Moose Mountain Church of Christ
|
Walking Peacefully in Places of Violence
Walking Peacefully In Places of Violence I would like to say that walking peacefully comes easily. But I can't. I recognize within myself that violence is easier. We are aware that personal reactions to some situations are commonly more violent than peaceful. Ususually I don't like the violent reactions. Typically, I regret them afterwards. I am more peaceful when I am relaxed and balanced emotionally, physically and spiritually. But I know within myself that I'm capable of violence, that I'm capable of doing evil. Yes, I can do evil. We like to think that violence and evil are separate and unrelated to each other. We might even realize that we are capable of violence, but we would deny that we might do evil. Evil is something others do, people different from me and criminals without consciences. We might assume that groups of people, like terrorists or an enemy in war, does evil without considering the possibility that we too commit evil. 1. One or Many Evils? N.T. Wright writes that we ignore evil when it doesn't hit us in the face and are surprised by evil when it does, but then we react in immature and dangerous ways as a result. (N.T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, p. 24). What is the evil that we are usually talking about or the evil that hits us in the face? When one is hit in the face, we tend to instinctively react defensively. Once in college a friend pretended to hit me in the face, I instinctively threw out my right hand leaving several fingernail marks on his face. I reacted even before his fist hit me and it never did. He never intended to hit me. I felt foolish and so did he. Our reactions under threat are not usually thought out. They aren't rational. But they are violent and dangerous. We usually think of evil as a threat to me, to the way my life is going. It's when something bad happens. What are the bad events that we call evil or might consider them evil happenings?
Can we divide them into different catagories? In the past, philosophers catagorized evil into natural disasters and human disasters. We attempted to survive these disasters and ask the question why did this happen. We looked for fault and who/what that could be blamed. But I wonder if we have too narrowly defined evil. Maybe there are many evils. If we were to consider this possibility, it may force us to consider that there is a range of human responses to evil and disasters, even human-inspired disasters like terrorism. Crenshaw categorizes evil as moral, natural and religious (James Crenshaw, Defending God, p.15). What could he mean for each? Moral= Natural= Religious= What are some other ways of considering evils? Here are some of the evils that come to mind: After September 11th, President Bush referred to an axis of evil when discussing terrorism and his war on terror. He seemed to consider an act of terrorism as an instance of evil. I'm not sure, but could this imply also an axis of good. I don't know. But if for a minute, we considered the possibility that selling munitions and training non-nationals in military warfare are contributing factors to terrorism, then our own nations seed the possibility of terrorism. We as nations profit from such activities, even economically, but we didn't realize that it could turned against us. It's naivete that our own actions aren't creating the context for violence. In this case, the axis of evil isn't just out there as a threat to our lives but it is in us as well. Walter Wink speaks of a corporate evil, a kind of systemic or institutional evil that is a kind of group evil that is beyond the responsibility of individuals. In the Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck writes,
The owners of the land came onto the land, or more often a spokesman for the owners came. They came in closed cars, and they felt the dry earth with their fingers, and sometimes they drove big earth augers into the ground for soil tests. The tenants, from their sun-beaten dooryards, watched uneasily when the closed cars drove along the fields. And at last the owner men drove into the the dooryards and sat in their cars to talk out of the windows... Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some were of them were cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one were cold. And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves...If a bank or a finance company owned the land, the owner man said, The Bank or the Company needs-wants-insists-must have-as though the Bank or the Company were a monster, with thought and feeling, which had ensnared them. (The owners inform theEvi farmers that they must leave the land) It's not us, it's the bank. A bank isn't like a man. Or an owner with 50,000 acres, he isn't a man either. That's the monster. Sure cried the tenant men, but it's our land. We measured it and broke it up. We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. Even if it's no good, it's still ours. That's what makes it ours-being born on it, working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it. We're sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a man. Yes, but the bank is only made of men. No, you're wrong there-quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it. (John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, pp. 31-33) While this reading was rather lengthy, it illustrates that evil can be institutional. Wink suggests that individuals aren't responsible for institutional or systemic violence, I wonder about that. I've worked in government bureaucracies were people were mistreated and the challenge was to be the good employee and go along with abuses or to challenge them and side with a person against the institutional rules. There are risks but I do think that individuals are responsible, even in systemic wrong. We'll come back to this when we discuss religious evil. The third type of evil is suggested when Genesis tells us that God created the earth, there is a sense in which God creates order from chaos. He organizes life. Evil is this chaos that is unorganized. Evil is then a kind of instability or craziness that is unmanageable. Evil is then anti-God, or opposed to God's Will. Evil is hybris and arrogance that one can do better than God or that God doesn't matter. Another word, I think of when I consider chaos and that is the word anarchy. I used to work in schools and chaotiic classrooms seemed to happen when there wasn't order of some kind. Paul Ricoeur, in the Symbolism of Evil, seems to regard evil as the responsibility of humanity. Something that a person does, in other words sin. He writes, 'because God is Holy, evil must enter into the world by a sort of catastrophe in the created'. Deuteronomy 28.20 views evil as deeds or actions of Israel-something they have done. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, evil should be purged from the community (21. 18-21; 22. 13-21). Evil is not only what Israel does, but it is also contagious- infecting others to also do evil. Who's at fault for evil? People are. Whether I want to call wrong-doing sin, there is the sense that doing something wrong may be evil. Of course, we might prefer to consider wrong-doing as evil only when our actions reach a certain intensity or magnitude of wrong-doing, like serial murderers and pedophiles. Yet, the point is that this 4th type of evil is present because people do it. In Matthew 6, Jesus provides a prayer for his disciples. In it, there is a phrase 'deliver us from evil or the Evil One' and raises the possibility of 5th kind of evil, an evil person or influence. Within the Eastern tradition, it is the Evil One who tempts and from whom God delivers a disciple. This poses the possibility that evil comes from Satan or the devil. 1 John 3.4-12 seems to reinforce this idea of doing sin is influenced by the devil or the evil one. I remember a comedian Flip Wilson that often said, 'the devil made me do it'. This fits with our desire to seek someone to blame. It points to another source of evil or an influence for evil. Then there is also the view that evil is contrasted with right-doing in Proverbs. It is as if there are 2 paths, one that's bad and one that's good. Evil is the opposite of doing the better thing, but it also tends to suggest self-interest and the abuse or mistreatment of others. This brings us closer to the possibility that there are people who are evil or have a tendency towards evil. One might think of people like Hitler and Osama bin-Laden. But this might extend to anti-social behavior is general, and abuse or aggression in particular. It is willful or intentional evil. Finally, there is also the idea that God punishes or disciplines his people. This disciplining is often called evil. One example of this is 2 Kings 21. 10-15. It is God's disciplining response to the evil by King Manasseh. I don't personally like to hear God performing evil. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Evil coming from God might lead someone to consider God as evil. But I don't think that's what is happening here. Evil conduct can lead to retribution and God's justice is his response-consequence for evil is evil punishment. It is part of the interaction of evil-evil must not be the last word. Hammarubi in his famous law code claims that to protect the weak he will cause justice to prevail in the land by destroying evil. He can't aid and defend against evil, without using violence against aggressors (Ricoeur, p. 197). Sometimes, this discipline of God comes in sickness or famine or wars. But experiencing sickness, famine and wars does not necessarily mean that it is God's response to evil (cf. Job). In summary, we recognize that evil is multiple. Not merely that the sources of evil are varied, but that the meanings of evil are different as well. It begs the question whether multiple evils require mindfulness to stop and consider our responses to evil. Merely to retaliate with revenge is dangerously irrational. That's the problem with emotional responses, they can lead to mistakes. They lead to non-recognition of our own evil ways. But that shouldn't paralyze us into inactivity, but rather considered responses. What are some examples of these multiple evils? Axis of evil: Systemic or institutional evil: Chaos as evil: Wrong-doing and sin: Evil influenced by Evil One: Intentional or willful evil as chosen path: Evil as discipline or correction from God: As I look at this listing of varieties of evil, I'm conscious of how they may interact. For instance, Joe decides to do the wrong thing and it becomes a habit of wrong. Soon it is like a path chosen or a tendency to continual seek to do wrong. People around him see what Joe is doing and imitate him-so that they may contagiously do wrong too. The people around him become part of a gang and wherever they go chaos follows. But they institutionalize wrong too. They demand that new members must demonstrate they should belong by committing some crime. Four evils interacting, but individual choice is still present. Reflection Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the primary sin of humanity was to put the knowledge of good and evil before the knowledge of God (Wright, p. 59). Of course, he is talking of Adam and Eve and their choice to do the evil thing of breaking a rule or to do the good thing of following the rule which God gave to Adam. Here is the dilemma-to follow the destiny of doing good or to follow an evil inclination. Genesis tells us that they followed their evil inclination. As did Cain in killing his brother, Cain. Humanity chooses wrong. Instead of exploring that issue of good and evil, what if people explored more knowledge of God. It might take care of the secondary concern of good and evil.
2. Knowing God and Social Justice A. The Nature of God I find myself wanting to explore what God is like. Why? I'm wondering if Bonhoeffer is right. Certainly, many have written about knowing God. I can't do better than others. I'm still attempting to understand God for myself. So I can't say that this discussion replaces or makes better sense. But I feel inside my bones that to walk peacefully is a direction that God moves and that I too need to follow this peaceful course. To start, I need to share with you about peace. As I understand peace, it is a gift that is given by one person to another, that it creates a relationship of friendship and facilitates a stabilizing environment or context. Peace is consequently social and peace is a sense of well-being that characterizes all three dimensions of gift, friendship and stability. Notice that I didn't say that peace is a state of mind-that peace is private and personal. Let me illustrate gift, friendship and stability as they relate to knowing God.
i) Gift The first sense in which God gifts peace is that God so loves the world that he gave, that's the language of gifting, he gave his son so that people who believe have an extended or eternal life (John 3.16). So God gifts his Son, but how is the gift peace? Well, in Luke 2.14, shepherds are encouraged to witness the birth of this Son by words of promise; “Glory to God in the highest heavens, and on earth peace among those whom he favors.” Peace is given on earth to those that believe and are favored. Again the language of gift.
When Jesus sent his disciples into the countryside, he gave them instructions about what they were to take on the journey but also what they were to do when they came to a town (Matthew 10.5-15). They were to be helpful. But they were also to find someone worthy and as they entered such a worthy person's home they were to give peace but if there wasn't anyone worthy peace would return to the disciple. Peace is a gift that can be given or not.
In the letter of Ephesians (2.11-22) reflects on the saving actions of Jesus by saying that he brought together two hostile groups of peoples, Jews and Gentiles(non-Jews), creating in Himself one new humanity and by doing so making peace. Peace and reconciliation are gifts effected by Jesus.
ii) A Social Relationship Just as a social relationship is created when reconciliation happens between two groups of people, there is a social relationship between God and persons. God befriends Abraham and promises him land for his relatives, and that his relatives will become a large people, and that they will bless others by their presence. What is significant is that God makes these things happen. A social relationship exists that will extend to a whole people when Israel commits itself as God's people at Sinai in Exodus, and remembered again in Deuteronomy. Such commitments of God and Israel to each other were to establish peace as a community. Peaceful life in community would be protected by God.
As we move forward from the Older Testament to the Newer Testament, we find a social relationship created between Jesus and a group of disciples. He calls them friends 3 times in John 15.13-15. A special kind of peace exists between Jesus and his disciples in John 14.27. Paul, an early Christian writer and missionary, will write that disciples are children of God in Galatians 3.27. A social relationship exists even between God and disciples of Jesus as a Father to his sons.
I think of God as unafraid of conflict and prepared to do the difficult thing, even when it would be easier to do something else. Yahweh God is prepared to fight chaos, if through the process another idea of God and a healthier view of community can be developed. So sometimes God's people thought of him as one of many gods, a Warrior God, a National God; but these were stages to recognizing God as Universal and Covenanting and Loving. That also led to appreciating community values of doing justice, loving kindness and walking humbly with their God.
Then Jesus comes on the scene. He talks about a kingdom of God and that God was in their midst. Jesus told about how people were to live in this kingdom by loving one's neighbor and loving one's enemy. His kingdom would start small but get bigger, where forgiveness was a common experience for both the forgiver and the one being forgiven. This kingdom would be aware of God and recognize Jesus as demonstrating the way God is really.
This kingdom or Jesus' Way does gather people into communities of caring and belonging. Communities are to be places that are life-sustaining and balanced. That God creates this community by his empowering Spirit and the teachings of Jesus are the means of having a peaceful church. God puts the pieces in place for peace. It's his gift of peace, by creating a social relationship between him and us, and us with others.
iii) Stability Stability doesn't seem to describe God with his people. But from God's end that was his intention. When he creates the world, there is the sense of bringing order from chaos. When Yahweh God gives the land, he intends that Israel would discover stability in having God as king, sending charismatic leaders in times of need to protect his people. Even, when God's people have a king they are to find security in Him, by trusting Him in the crisis. The problem is that Biblical Israel failed to be obedient to God within the society He created. But the intention for God was stability.
I need to go further and recall that during the fall of Jerusalem when Babylonians were pursuing conquest Yahweh God spoke through a prophet Jeremiah about new hope and regained stability. Jeremiah preached that after exile, Jews would return to their homeland with a new heart (Jeremiah 31.33) and Jerusalem rebuilt into a larger city (vv. 38-40). There is also the sense of a numerous people and prosperity, even celebration in the city of Jerusalem. Even after failure, God seeks stability for his people.
Yes, there was exile for 70 years and what Jeremiah said was still far into the future. Then I am drawn to Zechariah 8 which speaks of the near future and God's intentions. Yahweh says He will return to Jerusalem and live in its midst-and that the city will be called faithful and its mountain holy. Then beginning in v. 4,
This speaks of stabilty as the intention of God, not just peace from his end but peace towards each other and as a general character of a community. Pictures of old women and men relaxing with children playing are striking as poses of stability and security. Even agricultural productivity and supportive weather give the additional sense of satisfaction, with enough for all.
Reflection
But what about times when there seems an absence of quiet stability and we encounter crisis; peace may seem far away. Peace feels far away, because Yahweh God seems to have changed. That is the situation in Psalm 77, when the Psalmist laments that 'I think of God, and I moan'. The moaning is not a good thing, it is the despair that God has changed. The Psalmist's present experience is at odds with the traditional testimony about God. He is in trouble and had expected God's help. We don't know the trouble he is in. It may reflect the time of Israel's exile. But it may also be purposely ambiguous because it can take in many situations of trouble. He asks in prayerful lament whether God will spurn forever, whether His steadfast love has ceased forever, and whether God has forgotten how to be gracious and compassionate. God seems invisible. The psalmist concludes that it is his grief to discover that God has changed. If the psalm ended at this point, we might talk of the loss of faith and giving in to trouble. We may even have trouble accepting the language of lament as appropriate in prayer to God. I think it must be legitimate since the psalms so frequently speak in language of lament or complaint. But our psalmist doesn't end on this note. The second part of the psalm is like listening to an old traditional hymn. He turns to traditional testimony about God. He speaks exclusively of God as one who does wonders and articulates the prototypical wonder of rescue in Egypt and at crossing of the sea of Reeds (Red Sea). But what does this mean? Is he merely committing himself to tradition as passed on by those he trusts (Crenshaw, p. 11) even when it appears to him inadequate? If so, some might think that this bizarre-maybe worthy of pity. But it is also possible that recalling traditional talk about God provides the seeds for his own healing. This is most apparent in v. 19 where it reads, “Your way was through the sea, your path, through the mighty waters; yet your footprints were unseen.” God was even invisible when he was rescuing a whole people in the most significant wonder that he can imagine. If that was true then, it may still be true that God is loving and helpful, but he can't see it. While the NRSV doesn't translate it so, others translate v. 20 in the present tense, 'God lead your people like sheep through the hand of Moses and Aaron' (Kraus, p. 113).
Maybe our psalmist views himself at the end of the psalm as being led by God through his trouble-it's still being worked out. He anticipates future stability and God's permanent love. Then he will experience peace (read: stability) once more. Maybe God is working for the Psalmist's and the believer's stability-we can't always perceive Him and his actions. What are some of the troubles where you feel that God helped? Did it feel like God was visible or invisible at the time?
God's peace includes the sense of gift, a social relationship of God with people and people with each other, and stability in a community. B. God and Social Justice Since God gifts, creates a social relationship between himself and us, and intends stability; he looks for a balance or harmony between peoples and within a group of people. That is why it is almost automatic to move from loving God to loving your neighbor, even when your neighbor is an enemy. Frequently, the neighbor though is a widow, orphan or stranger that is needy of protection.
There is a text in Micah where the question arises about what God requires of people. It is in Micah 6.8. This is what it says, "He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what the Lord requires of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." There is an insistence about goodness and kindness directed by actions to another. When Peter described Jesus around people, he said, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed" (Acts 11.38). In a sense, Jesus shows us that God the Father is in the midst of people as one who does good for people. In Titus 3.8, one of the later books of the New Testament, the author desires that believers devote themselves to good works. Why? Because it's an excellent thing to do. And then in 1 John, there is the expectation that one can't love God without actions of love towards each other.
While I am not going to explore this theme in its entirety, I want to suggest that social justice and God go together. Believers of God should be doing good, not harm. So injustice and violence are wrong, contrary to the God of Jesus. And that should suggest that followers of Jesus are also involved in social justice. But before we get there, I must address a critical and stark criticism.
3. When Religion is Terrorizing and Evil Recently, Sam Harris in The End of Faith suggests that religions must come to an end if humanity is to survive and that the best course of humanity is reason. He views terror as the fault of religion, that most genocide and torture originates from the religious, and that violence is promoted by religion. He is scathing in his criticism and argues that atheism is the only moral course. He isn't the first to find fault. Harris does lump the religious together. This might trouble us if we define ourselves as religious. I like to be lumped with religion when religion is perceived as positive and then disassociate from religion when it's not-then my perspective is that Christianity is a relationship while religion is a group of ideas. In this book by Harris, he would lump me in with the group he is critical (in a subsequent book, he limits his criticism to a specific group of Christians). Being somewhat troubled may be a reasonable response. Harris points out that in political discourse it is common for a government leader to refer to God, but that one can substitute readily one god for another by filling the blank without changing the meaning. This may sound outrageous, but in this case he may be right. Too uncritically, our talk of the Christian God is mere converation about civil religion. Civil religion, I would argue, has been responsible for terror and genocide and violence. Well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning Christians have actively participated in terror, violence and evil as they have participated with the agenda of civil religion. How did this happen? Naivete might be one answer. Another answer is that Christians have participated in a false story. Jesus would not have sold out for power, the power of the State. However, Christianity and many Christians have sold out for power. Persecuted Christians were all too ready for Constantine when he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. The false story should have been recognized when once persecuted Christians became the persecutors. This was completely at odds with the earlier convictions of the early Christian community and Justin as he reflects on Micah 2 and Isaiah 2.2-4,
The false story is a triumphalism that promotes 'just war' and demands that there is such a thing as a Christian nation. The false story languages in such a way that inevitably the response to violence is violence. The false story requires that Jesus' command to love our enemies is meaningless since who knows what an enemy is anymore and this saying becomes domesticated. Jesus didn't really mean that. Or that's what Jesus ideally wants but doesn't really expect. And violence or harm to an enemy isn't really wrong, not sin (!).
I want to address some of the criticism of Harris. I believe it's unwarranted to lump all religions together and to claim that they are responsible for terror. Each religious tradition may be responsible for terror, but I don't know if that is the case or even if adherents were acting consistently with their confessed faith. Such religious terror may have different reasons for their actions, including revenge, suspicion and fear. Whatever violence that occurred by one group of a religious tradition shouldn't be used against other traditions of faith.
Second, it might be necessary to acknowledge the religious terrorism and violence by Christian groups has occurred, while suggesting that more terrorism and violence has been done by others that could not be identitfied as Christian or another religious tradition. Os Guinness underlines this point when he claims,
To give some depth to the discussion, I want to address some of the events that Guinness identifies with some others (I will get to some Christian violence and terrorism subsequently). The Rape of Nanking occured in 1937-38 during World War II when 50,000 Japanese soldiers killed 300,000 Chinese. Then there is Hitler's Holocaust of Jews and other ethnic groups which involved 6 million deaths (Carroll, Constantine's Sword, p. 5) or more when you include non-Jews. The Gulag system in the Soviet Union was an economic approach which didn't work and yet killed millions of their own people-between 1930-1953 there were 1.5 'official' deaths (Gulag, www.wikipedia). There are the Killing Fields in Cambodia. These are the mass graves where between 1.5-3 million Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge (The Killing Fields, www.wikipedia). We could also speak of Kosovo or Rwanda or Darfur. These last three genocites might be considered religious, but I would class them as mean-spirited and outside the scope of the spirit of the religious intentions of those traditions.
There are false moves of Christianity. Here are a few of them: Towards the Jewish People It was a false move when Christians justified bad behavior towards Jews because they had killed Jesus. In 388AD, a Christian mob led by a bishop burned and plundered a synagogue in Calliinicus and when ordered by the emperor to replace the synagogue, Ambrose (bishop of Milan) described the mob's actions as a righteous act and treason to the Faith to rebuild the synagogue. I'm embarrassed.
Christians organized an assault on Jews and killing the Jewish community in Alexandria in 414AD (James Carroll, Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews, p. 176). I'm ashamed that a peace movement of Jesus becomes a murderous gang.
But can ordinary Christians be blamed when their preachers spoke of slaughter? Yes, but even more so the preacher. Such was the preacher, the Christian preacher of Antioch in Syria. Listen to Chrysostom.
I find such talk sad and wrong-headed and immoral. Chrysostom may have promoted other good actions for people, but in this he was terribly wrong. Through the centuries, I am sadly confident that ministers have said many things that excused inhuman acts, and often promoted evil. Sometimes as puppets for an evil regime, but it was still wrong. That was true in Hitler's Germany. I won't own this harm, because to do so might suggest that I would have done to same in their shoes. I can only hope not.
It was also wrong to force conversions on Jews and the Baltic States, as much as on Mexicans and Peruvians. That was not Jesus style. Rather he wanted each person to make a decision for themself about him; discipleship or not.
But I want to comment on the Crusades as another black mark. The Crusades, also known as the Wars of the Cross, were presumably an attempt to regain political control of Jerusalem and Palestine. But it wasn't only about battles in Palestine. Crusaders became armies for the political agendas of so-called Christian princes. Often they became involved in territorial battles. But they also killed enemies and heretics along the way (as well as Jews); sometimes crusaders were deployed in places that weren't even along the route to Palestine. Steven Runciman condemned the whole Crusader enterprise as a long act of intolerance in the name of God (Tyerman, Fighting for Christendom: Holy War and the Crusaders, p. 15).
We've recalled many false moves, but there were right moves, too. During the Rape of Nanking, a group of missionaries, doctors and businessmen created an international safety zone, a 4 square kilometer zone in the middle of the city. They raised Red Cross flags and wouldn't permit Japanese soldiers to cross the boundary. About 300,000 Chinese of Nanking found refuge within this safety zone-the only ones to survive the genocide (The Rape of Nanking,www.historyplace.com).
Another positive event was the rescue of thousands of Jewish children by Christian Huguenots of the village Le Chambon from the Nazis. Their attitude was that they should help and did what they could. Such are the right moves by Christians in a world of violence. In his acceptance speech, on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Elie Wiesel said
It is this attitude or posture which should dominate those that walk peacefully in places of violence. Stanley Hauerwas says it well, "We rarely become good by trying to be good, but rather goodness rides on the back of worthwhile activity" (Hauerwas, p. 160).
In the end, my response to Sam Harris is that he has given peoples of faith a reminder that we shouldn't defend or excuse violence, it is usually wrong. Jesus wouldn't claim violence as the peace of God. Jesus wouldn't own it or justify religious violence or terrorism. Yes, there are Christians that have acted poorly, according to a false story. But he's wrong that religion promotes violence, it's only through Jesus that violence can be disavowed and peace might have a chance.
4. Faithful Performance as Peaceful Performances
I read a very interesting chapter by James Fodor and Stanley Hauerwas entitled "Performing Faith: The Peaceable Rhetoric of God's Church" (Hauerwas, Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practise of Nonviolence, pp. 75-109). The authors look to the dramatic arts for an image or metaphor by which Christians might live. An early statement that sets the tone comes when they write, "our God is a performing God who has invited us to join in the performance that is God's life."(p. 77) One can see quite quickly that performance is something active and lived, not merely a point of view. And it might come to mind that there are good and bad performances. Good performance might be connected with true and faithful performance. They go on to suggest that the persuasiveness of Christian faith comes from compelling renditions, or faithful performance, and that 'credibility comes from good performance" (p. 79).
In Jazz, there are memorable performances that have become standards and new performances of the same song are interpretations of that earlier and memorable piece of music. Improvisations on these standards, or interpretations, requires a kind of attentiveness, receptivity and attunement to the original standard. Fodor and Hauerwas write, "music plays the performer as much if not more than the performer plays the work." (p. 81)
They then move to drama by relating improvisation to the idea of overaccepting. I'm not confident of my understanding here, but my sense is that an actor perceives a wider context of his/her work, including past performances. Overaccepting means that one's performance must fit and not be violent to the character's tendencies within the narrative plot.
Finally, Fodor and Hauerwas write about the characteristics or power of a faithful performance. One characteristic is the manner by which one is pulled from oneself and possessed or taken over by the work. The power of a performance is then about the attunement to the work; how it is worked out through and by a performer. It is an act of discovery, not of accomplishment.
Taking these ideas together, Christians should be faithfully performing a standard-Jesus. Disciples of Jesus are improvising on this standard and there is an interpretation occuring when we are attempting to fit our performance within the rhythms of Jesus' life. Attentiveness to Jesus is critical. Christians are improvising on Jesus, being pulled into his story and re-living Jesus. Each interpretation is a variation on the standard, Jesus. But overaccepting influences each performer to be faithful to the standard, and not doing violence to the tendencies of the standard. It's an act of discovery, and the real power is the realness of the character revealed. The problem then arises when Christians respond violently. It is a bad or false performance, contrary to the standard of Jesus or the early Christian community.
But what happens when Christians fail to perform. In his Yiddish original text of Night, Wiesel writes about his father's death...
A summons demands a response, a non-response is also an action. It is an abdication of a role and the decision to become a bystander to violence. I wonder if it doesn't give permission for violence to continue. I wonder whether it leads to bad performance or faithless performance. I wonder if it doesn't imply a betrayal of Jesus. Believers should not be satisfied with escape from violence. Harris is right to be critical of religious violence, but for the wrong reason. It's not usually the fault of disciples for inflicting violence; but for being bystanders, for abdicating their role of being like Jesus-rather than giving a faithful performance of peace.
What are some situations where you felt that you were faithfully performing?
Reflection Romans 8.28. “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” For me, it doesn't mean that only good comes my way because I'm a Christian. Jesus told his disciples that they would encounter both persecution and hostility. So it's not a promise of success. I know from experience that both good and bad happens. Paul, in Romans, is suggesting that 'all things'-that's both the good and the bad and everything in between-results eventually in good. The good result is becoming conformed to Christ, which comes up in the next verse. So there is a movement of all things turning out to be good in the end. Consequently, my take on this text is that the development of good is a process, working upon those that love God. The bad is as useful as good things in shaping a lover of God. Some time ago, I was working in an environment where youth were placed in a treatment center by parents and courts to make changes. They couldn't get out until they made changes. Sometimes it took awhile, but eventually these youth accepted that they needed to make changes. But frequently the staff acted in ways that frustrated the youth as they were making changes (we're all human and don't always act consistently or in the best way). For many youth, they realized that staff acted as a foil. I'm using the sense of a foil as an opportunity to prove oneself. Certain actors are good foils, they enable other actors to perform better than they're usually capable. Many youth used the good and the bad acts of staff as an opportunity to demonstrate change. All things, both good and bad, become a foil in which a Christian's character is shaped. As our lives are shaped to the image of Christ , it becomes a good result. God is the shaper of all things as they are experienced in our lives.
Another thought is that the good isn't for our good, it may be the goodness of God reaching others. List good and bad experiences. Then under the line, write down the positive character traits that developed from this group of events. Good Events Bad Events _______________________________________________________ Positive Traits
5. Is Jesus Political?
Violence and terrorism, even evil, might be perceived as something which governments should be responsible. That religion and, in particular, Christianity is unable to address especially because it is not political. Politics, however, is about influence and working out practices consistent with an ideology or movement.
In this sense, Jesus is about politics because it is about practises consistent with a movement by God. Jesus' movement is counter-cultural, a minority culture working within the church to extend peace to each other and build attraction for a better way of living next to each other.
Too often, Christians pull back from ideas that Jesus was political. That may because he might question the political commitments and alliances of Christians. John Howard Yoder, a former professor at Notre Dame University, says
and again,
He even points out that kingdom and gospel are political terms. And when he considers Paul's instruction concerning Roman authorities in his letter to Romans ( chapter 13), Yoder argues that non-resistance is the Christian posture towards tyranny (p. 202). Earlier Yoder had said, 'Because Jesus' particular way of rejecting the sword and at the same time condemning those who wielded it was politically relevant" (p. 106) I believe Yoder has a good point to make and that it fits talk about faithful performances and walking peacefully.
Supportively, Jurgen Moltmann writes
This posits a home quite different than the larger society. An alternate home with different priorities. One of these differences is related to violence and peace, conflicting powers or influences. One of the most distinctive priorities in Jesus' community is the love of an enemy. A Jesus saying about loving our enemies is found in Matthew 6.43-48 and again in Luke 6.27-36. Here's the Lucan version,
This saying seems to suggest that it is mere civility to give what we have received. The community of Jesus is committed to going beyond mere civility to love as the Father does. That means loving an enemy and giving them another opportunity to hit or take, with the mereist possibility that they might respond differently. Why? Because believers are to act like God with mercy and goodness.
Again Moltmann says,
Moltmann goes on to say that responding to violence with violence is like having a surplus of evil, one evil is dependent on the next evil. Christians can unwittingly legitimate violence and evil by their revenge or violent protection of what theirs. No amount of what if scenarios can justify violence, even when Christians commit it. Their way is to be peaceful, even when it costs personally. As Hauerwas claims, "If the church is not peace, then the world does not have an alternative to violence." p. 175) And this must extend to individual believers, "Peace is but the name given to a life of virtue in which what we do is not different than what we are."(Hauerwas, p. 11)
What are the excuses you use to justify your violence?
How do you think a non-violent community of Jesus would look?
Would such a community anticipate accusation and complaint, then respond defensively? Or would it more likely, attempt to understand another's point of view by searching for meaning (listening for intention), rather the tone and surface statement of another?
Why would a community of Jesus be life-supporting and positive?
Returning once more to the saying by Jesus, I want to turn to another significant book titled Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf. Volf is a Croatian Christian and asks the difficult and personal question whether he can embrace a Serbian cetnik; that is, whether he can love a practical enemy. Non-violence is not a theoretical posture, but a loving stance toward a real enemy. He says that as a follower of Jesus, he should be able to embrace a cetnik. Volf is writing about reconciliation and proposes a metaphor or drama of embrace (Exclusion and Embrace, pp. 140-147).
Volf says that the first act is to open one's arms. Open arms are a gesture by one to reach outwards to another, that it is ultimately unsatisfying to be alone. The gesture is a code of desire for another, even to one whom has hurt me and others that I love. It involves opening space and making an invitation to another.
The second act is to wait. There is an initiation of movement to another but it can't be rushed or forced. It shouldn't be an invasion, rather one must wait at a distance that is safe, outside of the boundary that another has set. Waiting recognizes that reciprocity is required for reconciliation. One must be prepared to open one's arms and wait.
The third act is to close the arms. Such an embrace involves giving and receiving. The touch must be gentle, it shouldn't crush or assimilate one into another. Each person must be respected and honored. Reconciliation is merely a tentative possibility.
Finally, one must open one's arms again and let the other go. Reconciliation is possible as difference is respected and accepted. Where each other maintains their integrity.
It is crucial to recognize that this as a metaphor, but it also hints that a follower of Jesus pursues embrace and not exclusion. The desire for reconciliation is paramount. He warns that if one decides to take up the gear of a soldier instead of carrying one's cross, one can't seek legitimation from Jesus, the crucified Messiah (p. 306). But he also warns that we aren't Jesus, we are simply attempting to walk like him. In walking like Jesus, every attempt at embrace is action of grace (p. 147).
Os Guinness tells a story of Corrie ten Boom. Earlier she and her sister had been imprisoned at a concentration camp for harboring Jews. She had come from Holland to Munich, Germany with a message that God forgives. On this occasion, her audience was leaving in silence and then she saw a man working his way toward her. She recognized him as one of the cruelest prison guards at the camp. He said, "A fine message, Fraulein! How good it is to know that, as you say, all our sins are at the bottom of the sea." He told her that he had become a Christian and that God had forgiven him for his cruelty. But now he wanted to hear it from her lips as well. He asked, "Will you forgive me?" Corrie felt like time stood still and she didn't want to forgive him. Yet, she knew that she had to do it. She had spoken of forgiveness and now it was asked of her. He put out his hand. An icy cold clutched at her heart. She knew that forgiveness was an act of will, not of emotion, so she prayed, "Help me!" She placed her hand in his and recalls, "And as I did, an incredible thing took place. The current started in my shoulder, raced down my arm, sprang into our joined hands. And then this healing warmth seemed to flood my whole being, bringing tears to my eyes. I said to him, 'I forgive you brother with all my heart'". (Guinness, p. 180)
This story is possible when the politics of Jesus and his Lordship take precedent over all other commitments. Such a community would embrace reconciliation and peace, while avoiding evil-even the evil of revenge and retaliation.
Conclusion
This has been longer than I expected and took much longer to write than I planned. I hope that some may have reached this ending. As I consider the ground travelled, I am more convicted than ever about peace, a peace inspired by Jesus. I find myself drawn to the city of peace of Isaiah 2.1-4 where peoples have disputes settled by Yahweh God and are taught by Him and give up their weapons of war so there is war no more. There is a certain attractiveness about this image
It seems like violence and evil are dominant and ever-present. But I want to side with peace. Maybe our preference for stories of peace and reconciliation need to become more impacting than stories of violence. It is within churches of Jesus that such peaceful stories will be told. And as Christians live out the priorities of God for peace and create 'peaceful stories' that the world will have a chance.
What are your stories of peace?
How can we imagine the peace of Christ as a real alternate community?
Would people notice?
Bibliography
Charles Campbell, The Word Before The Powers. Louisville, Kentucky; Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. James Carroll, Constantine's Sword. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001. James L. Crenshaw, Defending God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Os Guinness, Unspeakable. New York: Harper Collins Publications, 2005. Sam Harris, The End of Faith. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004. Stanley Hauerwas, Performing the Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2004. Jurgen Moltmann, The Church In The Power Of The Spirit. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Jurgen Moltmann, The Way Of Jesus Christ. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil. New York: Beacon Press, 1967. Christopher Tyerman, Fighting for Christendom. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004. Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Elie Wiesel, Night. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006. John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994.
|
