|
 |
|
|
|
Editor's note: This article is an excerpt from Jarrod Cochran's new book "Finding Jesus Outside the Box: A Progressive Christian Manifesto on the Journey from Religion to Authentic Faith" (Doulos Christou Press, 2008).
What is Peacemaking All About?
I’m often mocked, dismissed, or “corrected” by those who believe that the views of peacemaking and nonviolent resistance are a weak and naïve view of life, especially in these times of war and terrorism.
I’ve been told that my Christian witness has been destroyed by speaking against the Iraq war. “How can you be against freedom?” they ask me. I’m not quite sure what being against an unjust war has to do with freedom, but as a progressive Christian, I personally cannot be for anything where innocent blood is shed – especially under false pretenses.
The stance of a peacemaker is considered by many to be nothing more than an extravagant term for cowardice. There are many who have shared with me that they believe those who disagree with going to war are nothing short of cowards. Martin Luther King, Jr. helped lead a people to equality in the eyes of a racist nation. King abhorred violence and chose to lead his cause with peace. Does this make him any less of a champion of Civil Rights? Is King any less of a hero because he was not willing to retaliate with violence against those who beat and killed his fellow brothers and sisters? Of course not! In fact, it was because of King’s adherence to nonviolence that we have the Civil Rights Act today.
I believe that peacemaking is not the trait of the coward. To call a peacemaker a coward is an oxymoron. This may sound controversial (as if most of this book has not been controversial already), but to me, history has shown us time and again that the peacemaker is the one who suffers while the coward is the one who inflicts the suffering. Think about it, Jesus was a peacemaker; he suffered torture and death. Pontius Pilate and the Pharisees that plotted against Jesus were the real cowards; they were afraid of losing their positions of authority so they imposed the torture and death of a rabbi who taught a path of love, reconciliation, social equality, and peace.
The fact is that Jesus taught us to be peacemakers. He teaches us to be pro-life, not pro-death. He desires us to be non-violent, not pro-sadist. While we would drop bombs on our enemies out of hatred, Jesus lifts others up out of love. While we kill innocents and label them as “collateral damage,” Jesus taught of a God who saves the “guilty” and calls them God’s own.
Even if we do grasp that Jesus’ teachings call us to be peacemakers, I think our American pro-war society and culture causes us to feel like we must come up with another interpretation of what Jesus is telling us through the scriptures, lest we become something less than patriots of our nation. In the face of a pro-war society, we begin to develop excuses and theories as to what Jesus really meant by “blessed are the peacemakers,” “if someone strikes your right cheek, turn to them your left as well,” and “do not repay evil with evil.” Unfortunately, when we do this, we water down the scriptures and diminish the powerful message that his truth contains.
Directly after September 11, 2001, churches in America had record attendance. But in the months that followed, these places of worship quickly watched their audiences diminish. I don’t blame this all on the fickle whims of the public; I believe part of the blame falls on some of our clergy. After 9/11, people came into these places of worship looking for answers in the Holy Scriptures. I’m afraid these seekers left because instead of hearing the words of God to man, they heard their pastor quote the talking points of war and revenge from the White House and the Pentagon.
How many Christian churches do you know have had a sermon on Jesus’ teaching “blessed are the peacemakers” since the terrorist attacks of September 11? When are we going to stop playing it safe in our churches and start being truly prophetic? 1
Being Consistently "Pro-Life"
I find the pro-life stance that many of my brothers and sisters in Christ take to be a contradiction in itself. Not because they stand for pro-life, but because they do not stand for life consistently. As I have stated before, the pro-life issue does not end at birth.
So many of us take up the cross in defending the unborn but do not even bat an eye at the children who are already here living in poverty. To quote Markos Moulitsas: it seems like we’ve become quite good at deciding who can be born and when they can die; it’s just the space in between life and death that we tend to overlook. Many of these evangelicals who rally behind the pro-life banner are just as quick to justify war and violence.
About War
As one who has had both of his grandfathers fight in World War II as well as several friends that currently serve in the military, I must state that I have the utmost respect for these individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for another. But while I lend my support, love, and prayers to all of our soldiers 2, I must say that there are many atrocities that occur on battlefields that cannot be justified.
When we commit acts of violence and torture like those uncovered during our Iraqi occupation at Abu Gharib and at Guantanamo Bay, we must come to terms that we have become no better than the regime we toppled. How can we justify these acts? The truth is that no matter how hard we try (and we did try), we cannot. I believe, like Abel’s blood from the Jewish Bible, this innocent blood cries to God for justice.
I find it tragically ironic that those who declare war behind a desk in a comfortable chair and begin a campaign that will cause the death of thousands; those who are willing to start pre-emptive wars, sending others out to fight while they remain in security are considered “heroes” while those whose consciences call them to stand up against such violence are quickly labeled as “un-patriotic,” “against American soldiers,” and “terrorist sympathizers.” As a progressive Christian, I contend that to be a follower of Jesus we must stand up against those who plot the death and destruction of many and declare that murder is inexcusable no matter the number. We must continue to raise the question of who exactly is the enemy? when Jesus himself saw no one in such a category.
With all this said, I do want to point out that there are many followers of Jesus who attempt to practice active peacemaking, but feel that there is a time and place for violence and war – as a last resort. I have several friends in the varying branches of the military who identify themselves as progressive Christians. They tell me that their military duties have become increasingly difficult as they continue to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I firmly believe that when the cross of Christ and the weapons of war collide, one of them must be laid to rest. These soldiers realize that the calling and standards of God’s reign take preeminence over all other earthly government standards and practices. This does not make it easy for these men and women in the military, for they realize that committing inhumane acts of violence with the excuse “I was just following orders” is unacceptable. These friends are realizing that peace by the sword is not really peace at all. I want to applaud these soldiers, for I know that to adhere to the calling of God’s reign is indeed a difficult road to take in any line of work – especially theirs. As an example, one young soldier I have befriended is having more and more of a difficult time carrying a gun (much less firing it at another) as he continues to grow deeper in his faith with Jesus. I have shared with this young follower that whenever he is ready to leave ways of war behind, there are fellow Christ-followers who can help make it happen.
Only Love Can Truly Win
I remember being met by one gentleman after a speaking engagement where I had spoken about our calling to be makers and doers of peace. He told me that he appreciated what I had said, but that my belief in peace was a little naïve and kind of crazy. Pointing to his lapel, which was a military symbol, he stated, “I believe in peace through superior firepower.” I responded, “I believe the Jesus is calling us to further peace through superior love.”
As I drove home that night, I mulled over what that man had said. I began to ask myself “What is crazier: Believing that we can have peace by setting the example or believing that we can accomplish peace through perpetual war(s)? Does it make more sense to believe that we can take steps to end nuclear conflict by disarming our own weapons and providing aid to impoverished nations that are breeding grounds for terrorists with the money we currently use to create our own WMDs or believing that we can demand countries like Iran or North Korea to disarm and do away with their plans for nuclear weapons while we keep our stockpile of over 10,000?
Regardless of our stances of peacemaking and using violence as a last resort, a progressive Christian understands that love is the only way we can truly win. Some may call that kind of thinking “crazy” and “naïve,” but as a progressive Christian, I think it is the only sane answer in this world. After all, we’ve tried everything else.
You’d think after the countless wars throughout the history of the world that something would have “clicked” and we’d begin to understand that violence is not solving our problems like we continually believe it will. I think the main reason we still condone many of the wars our nation’s leaders wish to fight is due to the greed of our leaders and the businesses that own them. When we go to war, someone’s bound to make a profit. The industry that makes weapons and military vehicles can make a substantial income when a war is waged, which in turn lines the pockets of our leaders, which causes our leaders to justify these wars – even if it means flat out lying to the public who has placed their trust in them. Our leaders play on the fears that create wars (which I outlined at the beginning of this chapter): “If we do not wage this war, our way of life is threatened;” “We must fight them over there so we do not have to fight them over here;” “These people are evil and wish nothing less than to destroy us and our way of life.” Often times, it is hard to see through these terrifying scenarios that our national leaders throw at us. We live in a scary world and all any of us want is to feel safe and secure. Many of us are willing to believe anything our leaders tell us for that false sense of security and safety. This is where we as progressive Christians – followers of Jesus – have to be prophetic and stand up against the rising tide of violence. We have to become prophetic and reveal that believing war and redemptive violence are the only ways to solve our differences is not the solution – especially when we have the entire history of the world that proves otherwise.
Whenever one discusses the practice of non-violence, the issue of Hitler and the horrors of the Nazi regime are always brought up. “What would you do with your beliefs in non-violent resistance in the face of such horrific terror?”
I have to be honest and say that this issue troubles me too. But what if, instead of marching out to face the Nazis with guns and other weapons of death (fighting them on their terms), the entire world build an unarmed human wall around the persecuted (fighting on God’s terms)? Sure, some – possibly many – of us would be killed, but you cannot say that this way of peaceful retaliation would not eventually triumph.
First of all, it’s hard to imagine something peaceful like this working when we’ve been baptized in the blood of war – the only thing we truly know is to fight brutality with brutality. Secondly, the examples we have with the Gandhian movement and the Civil Rights standoff at the Selma bridge show that a victory through peace and non-violent resistance is possible. It is not only possible, I believe it is inevitable. For when Jesus disarmed Peter, who was defending him with a sword, Jesus forever disarmed all who claim to follow him.
Love is the answer. Jesus not only shared that with us through words but he showed it through his example. Jesus taught us that love is the only way. He believed that love could overcome violence so much, that he was willing to die on a cross for it. The question is: Are we willing to believe in him and take him at his word? We believe him when he talks about life eternal. Why can we not believe him when he teaches that love and peacemaking are the only ways of overcoming the darkness of this world? Jesus, when he shared with all of us the path of peacemaking, did not say, “Blessed are the peace lovers; those who love peace and think it would be a nice idea.” No, Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” those who put their love of peace into direct action! As Progressive Christians, we believe that Jesus is not calling for us to simply believe that peacemaking is a good idea; we believe that Jesus is calling us to make peacemaking a way of life. He’s calling for us to put this “good, but impractical ideal” into action.
Notes:
1 Thanks to Dr. Lawrence Carter for giving me this insight.
2 I think our supporting our soldiers requires a little more of us than a magnetic bumper sticker that reads: “Support our Troops”. If we really supported our troops we’d demand from our leaders in government to give our soldiers body armor and offer better care for our veterans when they return home.
In 2006, the Veteran’s Association had to ask Congress for roughly three billion dollars to just make ends meet within their program. There are two reasons the V.A. is in this dilemma: (1) Our government wants our soldiers to go out, fight, and die for their prerogatives but couldn’t care less about them when they return, and (2) There is no outrage by the public demanding that something be done. You want to support our troops? Then by God, stand up for justice!
Reverend Jarrod Cochran is a writer, a speaker, and an activist for peace, justice, and social change within the context of the church and society. He is a leadership council member of the inter-denominational, Progressive Christian Alliance and serves as the associate chaplain and firefighter for a metro-Atlanta fire department. Jarrod is also a member of the clergy cabinet for the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives, ministerial leader and counselor for the Christian networking organization Social Redemption, a media contact for PFLAG, and a writer and member for Every Church a Peace Church. Jarrod lives in the metro area of Atlanta, Georgia, along with his wife Erin.
|
There is a lingering issue, however, for me to be addressed regarding the call to peacemaking and nonviolence. I have read all I could find of other pacifists on this and don't see this question specifically addressed.
Here is my question as best I can explain it:
If God desires and honors free will, is also the most loving Being conceivable, and still, apparently, acts to control, punish, and defeat evil with force and violence at times, how does one conclude that nonviolence is the epitome of love. Or that love cannot embody force or violence coherently?
Hasn't God demonstrated otherwise? Isn't there room, somewhere, for love of neighbor and love of enemy to collide when enemy acts to destroy neighbor or vice versa? In such an instance, why should nonviolence resign one entity to loss when the other might actually be the "at fault", immoral, aggressor? Particularly when God and Jesus Christ seem to be open to, and demonstrative of, this possibility. Perhaps the clear teaching of Jesus, taken as a whole with other scripture and our own moral compass, however flawed, includes this unfortunate and even undesirable possibility.
It seems that love must be allowed a violent facet as part of its depth and complexity regardless of the dangers inherent to a preferred, narrow, nonviolent interpretation of love. A legalistic and unresponsive "Passive Only" knee jerk law does not adequately address either God, Love, or Reality. It is a position that is simple to understand but that in itself does not commend it as right or complete. It's not so simple and God is not, it seems to me, a pacifist.
I get hung up on the interpretation before us when my love for someone is precisely that which may motivate me to violently defend/protect them from some form of evil, whether naturally occuring or manmade. It seems to me that to not act when I have the capacity to do so would be unloving. (Obviously, this does not address my desired response when unable to act, or after the fact. Nor does it deal with the apparent unloving violent action toward the offender.)
But to do the mental/philosophical/emotional gymnastics required to abstain from acting forcefully and/or violently if circumstantially warranted in the interest of an innocent victim or victims seems to be an unnatural and artificial response based on an interpretational construct rather than obedience to my conscience and scripture. It may be MUCH less warranted that we default to as fallen beings but not entirely unwarranted in every circumstance. To truly love mercy while attempting to humbly do justly is a nuanced, self-correcting triad of essential elements that, when fully expressed, lead to righteous actions. So far, that is the best scenario I can fully align my heart and conscience with in regard to Jesus' words.
This triad is still quite revolutionary and infinitely more difficult to get right, but does not abandon concrete acts of forceful love for neighbor to seek only nonviolent solutions toward a violent offender. I just can't quite equate nonviolence with love. The templates don't overlap perfectly.
The ultimate question for me is; Did Jesus command complete nonviolence or were His plain words understood in a context of cultural/historical/situational perceptions that included the obvious need to oppose evil forcefully with the additional element that love is the only way to keep this needed forcefull behavior on track? Does overcoming evil with good not include good weapons and good training and good fighting skills?
While he is unequivocal in His advocation of love, I remain unconvinced that Jesus has completely ruled out loving, violently when required, for humans. Indeed, this command would initially appear to be hypocritical coming from God since His own love clearly embodies such violent and forceful action on occaision.
When Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," I don't think he was speaking so much about peace between men and men, but peace between men and God. The true peacemakers are those who promote reconciliation with God, for without Him, we can do nothing. We would do good to remember our first priority, which is a relationship with the Father, and then afterwords work on our relationships with each other. Unfortunately, we tend to reverse the priorities, which simply leads to division. Without the Father, trying to make peace with our enemies merely alienates us from our friends.
bobbobnabob - that is a lot of liberal reformation hooey. That sort of "Jesus was talking about this world, but some sort of spiritual world" thinking is an attempt to force ancient Jewish thinking (where the word 'nephesh' means soul AND body) into modernist individualism.
Jesus was ABSOLUTELY talking about those who creat peace in this world. How can you hate your brother and yet love God? What can peace with God mean if it doesn't mean you are praying "Thy kingdom come ON EARTH as it is in heaven"...and being open to being used by God as an answer to that prayer.
One thing for the author - you mention your family and friends that are good people that are also in the military. This is a struggle for any of us that want to live Jesus' commands to reconcile. One thing that theologian Stanley Hauerwas said that blew my mind was this: The greatest sacrifice that our soldiers are called to make is not that of their own lives; rather it is their unwillingness to kill.
The strongest argument for redemptive violence that I've found is a work of fiction: C.S. Lewis' "Perelandra". Incidentally, this was Lewis' favorite among all his books.
On the other hand, Yoder, Wright, Hauerwas, Bonhoeffer...
I don't understand how people get from "Thou shalt not kill", "Love your enemies", "Do good to those who mistreat you" to "Kill the enemies of the state."
Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. We are citizens of his kingdom. It seems so easy. But we've missed it.
I need to respond to Phil, also.
Sacrificial love is not 'passive'. The reason followers of Jesus have been able to rely on God's justice and not one of their own violent undertaking is because of an unwavering faith in the power of Jesus' own sacrificial death and that they, like their Lord, would be resurrected.
It's hard for me to "remain unconvinced", as you are, when the entire new testament narrative and the collective voices of all early Christianity was nonviolent in the face of incredible injustice.
The real struggle is what to do with narratives from the old testament and what continuity there is between Israel's account of their own history with Yawheh and the apostles' insistence that Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
In other words, what is Christianity if not the claim that Christ crucified is the true glory of God? It is how God does battle with evil, with the powers, and overcomes them.
If we want to know the character of God...how he acts, how he responds, what he requires of us...how he responds to violence...we have no other testimony and no other lord than Jesus.
You are going to find better answers in the authors I mentioned in my last comment than anything I could offer, but you have got to admit that the philosophical question of "What if this happens?" pales in comparison to the fact that the civil religion of our patriotism says that we have to keep faith in God in our own private sphere, but we have to be committed to the point of killing for abstractions like 'freedom' or 'democracy'.
|
|
|
|
(12)
There is a lingering issue, however, for me to be addressed regarding the call to peacemaking and nonviolence. I have read all I could find of other pacifists on this and don't see this question specifically addressed.
Here is my question as best I can explain it:
If God desires and honors free will, is also the most loving Being conceivable, and still, apparently, acts to control, punish, and defeat evil with force and violence at times, how does one conclude that nonviolence is the epitome of love. Or that love cannot embody force or violence coherently?
Hasn't God demonstrated otherwise? Isn't there room, somewhere, for love of neighbor and love of enemy to collide when enemy acts to destroy neighbor or vice versa? In such an instance, why should nonviolence resign one entity to loss when the other might actually be the "at fault", immoral, aggressor? Particularly when God and Jesus Christ seem to be open to, and demonstrative of, this possibility. Perhaps the clear teaching of Jesus, taken as a whole with other scripture and our own moral compass, however flawed, includes this unfortunate and even undesirable possibility.
It seems that love must be allowed a violent facet as part of its depth and complexity regardless of the dangers inherent to a preferred, narrow, nonviolent interpretation of love. A legalistic and unresponsive "Passive Only" knee jerk law does not adequately address either God, Love, or Reality. It is a position that is simple to understand but that in itself does not commend it as right or complete. It's not so simple and God is not, it seems to me, a pacifist.
I get hung up on the interpretation before us when my love for someone is precisely that which may motivate me to violently defend/protect them from some form of evil, whether naturally occuring or manmade. It seems to me that to not act when I have the capacity to do so would be unloving. (Obviously, this does not address my desired response when unable to act, or after the fact. Nor does it deal with the apparent unloving violent action toward the offender.)
But to do the mental/philosophical/emotional gymnastics required to abstain from acting forcefully and/or violently if circumstantially warranted in the interest of an innocent victim or victims seems to be an unnatural and artificial response based on an interpretational construct rather than obedience to my conscience and scripture. It may be MUCH less warranted that we default to as fallen beings but not entirely unwarranted in every circumstance. To truly love mercy while attempting to humbly do justly is a nuanced, self-correcting triad of essential elements that, when fully expressed, lead to righteous actions. So far, that is the best scenario I can fully align my heart and conscience with in regard to Jesus' words.
This triad is still quite revolutionary and infinitely more difficult to get right, but does not abandon concrete acts of forceful love for neighbor to seek only nonviolent solutions toward a violent offender. I just can't quite equate nonviolence with love. The templates don't overlap perfectly.
The ultimate question for me is; Did Jesus command complete nonviolence or were His plain words understood in a context of cultural/historical/situational perceptions that included the obvious need to oppose evil forcefully with the additional element that love is the only way to keep this needed forcefull behavior on track? Does overcoming evil with good not include good weapons and good training and good fighting skills?
While he is unequivocal in His advocation of love, I remain unconvinced that Jesus has completely ruled out loving, violently when required, for humans. Indeed, this command would initially appear to be hypocritical coming from God since His own love clearly embodies such violent and forceful action on occaision.
Posted by Phil | Posted at 08/22/2008 12:06 PMWhen Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," I don't think he was speaking so much about peace between men and men, but peace between men and God. The true peacemakers are those who promote reconciliation with God, for without Him, we can do nothing. We would do good to remember our first priority, which is a relationship with the Father, and then afterwords work on our relationships with each other. Unfortunately, we tend to reverse the priorities, which simply leads to division. Without the Father, trying to make peace with our enemies merely alienates us from our friends. Posted by bobbobnabob | Posted at 08/23/2008 12:57 PM
bobbobnabob - that is a lot of liberal reformation hooey. That sort of "Jesus was talking about this world, but some sort of spiritual world" thinking is an attempt to force ancient Jewish thinking (where the word 'nephesh' means soul AND body) into modernist individualism.
Jesus was ABSOLUTELY talking about those who creat peace in this world. How can you hate your brother and yet love God? What can peace with God mean if it doesn't mean you are praying "Thy kingdom come ON EARTH as it is in heaven"...and being open to being used by God as an answer to that prayer.
One thing for the author - you mention your family and friends that are good people that are also in the military. This is a struggle for any of us that want to live Jesus' commands to reconcile. One thing that theologian Stanley Hauerwas said that blew my mind was this: The greatest sacrifice that our soldiers are called to make is not that of their own lives; rather it is their unwillingness to kill.
The strongest argument for redemptive violence that I've found is a work of fiction: C.S. Lewis' "Perelandra". Incidentally, this was Lewis' favorite among all his books.
On the other hand, Yoder, Wright, Hauerwas, Bonhoeffer...
I don't understand how people get from "Thou shalt not kill", "Love your enemies", "Do good to those who mistreat you" to "Kill the enemies of the state."
Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. We are citizens of his kingdom. It seems so easy. But we've missed it.
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 08/31/2008 5:19 PMI need to respond to Phil, also.
Sacrificial love is not 'passive'. The reason followers of Jesus have been able to rely on God's justice and not one of their own violent undertaking is because of an unwavering faith in the power of Jesus' own sacrificial death and that they, like their Lord, would be resurrected.
It's hard for me to "remain unconvinced", as you are, when the entire new testament narrative and the collective voices of all early Christianity was nonviolent in the face of incredible injustice.
The real struggle is what to do with narratives from the old testament and what continuity there is between Israel's account of their own history with Yawheh and the apostles' insistence that Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
In other words, what is Christianity if not the claim that Christ crucified is the true glory of God? It is how God does battle with evil, with the powers, and overcomes them.
If we want to know the character of God...how he acts, how he responds, what he requires of us...how he responds to violence...we have no other testimony and no other lord than Jesus.
You are going to find better answers in the authors I mentioned in my last comment than anything I could offer, but you have got to admit that the philosophical question of "What if this happens?" pales in comparison to the fact that the civil religion of our patriotism says that we have to keep faith in God in our own private sphere, but we have to be committed to the point of killing for abstractions like 'freedom' or 'democracy'.
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 08/31/2008 5:30 PM