as an American, voter, former teacher, current parent, person of faith, and pastor, I ask that you address the above questions so that America does not fall into the abyss of what was once the Soviet Union under communism.

I will pray that you make wise decisions during your presidential campaign and in whatever may follow.

An Old Testament Call to Passive Resistance

This is a paper I wrote concerning Pacifism in the Old Testament from Jeremiah 29:1-9 (and some following verses).  The formatting may not be great on here since the cut/paste feature doesn't seem to be an exact process. If there are questions about the sources, make a comment, and I'll do my best to clarify.

“Jeremiah 29: A Call to Passive Resistance”

            Jeremiah 29:1-9 is a letter written from the prophet Jeremiah to the first wave of exiles in Babylon under King Nebuchadnezzar.  Patrick D. Miller argues that this letter is telling the exiles “Do not resist; carry on your lives; learn to come to terms with your situation.”[1] While I agree with Miller on the second point, I disagree with his first point, which is the most fundamental point to the entire passage.  I will argue that resistance is exactly what Jeremiah intends to incite through this letter.  Jeremiah is not calling for armed resistance, nor is he calling for rebellion or even civil disobedience.  Instead, Jeremiah is calling upon the exiles to maintain their Jewish[2] identity in an act of passive resistance to the Babylonian oppressors who hold them hostage.  As is often the case, when once culture dominates another, especially by force, the “victim culture” loses its identity at worst, or at best, they often maintain some of their identity with concessions and adaptations to the oppressor’s culture.  God, through Jeremiah’s letter is calling upon the exiles not to fall into the trap of losing any of their identity as God’s Chosen People.  I will begin by setting the stage for the context of this passage with a brief historical setting. Following the historical background, I will give evidence of tactics used by oppressors to remove the identity of those whom they oppress.  I will then give evidence of how this passage advocates resistance in a non-violent manner to the status quo until a time in which God will set the exiles free.  Following that, I will explore the part of the passage that says that the welfare of Babylon will be the welfare of the exiles.[3]  I will also include a section that discusses the dangers of misreading this passage in which an oppressor could “wrongly justify” their oppression using this text.  I will finally discuss how this text speaks to people today through its overt message as well as through its imagery to maintain identity as a form of non-violent resistance.

            In 597 BCE, Babylon deported a first wave of exiles from Judea into Nebuchadnezzar’s Kingdom of Babylon[4] (roughly located in modern day Iraq).  Ten years later in 587 BCE, Jerusalem was destroyed[5] and a new wave of exiles was taken into Babylon.  For some reason, the Babylonians allowed correspondence (of which this passage is an example) between Judean and the exiles in Babylon.  This unlikely arrangement can be explained by assuming that the Babylonian authorities wanted to keep the exiles informed of events in Jerusalem, possibly to demoralize them, and they also wanted to remind Zedekiah, the King of Judea, that Babylon had the real power, and holding hostages was one method of proving that and making sure that tribute payments were paid to Babylon.[6]  The exiles were held in Babylon until the Persians led by Cyrus assumed control and issued a decree in 538 BCE releasing the hostages back to Jerusalem and providing them with funds to rebuild their Temple.[7]

            “Build houses…plant gardens…take wives…have sons and daughters...take wives for your sons…give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease...”[8] Each of these commands in Jeremiah’s prophetic letter invoke God’s commands of maintaining the Jewish identity and culture amid oppression and exile.  Each command also explicitly tells the exiles that while they are to live peaceably among the Babylonians (“…seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare,”[9]), they are not to become influenced by the Babylonian culture, identity, or religion.  The exiles are to remember their identity and to produce a new generation of Jewish people, while still under oppression.  While violent resistance may produce a quick end (either end to the oppression or an end of the Jewish people through destruction by the Babylonians), God is commanding the Jewish people to resist through passive means by in maintaining their Jewish identity through forming communities by building houses, planting gardens, continuing to have children, allowing their children to marry, and maintaining their daily lives.

            We can look at other historical situations to see the tactics used by oppressive regimes to gain control of those whom they oppress.  During China’s Cultural Revolution from the 1960’s to the 1970’s, led by Mao Zedong, the Chinese leadership further oppressed Tibet, which they had annexed in 1950 into the nation of China in the name of “liberation.”  This so called “liberation” turned out to be oppression of the Tibetan people, religion and culture (along with that of most people in China).  Tibetan artifacts that were at least a thousand years old were destroyed, and the Chinese Communist regime even convinced some of the Tibetan citizens, including Buddhist Monks, that this was the right thing to do.  Names were changed and transcribed into Chinese, and thus, were pronounced with a Chinese accent.[10] Almost anything tying Tibetans to their native culture was eliminated or put under strict regulations by the Chinese Communists.  In a different book, Alex Haley’s semi-autobiographical novel, Roots gives several examples of losing one’s identity in the face of oppression.  One such powerful example is a scene where a slave in the American South named Samson approaches the character Kunta Kinte.  Samson tries to convince Kunta that his name is Toby, the name given to him by the slave master.  Kunta continues to hold that Toby is not his name; his name is Kunta Kinte![11]  By taking away his name, the slave master is, in effect, trying to dismantle Kunta’s identity as an African and to convince Kunta that his identity is an American Slave as he had already accomplished with Samson.  Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. states that oppressors begin oppression by first taking away the names and stories of the oppressed.[12] As we’ve seen in the two previous examples of Tibet and American Slavery, Rev. Wright is correct on this issue.  Rev. Wright’s sermon discusses how slave traders and then later, racist people unwilling to integrate with former slaves or their descendents treated the African-Americans as sub-human.  When cultural roots, histories, shared stories, and names are taken away from a group of people, generations will be “lost” by forced-integration into the oppressive culture. 

If we read Jeremiah 29 intertextually with the book of Daniel, a book that is also set during the exile, we see the names of the Jewish Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah being changed by Babylon’s chief official to Beltesheazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, in an attempt to take away their Jewish identity.[13]  Though the actual historicity of this passage can be put into question, and many consider this to be a mythic tale, the underlying message cannot be discounted.  Oppressors attempt to change identities of those whom they oppress. In another intertextual reading with Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar had a large golden statue made of him.  He commanded that at the sound of the music, everyone was to fall down and worship this statue.  Seeing this as idol worship and staying true to their roots, Daniel and his friends refused to worship this statue.  After being interrogated by Nebuchadnezzar, the four exiles were thrown into the Fiery Furnace heated seven times hotter than normal, but they were left unharmed through divine intervention.  In this apocalyptic story, we can see yet another account of an oppressor (in this case, Babylon, the same oppressor in Jeremiah), attempting to wipe away the culture and personhood of those under their oppression.[14] Babylon attempted to wipe out the very religion and roots of the Jewish people under their control.

As the exiles in Jeremiah 29 build houses, have children, let their children marry, and increase in population, they are resisting these oppressive tactics that would cause them to lose their identity.  By maintaining their identity under unfavorable conditions, the exiles are passively resisting the Babylonian oppressors.  In keeping homes and having families, they can hold onto their own names, culture, and religion (even just if at home), and they are holding onto the message passed from generations before that no matter what the Babylonians do to them, they are a different, special, and Chosen People of the one true God.  As they have their children marry and reproduce, they are maintaining their historical link to the Promised Land to which they hope to someday return.  Through oral tradition, they can keep traditions, stories of Israel and Jerusalem, and the hope of return alive.  Through these acts the exiles are not allowing the Babylonian culture to totally defeat them through forced enculturation.  Though they have been defeated in might and strength, by following God’s commands in this letter, they can never be defeated as a people with names, culture, religion, and history.  Even today, the Jewish people in the Diaspora hold special feelings for Israel, Jerusalem, and especially the hopeful rebuilding of the Temple.

            The idea of kinship cannot be understated in the identity of the Jewish people (or any other “tightly knit” ethnic/cultural/religious group).  Kinship of all Jewish people has been important throughout history since antiquity.  The Jewish People hardly (if at all) distinguished between “good Jews” and “bad Jews.”  All of Jewish heritage are, and have been, identified as Jews.[15]  Accordingly, the exiles in Jeremiah 29 see themselves as a people united by that very kinship.  This is proven through three observations of the text.  First of all, the exiles were taken into Babylon from one “nation (Judea),” and/or one city, Jerusalem.  Judea, and especially Jerusalem was central to Jewish life, culture, and religion.  The Temple in Jerusalem was seen as the house of God on earth.  Second, these people believed in the God of the Jewish people, Yahweh.  One can see proof of this by merely scanning the passage and seeing that the letter from Jeremiah is speaking of this one God.  Had they not been unified by belief in this God, this letter would hold no credence as a prophetic letter.  These people were the Chosen People of this God.  They were chosen by God to be the vehicle that would allow God’s justice to spread to the whole world as a “light to the nations.”[16]  Third, by maintaining their culture through the construction of houses and forming communities and families separate from the Babylonians, the Jewish people are asserting their kinship with one another.  As they kept community with other Jews, these exiles kept their roots central to their being.  Kinship assumes a shared history and/or a shared story.  When a culture loses its history, they die.[17] When a new history is given to the younger generations, those generations “die” to their native culture as well.  Rev. Jeremiah Wright explains this using the current experience of African-Americans.  Through centuries of oppression, their homeland and native culture has been called inferior to Western standards.  As this is drilled into the minds of people, they begin to accept it as true.  Each generation loses a little more of their history as each generation passes, thus causing even more of a loss of identity.  After losing identity, the exiles, (African-Americans in Wright’s example) take on the fashions, culture, and lifestyles similar to those of their oppressors.[18]  Despite the tactics that the Babylonians used, the exiles in Babylon continued to maintain their culture and identity, and they remained a people, and no less, the Chosen People of God, with a shared history, story, and culture.

            Probably the most controversial and confusing portion of Jeremiah’s Letter to the exiles is where God, through Jeremiah tells the exiles to seek the welfare of the city where they are exiled and to pray for its wellbeing because their own wellbeing is tied to that city.[19]  This must have come as an unwelcomed surprise to the exiles.  It is difficult to imagine God telling an obviously oppressed group of people that they are not only to live in harmony with their captors, but they are also to pray for them.  Logic would say that they must have wondered if this was a real command from God or the uttering of some false prophet.  Jeremiah counters this thought by writing that the prophets and diviners among the exiles (who are prophesying a quick return) are not from God, and they are not to listen to them.[20]  William Holladay describes this letter as a “Rude Letter” from God.[21]  Holladay says that in verse 7, the English translated word “welfare” is actually the word “shalom” (Hebrew for “peace”).[22]  In light of this, Holladay paraphrases Jeremiah’s letter to imply: “Ah, you are listening for ‘peace be to you’ but you listen for it in vain until you do some work of your own…(My own emphasis added).”[23] I argue that Holladay is emphasizing the need for peace and peaceful resistance.  Thich Nhat Hanh, a nominee for the Nobel Peace Price by Martin Luther King, Jr. writes, “Evil is never overcome with evil to produce peace.”[24]  War and violence only quiets or subdues the losers.  Sometimes the losers are subdued forever, but many times, the losers are only subdued until they can gain enough strength to again lash out, but this time with more anger than before.  In fact, Biblical/Christian Pacifism is not rooted in efficacy (violence often produces results quicker than passive resistance), but rather it is rooted in a particular interpretation of God’s will as discerned through the Bible.  Patience in the face of oppression “is not a means to a greater good, but it is the good itself.”[25] Jeremiah, through God’s leading, realized that the good must be honored in telling the exiles that their resistance was not to be violent.  Jeremiah realized that Babylon should not be subdued by force, but that through patience, endurance, and passive resistance, the Jewish people would be vindicated.

By telling the exiles to seek the peace of Babylon and to pray for them, and by further explaining that the exiles’ peace is tied to Babylon’s peace, God, through Jeremiah’s Letter is commanding that they not take up arms or violence against their oppressors.  Much like most cultures today, the exiles, and even the Babylonians, built their civilizations upon the lie that “we, not God, are the masters of our existence.”[26]  Almost all nations and cultural groups, whether religious or not attempt to be the masters of their own existence through trying to manipulate their circumstances in social orders, laws, treaties, and so forth. Despite Jeremiah’s letter at least some of the Jewish exiles still held to the thought that they, and not God, would one day avenge their situation.  They even composed a Psalm saying, “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!”[27]  This Psalm came as a result of tormenting of the exiles to “sing us [the Babylonians] one of the songs of Zion.”[28]  Understandably, the exiles wanted to return home, and while returning home, they wanted to return revenge.  God’s precepts, however, do not work that way.  Ellen Davis gives and interpretation of this Psalm and others like it.  She says that these “cursing Psalms” are a cry for vengeance asking God to act.[29]  Reading this text through the lens of Christ, we can see that the call to “turn the other cheek”[30] is not unique to the New Testament, nor is “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”[31]  This is an Old Testament example of the call to live in voluntary subordination (similar to Christ’s teachings previously cited).  When doing so, the subordinate group holds the moral authority over the dominant group calling upon them to forsake their “domineering use of that status.”[32]

Even though this passage speaks to a specific situation, we must also explore the potential dangers of interpreting it wrongly.  Though it is God’s will that the exile took place,[33] it should not be interpreted that every (or any) oppressive situation is God’s will.  One could take this passage out of context and use it to justify oppression and attempt to subdue those being oppressed by saying that their situation is “God’s will.”  Oppressors have often used biblical interpretation to justify their wrongs.  For example, slavery has been justified using Genesis 9:22-27 (Noah’s curse of Ham’s descendents), the book of Philemon (Paul returning Philemon’s slave Onesimus), and 1 Timothy 6:1-6 where Paul tells slaves to regard their masters as “worthy of honor.”[34]  Though slavery was a cultural norm in the Biblical period, hardly anyone would argue that such oppression of a human is acceptable today.  So must one see Jeremiah 29.  God ultimately causes the exile and oppression for the peoples’ unfaithfulness.  The exile is not merely a military conquest with the victor claiming the resources and people.  This is an act of God after repetitive prophetic warnings.  Repressive regimes must not use this text to legitimate their oppression and say that it is “God’s will.” 

Though Jeremiah 29 calls for non-violence, it is not a call for religious people to be silent in the face of oppression.  The vindication of the exiles is prophesied in Jeremiah 50:1-3 where God says that Babylon’s idols will be put to shame, and a nation from the north (most likely the Persians led by God’s decree) will destroy Babylon.  The reader must remember that though God uses human sources to carry out this vindication and revenge, the action originates from God and not from humans.

“The word of God is living and active…”[35] Just as the call for non-violent resistance applied for the exiles in Babylon so too, it applies today.  The world is ripe with injustice and oppression.  If we are to take the words of Jeremiah seriously, we must look at our own situations and use Jeremiah 29 as a model for seeking justice and an end to oppression.  Again, quoting Stanley Hauerwas from The Peaceable Kingdom, Patience in the face of oppression “is not a means to a greater good, but it is the good itself” (page 146).  Violent action may be more efficacious and bring a quicker solution, but violence is against the Will of God.  We are not to seek our own vengeance, but rather we are to allow God to have the vengeance.  Romans 12:19 says, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”  As followers of God, we must either allow God to be God, or we must forsake the covenant and be our own “gods.”  But, if we choose the latter, we must be ready to face the consequences.  As Jesus said in Matthew 26:52b, “…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.  Violence never has a good end.  Even if violence quashes an oppressor, there will always be oppressors and evildoers who will fill the vacuum of the one who was destroyed and blood will always be on the hands of the one who uses violence.  Even in our own figurative exiles to “Babylon” (whether in the form of oppression, addiction, conflict, or any other wrong), we must turn to the words of Jeremiah 29 and only resist passively. 

If Jeremiah’s letter ended in verse 9, the exiles then and those in exile (figurative or literal) now would not see hope in their passive resistance.  Fortunately, Jeremiah includes more in this letter.  Verses 10-14 go on to say, “For thus says the Lord: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. Then when you call upon me and come and pray to me, I will hear you. When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.”  As people of God, we, just as the exiles, can take comfort in knowing that God has a future for us, and that future is for our benefit and not our harm if only we live up to our end of the covenant.

Works Cited:

Richard A. Burridge, “Being Biblical?: Slavery, Sexuality, and the inclusive community,” HTS Theological Studies (HTS 64(1), 2008).

R.E. Clements, Interpretation: Jeremiah (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988).

Ellen F. Davis, Getting Involved With God (Lanham Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.:  2001).

Alex Haley, Roots (New York: Gramercy Books, 2000).

Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2007).

Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom (Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).

Martha Himmelfarb, “Judaism in Antiquity: Ethno-Religion or National Identity,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, Winter 2009.

William L. Holladay, “God Writes a Rude Letter,” Biblical Archaeologist, Summer 1983.

Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (New York:  Grove Press, 2006).

Patrick D. Miller, Commentary on Jeremiah, The New Interpreters Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 6, Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001).

Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., “Faith in a Foreign Land,” Words from the Pulpit, (Summer 2007).

John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Second Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994).

Dr. Anathea Portier-Young, Class Lectures (Duke Divinity School: 2011).

Works Consulted:

B.O. Banwell, “Prophets of Non-Violence,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa.

Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).

Rachel A. R. Bundang, “Home as a Memory, Metaphor, and Promise in Asian/Pacific American Religious Experience.

Stanley Hauerwas, The Hauerwas Reader, ed. John Berkman and Michael Cartwright (Durham, Duke University Press, 2001).

John Lamoreau and Ralph Beebe, Waging Peace: A Study in Biblical Pacifism (Newberg, OR: Barclay Press, 1981).

Victor H. Matthews, Social World of the Hebrew Prophets (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2001).

---

[1] Patrick D. Miller, Commentary on Jeremiah, The New Interpreters Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 6, Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 792.

[2] The term “Jewish” may be anachronistic to the time period of this passage; however, these exiles and their descendents are the people who are known from antiquity to modern times as the Jewish People.  This possibility of the term “Jewish” originating in this time period was discussed by Dr. A. Portier-Young in a class lecture on January, 28, 2011 giving the Historical Overview of that time period. 

[3] Jeremiah 29:7.

[4] Miller, Commentary on Jeremiah, The New Interpreters Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, 791.

[5] R.E. Clements, Interpretation: Jeremiah (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 171.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Dr. Anathea Portier-Young, Class Lecture: Historical Overview (Duke Divinity School), January 28, 2011.

[8] Jeremiah 29:5-7.

[9] Jeremiah 29:7-8.

[10]  Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (New York:  Grove Press, 2006), 348-349

[11] Alex Haley, Roots (New York: Gramercy Books, 2000), 214.

[12] Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., “Faith in a Foreign Land,” Words from the Pulpit, (Summer 2007), 242.

[13] Daniel 1:7.

[14] Daniel 3.

[15] David Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (New York:  Cambridge University Press, 2006), 19-26; quoted in Martha Himmelfarb, “Judaism in Antiquity: Ethno-Religion or National Identity,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, Winter 2009, 68.

[16] Isaiah 51:4.

[17] Jeremiah Wright, 241.

[18] Ibid., 242.

[19] Jeremiah 29:7.

[20] Jeremiah 29:8-9.

[21] William L. Holladay, “God Writes a Rude Letter,” Biblical Archaeologist, Summer 1983.

[22] Ibid., 145.

[23] Ibid., 145-146.

[24] Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ (New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2007), 75.

[25] Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom (Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 146.

[26] Ibid., 142.

[27] Psalm 137.

[28] Ibid., vs. 3.

[29] Ellen F. Davis, Getting Involved With God (Lanham Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.:  2001), 27.

[30] Matthew 5:39.

[31] Matthew 5:44.

[32] John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Second Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 186.

[33] Mentioned intermittently from Jeremiah 1-27.

[34] Richard A. Burridge, “Being Biblical?: Slavery, Sexuality, and the inclusive community,” HTS Theological Studies (HTS 64(1), 2008),159.

[35] Hebrews 4:12.