Guess what? It hasn't worked. At its "best," it has only managed to subdue one group and allow another to dominate. That is until the subdued group regains some strength and decides to "rise again." What is "it?" WAR!
Let's do a cost-benefit analysis of War. Let's take World War II as our example. Everyone likes to use that one as an example. It's the war that "couldn't be avoided." It was the "just war." That's what so many people say.
* First, look at the "Belligerents"(That's the fancy word for the nations that fought): We had the "Allies" and the "Axis" - Without taking into consideration the smaller nations (and this implies no disrespect to them - it implies that I don't want to type that much - Here are the Belligerents:
-Allies: USA, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China (and a host of smaller nations)
-Axis: Germany, Japan, Italy (and a host of smaller nations)
* Death Toll: Allies: 61 Million (Civilians AND Military) - Axis 12 Million (Civilian And Military)
* Causes - German invasions of nearly everyone they could invade, and Japanese invasion of everyone they could invade. The Italians tagged along and did their own invading along the way. The Europeans began by fighting Hitler's Army, the USA joined the war after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor (joining both the European and Asian fronts).
* Results: The Allies defeated Germany and Italy in Europe in conventional warfare. The Allies defeated Japan after dropping 2 Nuclear Bombs on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Cost - Benefit Analysis
What the Allies Won vs. What the Allies Lost
Won Lost
Stopped being invaded 61 Million People
Revenge Had to Rebuild Europe and Japan at their expense
Stopped Hitler/Musolini/Hirohito Gained Stalin and the Cold War
Analysis - Was it worth it?
1. First of all, it stopped evil dictators - that would be an argument for a "yes" answer.
2. Second of all, it stopped invasions - another "yes"
3. Third, it gave a sense of safety to the world - strike a check in column "yes"
4. BUT, it started the Cold War where Nuclear War became a reality - That's a "no"
5. The US and USSR became the competing superpowers of the world determining the fate of literally every nation - that would be a "yes" for US and USSR, but a "no" for every other nation
6. The Allies got revenge - Depending on your stance on revenge, that would be "yes" or "no"
7. It took 61 Million lives of the ALLIES vs. 12 MILLION of the Axis to win the war - That is very disproportionate - I would say that is a "no"
8. The entire war took the lives of 73 million people - Is ANYTHING worth that many lives - I would say "no"
Were there Alternatives?
The question behind this question is always, "What about Hitler?" That is a very fair question to ask.
This is where I appeal to the title of this blog post. "War has been abolished." Why has war been abolished?" War is abolished because the last sacrificial death that had to be made was that of Christ. Sure, I can take a bullet for you, push you out of the way of a bus and get hit by that same bus and killed, but all you keep is your earthly life. You gain nothing else - unless you want to see me die, then you get the pleasure of that too. By Christ's death and resurrection, humans gain eternal life. Death has been abolished - or rather, death can be abolished if we choose Christ. If so, there is no such thing as "life after death," because there is no such thing as death. There is only "life after life."
By abolishing death, Christ has abolished the need for sacrificial death. We don't have to die for each other anymore. Let's take a time out to address some things.
* I get your fears. Any reading this who are parents or have a child in your life - you would "die" for that child if that would prevent the child from being killed. I too would do the same. But, let's not lie to ourselves - all the child would gain is an earthly life, not an eternal life. The child would have to choose God to gain the eternal life.
* What about those who don't know God or are of another Religion? The good news is that we serve a fair and loving God. I don't have the answer except that it will be a fair and loving judgement. All people have the chance to know God. How that works, I have no idea. All people are God's children. God will give everyone a chance.
* So, soldiers and police and fire fighters are wasting their time? Not at all. God gave us this life as a gift. Keeping this life is not sinful. Saving this life is not sinful. Stopping those who would take this life is not sinful. The sin comes in when we think that we can die an atoning death for someone else. OUR death at most can only give someone more of THIS life - not eternal life.
Is this complicated? Yes. Do I contradict myself? Yes. All life, eternal and worldly, is full of contradictions.
Now, what about Hitler? First of all - when Hitler came to power, there was a Confessing Church movement. They stood in opposition to Hitler. Why didn't the "Christians" of Germany listen to them? The short answer is that people confuse Christianity with Patriotism. Patriotism is not a bad thing - we should like our nation and be proud of where we live. But, our ultimate identity is that of a Christian. The Germans - and mostly the Nazi Party forgot that.
What if a Hitler comes to power? Force is definitely one option to deal with a Hitler. It is not the only way. There is also non-violent resistance. People could have said, "no" to the Nazis. Yes, they would have faced punishment, but if enough people joined them, I have to wonder if the Nazis would have gotten as far as they did?
Let me propose this question? Why do citizens fear governments to the point of blind obedience? Of course, I don't want to get shot or put in prison or tortured. But, on the other hand, I am not willing to have my Christian Integrity compromised either. I follow the law to keep the peace. When the law violates God's law, I have to consider whether it's severe enough to break that law or to go along with it.
Until the rule of Constantine, the earliest Christians were "outlaws." Just by being Christian, they broke the law by not worshipping the Emperor or the Roman gods. Many died for this refusal. Many civilly disobeyed. Read the Gospel accounts of Jesus in his last days. Read the Letters of Paul and the persecutions he underwent. Find the writings of ancient Christians - there are many translated into English and other languages. They did not wage war on their oppressors - they were civil to them, but refused to compromise their Christian Integrity.
Aren't you just disrespecting soldiers and the military?
I can see where you could come to that conclusion, but no, I'm not. Let me explain. First of all, though I am a pacifist, I have the utmost respect for our military and all who serve in any capacity. I can only speak for American policy (since that is all I know). I believe it is the American duty to serve our Soldiers upon return from service. From all the soldiers I know, return to civilian life is very difficult. It should be the American Government's duty - that same Government who sent these men and women into very difficult and unspeakable situations which they did valiantly - to now help them adjust to civilian life again. I'm not a soldier, so I don't know what that would look like exactly. I would assume it would involve counseling where needed, job training where needed, helping them catch up on bills/mortgages until they can find a job. They served us without question - We owe it to them to serve them without question. As with any "service to people," the question comes up, "Won't some take advantage of the system?" I answer, "Probably." But, that happens in ANY human system. We can't sacrifice what we owe the multitude for a few rotten apples. And what determines "taking advantage?" Each person is different. One does not just "get over" combat experiences. For some, they may be able to function quickly after. For others, it may take a long time - even a life time.
But, back to the point at hand. This is in no way disrespecting soldiers. This only puts their service into perspective. Soldiers defend THIS life, not ETERNAL life. Soldiers defend an EARTHLY kingdom, not the HEAVENLY kingdom. I doubt many soldiers would disagree, though I can't speak for them. The ones I have spoken to agree with me.
I am not calling for the abolishment of the Military. I'm calling for the Abolishment of War. There will still be evil in this world. There will still be need to get aid (food/water/etc.) to areas of this world. The military would make an excellent force to protect the innocent lives of civilians. I'm not a military strategist - I'll leave that up to the military to determine how that should be done. This puts the military on a defensive role with strict rules of engagement. This is not war, this is defense of the innocent. Instead of "hunting," they would be watching. No one would have to die without choosing that option. Only if people violate the military perimeter or attempt to harm innocent people, would lives be in danger.
I realize this is not complete pacifism. For the theologically trained, I'm coming close to Niebuhr's "Christian Realism" - a doctrine I fully denounce. I realize I have contradictions. This is not a perfect plan. But, it's better than what we have now!
When Was War Abolished
War is ineffective. It doesn't work. America has been in Afghanistan for 10 years, and though we have an "exit strategy," the fighting persists. The Palestinians and Israelis continue to fight since 1948. The Congo continues to be a battle ground. I could go on.
War only subdues unless an all out genocide is committed. Even then, unless every last person is killed, revenge is always on the minds of those left behind.
War was abolished when Christ rose from the dead. Christ died the last meaningful sacrificial death that would ever be needed - He defeated the last enemy - DEATH.
It's time now that we look at Christ's life. What do his teachings say? I'll summarize with my own commentary. It's time for enemies to talk until they can negotiate. Stop sacrificing your own people in the name of your greedy desires. Stop sacrificing the innocent people of your enemy who have nothing to do with your war. Let the innocent people live their lives, Mr. and Ms. Politician! If you can't act like the person you were created to be, then go out and fight yourself - quit sending the young adults of your nation and making them think they have a "duty" while you sit in your air conditioned office and play your political games. God sees what you are doing. People see what you are doing.
Quit equating your desires with "God's will." God doesn't like to be mocked. Even if your enemy is wrong, God is big enough to handle the problem. God has no need for you to "crush" anyone. God has not made you a "righteous defender" of anything. If God has said this to you, don't go see a priest, see a psychiatrist.
Just because you're in power doesn't make you right. If you are fighting to stay in power, just maybe you need to leave. Your time is over. Or do you think you are God? I can't judge you, but I would hate to be you on judgment day. It's not too late to turn. I'd do it sooner rather than later.
Since the dawning of time, war has simply not worked. It's taken the lives of millions, and probably billions of people. What have we gained?
Instead, it's time for a new revolution - one of peace. You may say it won't work, but the old way hasn't either. Why not give this one a try? Talk instead of shoot. Understand instead of hate. Protect instead of attack. Give instead of loot. Share instead of steal.
Showing posts with label Pacifism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pacifism. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
What Do Christians Do with Gandhi?
This question begins Chapter 1 of Rob Bell's book about Salvation, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, And the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. I have a review of that book in this blog - just type "Rob Bell" or "Love Wins" in the search bar.
This question has caused arguments between well meaning Christians of all denominations. While it's hard to find anyone who would say that Gandhi is not a person to be admired and even a person to be emulated, his salvation is what some would question. So, let's start out by looking at the primary issues.
The basic Christian understanding of salvation comes from John 14:6 where Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (emphasis my own). In other words, one must believe in Christ as Savior to be saved. A large number of Christians believe that the Jewish people who adhere to the Covenant God made with Abraham (and later the Law with Moses) will also inherit Salvation. This comes from Genesis 17:10-11 - 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. There are also quite a few Christians, though definitive Biblical proof is hard to find, who believe that those, through no fault of their own (let's say: some remote tribe in the Amazon who has yet to be discovered) has not heard of Jesus, will be judged on what they have received and what they believe. Most likely, this would include the fact that they must believe in a god since Psalm 14:1 says, "Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God.'" Other Christians, however would appeal back to John 14:6 and say that this same group of people, though they are without blame are lost to salvation.
So, what do we do with Gandhi? First of all, was Gandhi a Christian? To answer that question is more difficult than one may think. All of my references to his life come from the book, Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World by Louis Fischer. To begin, Fischer's book, a "Signet Classic," should be read by ALL Christians (and I would even say ALL People of EVERY Faith - and even those without a Faith). Fischer's prose is sophomoric at times, and he often uses names and terms that are unfamiliar to modern Western readers (who are unfamiliar with the history of India) without explaining the definition or who the person is, but the basic message of Gandhi's life flows brilliantly throughout the book.
Mohandas K. Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869 in Western India to a Hindu Family. So, that may answer our question - he was not born a Christian. But, Christianity is not a faith into which one is born...It is a faith into which one chooses to be born again.
Well into his teenage years, Gandhi never renounced his Hindu customs and married his wife when both were 13 years old. As a young adult, Gandhi went to London where he did experiment with atheism. Through that experience, he found himself "thirsting for religion" (page 11). While in Britain, he read the Bible, and he was fascinated by the Old Testament Prophets, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes, and especially the New Testament - most important to him was Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. This he compared to the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad-Gita.
So, what do we do with Gandhi? Still, I don't think we have an answer. The Gandhi of his youth was different from the Gandhi that is familiar to most modern people. From Britain, Gandhi went to South Africa where a major transformation took place in his life. He began his quest for a more spiritual life. In South Africa, Gandhi began fasting and took up his now famous practices of asceticism - taking care of needs as opposed to "wants" (page 31). While he was inspired by Christians, this probably didn't make Gandhi a Christian. After all, many Christians have borrowed practices from other religions and adapted them to Christianity (for example, yoga - a Buddhist/Hindu practice can be adapted to a secular or even Christian practice of exercise and meditation).
It was in South Africa that Gandhi began his non-violent civil disobedience to protest the wrongs of society. He was inspired by Thoreau and Tolstoy. In fact, he and Tolstoy corresponded from 1909-10 (page 40). Possibly at this time, some may begin to consider Gandhi a Christian. That is if we go by Tolstoy's definition in his book The Kingdom of God is Within You. There, Tolstoy defines a Christian as one who "enters into no dispute with his neighbor, he neither attacks nor uses violence; on the contrary, he suffers himself, without resistance, and by his very attitude toward evil not only sets himself free, but helps to free the world at large from all outward authority" (page 40). Obviously, Tolstoy was a Christian Anarchist who held a relationship between faith and works.
It is there that we must digress. Must a Christian have "works" to be a Christian? Romans 3:23 says, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Therefore, works alone cannot save us. But, James 2:17 says, "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." So, that implies that while we must believe, we must also "back up" our belief.
So, what do we do with Gandhi? As his life went on, and he returned to India and began working for Indian Independence, Gandhi began appealing to God. Which God? That is precisely the question. When describing God, Gandhi said, "God is," and on another occasion, he said, "He alone is." This indirectly harkens back to Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I am has sent me to you.” ’ Gandhi used the same name of God that God used - "Is" is a form of "am," and both are the form of the verb "to be." In the original Hebrew, it is transliterated as "ehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh"
Gandhi then began breaking Hindu rules. One of the cardinal rules for orthodox Hindus was to stay away from the Untouchable Caste. Gandhi worked and fought for their inclusion into society. He actively socialized with them. At least in this book, however, there is no indication that Gandhi renounced the Hindu faith along with some of its practices.
So, what do we do with Gandhi? Gandhi was overtly asked what religion he was. He replied to the question that he was "Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist..." When Gandhi had prayer services, it was not uncommon for him to include Christian Hymns, Bible Readings, Koran Readings, and Hindu Readings. So, what do we do with Gandhi?
Here is what we do with Gandhi. We should look to him as a role model as far as actions go. We should see Gandhi as a peacemaker and strive to be a fraction of what he was. We should love others the way that Gandhi did. We should simplify our lives down to what is important just as Gandhi did. We should see Gandhi as one of the greatest humans who ever lived. Gandhi walked the walk and talked the talk of a great person. While actions speak volumes, we cannot for certain know his heart. We cannot for certain know anyone's heart.
Notice what I didn't say. I made no reference to Gandhi's salvation. I made no reference to what God should do with Gandhi. Judgement is God's Job. We don't get a vote in Gandhi's salvation (or in his non-salvation). We are only responsible for our own salvation and for spreading the news of salvation as we know it. We are not responsible for others acceptance or non-acceptance of any doctrine or belief.
That is very freeing! We don't have to worry. We are only responsible for ourselves and to minister as God calls us. After that, it is out of our hands. We have no way of knowing what any given person is capable of knowing, or understanding, or accepting. We have no idea if someone is truly a believer or if someone just pretends to be. We have no idea if a self-avowed atheist makes a deathbed conversion. We have no idea if a self-avowed atheist or believer in another faith had some issue that only God knows about that made them unable to believe. If that is the case, we have no idea how God will handle that person's salvation.
So, what do we do with Gandhi? We love him just as God loved us, and we hope that in his mercy, God granted him salvation just as we hope God will grant us salvation.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Jeremiah 29: 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”
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 ofthis 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 fromThe 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.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)