Two Cents for Peace
…because 2 cents is all I’ve got right now. In comparison to the billions spent on the military, weapons, and wars around the world, it’s not much…
War is all around us. Always has been. Though it’s not happening on my street, at my grocery store, or at my job (though there are those experiencing repercussions of it there)- it is happening.
On my TV set, when I open the computer, when I don’t even know about it. In fact, it has happened since forever.
Last August, Russian tanks crossed the border into Georgia and started war there, the same day the Olympics started.
The Olympics. That world-unity-is-our-theme-extravaganza.
What we still can’t seem to grasp as a people is this: War is not the solution. Never has been. It is a human solution to a human problem. No matter what spin the religious try to put on it. Always has been. The human problem is that good and bad dwell in each of us and the power to destroy is as much a possibility as the power to heal and reconcile. Put us together, and collectively, we can help one another or we can hurt one another. The evil that we seek to protect or deliver people from is in us and thus will never be removed at the end of a gun barrel or by the imagination of a scientist. Never has, never will.
Even though God’s name is used a whole lot in some of these conflicts, I’ve come to see that God rarely has anything to do with them. Those making the decisions, some of my fellow Americans, and a large number people in the world, who speak as if God is supportive of them, saying “God bless America” or “it is our duty to fight ‘evil’ and protect people.” We live in a world of rhetoric where it is natural to view our own countries - and our own selves - as the “good”, the “righteous”, the “blessed”, if you will. We say, “we are fighting for freedom and democracy everywhere.” “We are on the side of justice.” “God is with us and blessing us in our endeavors.” “God is for us.” The challenge is when the people of faith take on the national identity and blur the lines between being faithful and being a patriot. We are no longer a people tied to our faith in God, unbounded by borders, but we are now a people tied to a flag, a government, a set of colors, a name. It’s then that we use religion and the Bible to support our decisions. In other countries, the same thing happens, though the book they reference may be different. It’s a wonder so many people stop keeping the faith when God appears to suffer from a multiple-personality disorder.
So, what bothers me as an ordinary U.S. citizen, who is obliged to vote, is how to respond to things like the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the Middle East or the crisis in Sudan or daily gang wars in South Los Angeles? I mean my gut reaction is to say, “Something has got to be done. These things are unjust and must be stopped.” It is, of course, a response to the injustice of it all. How do we stop it if war is not the answer?
I think we must start here: It is the ugliness in our hearts that fuels all of this just as much as “the enemy” or “the other.” This is the “enemy” we can change, the one in our hearts.
However, this is easier said than done.
A message-bearer of peace Himself, Jesus, never used a weapon, and in fact, got upset at one of his disciples for picking up a sword to cut off the soldier’s ear when He was arrested in Gethsemane. In fact, Jesus came and spoke into the lives of folks (representative of all of us) who thought they had it right, who wanted Jesus to free them from foreign oppression with the sword and who thought this belief was on the side of God (and justice). He told them they didn’t and was killed for it in a part of the world that continues to see daily conflict, all without the use of a weapon, without invoking the need for war or a physical fight. There are many more that have followed in his footsteps (whether they believed in Him or knew Him), dying at the hands of “rulers”- the ones with “weapons”.
Weapons. This is where I sit in thought for a while. The tools of war.
Perhaps the argument is this: weapons and the imaginations that invented them won’t go away or be erased from memory. Thus, we need to find a solution that helps our world the best. Our presidential candidates endorse this too. They have to or they wouldn’t get elected today. The cost-benefit analysis is that we need the “cost” of war to fund the “benefit” of protection and safety (or, at least, the illusion of it, is my guess). But, I still want to ask them- how is it peacekeeping when we are the holders of the guns and bombs and technology in a poverty and ethnic violence-filled, no-trust-atmosphere, where you can’t go out on the street for fear of bombs or bullets?
How are we keeping peace at the end of a gun barrel?
Post-Manifest Destiny, the U.S. has justified our military presence in the world as protectors and peacekeepers. We enter only when national security is threatened or our personal interests in a region are threatened. In 1954, our country supported the South Vietnam government after the North became Communist. But, in the 1960’s, a full-scale war ensued not to simply show solidarity to the Southern Vietnamese army, but largely to protect our trade interests in the region. Several of those decision-makers today have expressed remorse at their decision and realize they didn’t know what they were doing.
So, how is war good and beneficial to us and how is it that my country of residence, the U.S., can claim its military efforts are about keeping peace in this world?
Us?
The country who invented the worst weapon yet- the nuclear bomb- creating instant holocaust in two towns in Japan in 1945. Was this notion of peace endorsed because the people were either too dead or too traumatized to speak or move? Thus the ensuing silence and cooperation out of being stunned was interpreted as peace.
Again, this is the same country whose leaders and strategists supported slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, eugenics, anti-immigration policies for ethnic groups, the cattle-herding and killing of American Indians, the turning away of the Jewish people during WWII, and the list goes on.
Now after saying all this, I’m thinking two cents is so small. Mere pittance really, and my focus on this fact can overwhelm and undermine. But, as the mountain is huge, I leave with a question for each of us to ask ourselves: How does my personal weakness/ugliness of heart perpetuate all of it and how have I personally acquiesced to the human rhetoric of war rather than heeded Jesus’ words of reconciliation and his rebuke of this mindset?
In conclusion, war exists because darkness exists in all of our hearts and peace will never happen here on earth as long as we, individually then corporately, don’t recognize that and pursue making changes to that. I am again reminded of Jesus and how he came to speak to people who thought they had it right, didn’t listen to him, and were offended by him so much to the point of killing him but the things he was documented to have done and said do not warrant a criminal’s death. Jesus came to make us aware of our own ugliness but we, as a whole people (believers in him or not), are sometimes so focused on protecting ourselves that we refuse to accept it and so our ugliness grows and grows until we are justifying actions that are just as evil as the people we claim to be protecting ourselves against.
And there is no freedom or peace in that.
Barbra Bowman is trying to live this life as best she can, currently in Los Angeles, California. She works in the non-profit field in the areas of youth development, art, and education, writes stories and non-fiction, and volunteers a whole lot.
Posted on April 6, 2009 8:17 AM
Comments
May peace be with us all ways. May peace prevail on Earth.
Posted by: Ryan | April 6, 2009 2:32 PM
If I hear one more person claim that Jesus was anti-war, I think I'll just scream. Basically, just say that you think Jesus was a hippie.
I mean, this was the same Person who destroyed every individual human being except eight all over the world in a massive flood, who ordered His own people in battle(even gave them battle manuevers), who brought punishment and discipline upon Israel and other nations through war, etc....etc.... I mean, really, if you want to see who Jesus is, then read the whole Bible. And realize that He is much bigger and more powerful and different than you want him to be.
He even brought punishment on Israel after his resurrection. Or maybe you did not realize that he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. at the hands of the Roman army. Jerusalem was destroyed because of the unbelief of so many Jews in
Christ. When it came to war, Jesus was the greatest realist in regard to the good and the bad that could be done through it.
I totally agree that real change can only come about by change in each human heart by faith and salvation in Jesus himself. But until that happens, we're going to have crazy people like Hitler and Stalin and North Korea's dictator who want to destroy the whole world or rule the whole world, to control people's every day lives and take away all their freedom. You need to read about what life was like under the soviet communists. Find out what life is like in Communist china right now, where you can only have 1 child and must abort any others. You call that LIFE! We must all stand up for freedom and life, even if it means taking out a brutal dictator like Sadam Hussein, so that the Iraqui people can experience freedom.
By the way, if you are looking for a perfect country to be a part of, then go live at the north pole and start your own country. I mean seriously, every country in the entire world has a history of sins, blunders, mistakes and evils. Just because the U.S. has it's share, does not mean it cannot do it's part to help give freedom to other people around the world. That is a weak argument. That's like telling me that I can't teach my kids right from wrong because I'm not always right. That's ludicrous.
Posted by: ben hannum | April 6, 2009 10:06 PM
RE: ben hannum
How do you teach your kids right from wrong, and that right is better than wrong? You do right as much as you can.
How do we (the US) teach other nations peace from violence, and that peace is better than violence? We blow them up and shoot at them as much as we can.
Do you see a difference? I do.
Posted by: Matthew | April 7, 2009 10:04 AM
Matthew, apparently you need to move to the ol' north pole as well my friend. I mean, come on, "We blow them up and shoot at them as much as we can." You can not honestly believe that.
Posted by: ben hannum | April 7, 2009 7:12 PM
Thought-provoking essay.
I agree that when people of faith blur the lines between faithfulness to God and being a patriot, there's a serious identity conflict. It leads to a wide road upon which millions tread, passionately trying to legislate their convictions.
But, is war always wrong?
It's way too easy to say that the enemy is people like Hitler and Hussein, yet forget to look in the mirror.
The only sense I can make of this is that this world is under terrible management at the moment. There's an awful war raging all around us. And there's a huge war within each honest person between darkness and light. We must fight that one, with hope, knowing that our true hearts are good because Christ is in us.
But, if war is always wrong, then I'm in trouble. I say this because, in all honesty, I wouldn't hesitate to use whatever tools necessary to defend my family against anyone or anything thing that intended them harm.
Posted by: Will Fifield | April 8, 2009 12:55 PM
Great article. Non-violence has recently become very central to my view of Jesus and, subsequently, my life. It wasn't easy to come to that conclusion, and I definilty sympathize with those who struggle with non-violence in the face of apparent "evil". And while there are alot of intelligent arguments for non-violence and non-resistance, in the end, i believe in non-violence because that's how Jesus taught us to live. Because God's kingdom will not come through coersion or force, but though facination and compelling love for our enemies and brothers.
Posted by: mnagel | April 10, 2009 8:49 PM
First, great article. Thank you so much for sharing it.
Secondly, Ben, although I respect your thoughts, but I feel that I must reply, because I believe that the cycle of violence in our world is opposed to the Kingdom of God. The whole idea of redemptive violence, that our mission as followers of Jesus will be furthered along by destroying those that we find to be evil, hurts, rather than helps, our cause.
I too have a problem with the idea that Jesus was just some peace-loving hippie. I think that we see a far more radical Jesus when we read the Gospels. We see a Jesus that was passionately opposed to evil and injustice in all of its forms. He was opposed to oppression, wherever it was, both inside and outside the religious establishment of his day. The closest we see Jesus doing what might be called violent action was when he drove out the money-changers in the temple, and he did this because they were part of a religious system that was hurting the Kingdom of God and His plan for humanity. I do no see where, in our current world, the mass destruction that come with war could possible be accomplishing the same thing.
You also said that Jesus destroyed every individual human being except eight all over the world in a massive flood. As far as I can recall, Jesus was not in that story at all, and I think we get on dangerous theological ground by reading Jesus back into all the Old Testament stories. Yes, I do believe the when we look at the Old Testament narrative as a whole, we do see glimpses of God's plan in the person of Jesus. But in many ways Jesus stands in contrast to the Old Testament. He says that he in no way came to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. To bring people back to the heart of it. And in the midst of this Jesus reinterprets many laws of the Old Testament in order to get at the heart of God behind them. Think of the eye-for-an-eye law. Jesus tells us that this law, which was most likely put in place to limit revenge, does not best express the heart of the law in what He is trying to accomplish. That is best expressed by not simple limiting your revenge, but by not avenging at all, and instead loving your enemies. This is just one example.
When it comes down to it, I just really hate violence, and all the pain and suffering that comes along with it. When I read the Bible and the narratives about Jesus (and indeed the whole New Testament), I see that we are called in a powerful way to a new life, and called to show others this new life, where redemption comes not through our violent action, but through the power of Jesus and his death and resurrection.
I would very much like your thoughts on some of this, because I much prefer discussion and respectful debate, as opposed to just talking.
Luke
Posted by: Luke | April 12, 2009 9:54 PM
I am a college student, and admit that I have a lot to learn about life and God. So, I welcome any critiques of my thinking because it is very probable that it is flawed.
Ben's comments seem to be equating pacifism with inaction, which I don't think is always the case. From conflicts that I have had with other people, even when I was in elementary school and conflicts were less heated, non-retaliation has never been the easy way out. Turning the other cheek instead of responding with violence doesn't make Jesus a "weak hippie"; it makes him strong enough to resist the temptation to retaliate.
I feel like that argument also assumes that you can only hurt other people or do nothing, which is generally not the case. Many great injustices in the United States and elsewhere have been addressed through non-violent means (ie the Civil Rights movement, voting rights for women and the working class, worker's rights). I agree that there are crazy people in the world that do evil things, but violence may not be the best way to deal with them. Shane Claiborn and Chris Haw wrote a lot more about that in Jesus for President (a book I would recommend).
I don't know that I would say that the God of the Old Testament was/is distinct from the three-part God of the New Testament, but all of the acts of the violence that God carried out in the Old Testament were either carried out through him or his instruction. It is difficult to argue that the actions of any modern state are directly informed by God's instructions.
Romans 12 talks about the importance of not taking revenge because revenge only belongs to God, this is followed with instructions to instead love your enemies. I think that that relates to the point that Barbra was making about some of the darker things in America's history. Every country, including our own, has a history filled with good and bad things. We invade countries that we suspect of training terrorists but in the 1980's our CIA trained Latin American political leaders in the use of assassination and torture. We argue that genocide prevention justifies invasion, but our government's treatment of the Native American population arguably fulfilled all five UN qualifications for genocide.
Would other nations have been justified in invading our country in the 1800's to end the North Atlantic slave trade? What about to end our eugenics programs in the 1970's? Our training of Latin American terrorists in the 1980's?
I honestly believe that every nation has done things that were both good and evil at different points in time, so I'm not trying to condemn America. But, for the sake of the American people, I'm glad that we were not invaded during those times, even though an invasion might have been justifiable. Violence does have a time and place, and I do believe that God is just and will eventually punish evil. But I don't think that we as humans have the wisdom, knowledge, or righteousness to judge people violently for God.
Posted by: ep | April 13, 2009 11:53 AM
Luke,
I appreciate your comments. I think we would both agree that war is not the best option for peace in the world. I would just argue that at times it is necessary for the peace of the world and for the good of mankind.
As far as the church is concerned, I think we would both agree that the church using violence as a means to compell people to believe in Jesus is just plain wrong. I am against the church as an institution doing that.
I am not against individual Christians being in the military, whether it is in the U.S., England, Iraq, Russia, you name it. Force and power is not a bad thing, especially if it deters greater evil from happening in our world.
I would agree with you that war is not the solution to the world's problems. But I would argue that it can be a useful tool for good. I believe that if you look objectively through history, you can see this fact.
I would heartily disagree with you when you said it is dangerous theologically to read Jesus back into all the Old Testament stories. The whole O.T. was about Jesus. Take for instance, in the gospel of John. The Jews said Abraham was their father. Jesus called them liars. He said that because of their unbelief in HIM, that they were not children of Abraham, implying that Abraham had a relationship with Jesus...aka the Word. Not Jesus incarnate, but Jesus pre-incarnate. All the prophets recieved the "word" of the Lord. John said that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." etc..... So to say that Jesus was not always present or willingly involved in the violence and war of the O.T. is theologically dangerous, in fact it's totally false. I believe that His constant presence in the O.T. makes his death on the cross and his resurrection that much more powerful.
His laying down of power and glory in order to become like us, says way more about Him than it does about us. I think that we think way to highly of ourselves as human beings. God did not come to save us from our sins so that He could enjoy our company forever, He came so that we could enjoy His.
Sometimes I hear people say how God created the stars or earth or beauty just for us men. But Biblically speaking, it isn't true. He created all of this, the universe, the earth, the beauty, He created it all for HIMSELF. He created you and me for Himself. To bring Himself glory. Rick Warren really did get it right when he said life is not about you and me.
Well, I appreciate the debate. I enjoy the argument.
Ben
Posted by: ben hannum | April 13, 2009 6:08 PM
Ben,
First, I totally agree that the Old Testament points towards the person of Jesus. We see glimpses of him in the prophets and elsewhere, and see all over the OT the hope that God has something big in store for him broken world. I mean, read Isaiah. It is quite beautiful. So I do believe that Jesus is seen in various places in the Old Testament.
But that is not the same as substituting Jesus for God anyplace you would like in the Old Testament. The Church Fathers called that heresy early on (they called it Modalism). There is quite a big difference between seeing hints, glimpses, and even direct prophesies about Jesus in the OT, and substituting his name for God in the OT. You said the because the "Word" was used about Jesus in the New Testament, and the prophets spoke a "word" from the Lord in the Old Testament, then they must have been speaking Jesus. I just don't follow this, because it implies that all important words in the Bible carry the same meaning throughout the Bible, which is just not how language worked at the time (or now, for that matter).
Here is why I believe reading Jesus back into the Old Testament is dangerous. The OT was written before Jesus even came on this earth. The OT was written in the midst of a Hebrew world, one that would have had no knowledge of Jesus. Now I believe that God inspired the Bible, but I also believe that he did so through the people and culture of the time. Therefore, I believe that reading Jesus back into every OT story does not allow the Bible to speak for itself, but rather tries to conform it to our theology. This is what I think is dangerous, to read our Christian theology back into pre-Christian Biblical stories. The Biblical narrative must come before our theology, which is to say, our theology must come from letting the Biblical text speak for itself, out of the culture that it was written in. And when we read Jesus back into all the OT stories, we are not letting the Bible speak for itself, but rather forcing our theology back into the Biblical text. If we really and truly believe that God inspired our Scriptures (which I do), than we must do everything we can to let them speak for themselves.
Now, I say this all as someone who has been transformed by Jesus and seeks to follow him with all that I am. I just love the Bible so much that I desire to read it and think about it in the best way I can.
Luke
Posted by: Luke | April 14, 2009 12:58 AM
Luke,
Had no idea what "modalism" was so I looked it up. That is not at all what I was trying to get at. I believe in the trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
I was simply trying to point out that the Son has always existed with the Father and Holy Spirit and that trying to seperate them by denying his existence and presence in the O.T. is impossible. He himself said that he and the Father were one, that they were of one substance, as well as one mind. The God in the O.T. and the N.T. is the same triune God and Jesus is a part of that trinity.
Posted by: ben | April 14, 2009 7:01 PM
Ben,
I can agree with you on that. I think I misunderstood part of what you originally said, and as you know, a partial misunderstanding is almost worse than a total one.
Thanks for talking (writing?), I always appreciate talking with people who I might not totally agree with, but with can have a respectful conversation. Especially when we both love Jesus.
Have a good one.
Luke
PS: The only reason I knew what Modelism was was because we had just talked about in class :)
Posted by: Luke | April 15, 2009 10:11 PM
What really grabbed me was the phrase mentioned by Luke in his first response...."redemptive violence" (The whole idea of redemptive violence, that our mission as followers of Jesus will be furthered along by destroying those that we find to be evil, hurts, rather than helps, our cause.)
Wow...when when you put it that way it sound like Islamic Jihad. (Just replace Jesus with Allah)
To be honest I never read that into Ben's comment.
I can see why there is such a divide between Christians who say they are anti-war or anti-violence and those who believe in just war. There seems to be a perception that those who believe in just war believe that war should be used to further the mission of Jesus.
I have to say that is a gross misunderstanding of Christians who are not pacifists and gives fuel to the fire to many in the media and secular liberals who believe Christians are fanatics.
Posted by: Vince | April 16, 2009 9:28 AM
Vince,
That was a great comment about Christians and just war. Thanks.
Luke, I have enjoyed talking with you too. Thanks for the debate brother.
Ben
Posted by: ben | April 16, 2009 8:13 PM
The most powerful example of non-violence I am aware of is Mahatma (Great Soul) Ghandi. Because he managed to create peace within himself, he was able to share it with others. Because he conquered violence and oppression within himself, he was able to single-handedly bring the British Emipre (the world's superpower at the time) to its knees. His teaching: We must be the chane we want to see in the world.
This follows right along with what Jesus taught in the Sermon On the Mount. It is not enough to simply refrain from violence or infidelity or lies. We must refrain from the mental action as well. In Matthew 5 Jesus gives first the beattitudes (the attitudes we should develop) and then the "don't be" attidudes. According to the Christ's teachings, non-violence and life without sin is just as much if not more about the mental action of sin as it is about the outer action that follows the mental one. It is only when humanity realizes the power of thought and takes responsibility for thought that we will have a chance at a peace filled existence.
Jesus did teach peace. His peace was not the mere cessation of violence, but the healing of our connection with the Divine. The opening of the heart and the development of the will. Jesus' standards were very high, and we would all do well to bear in mind that the so-called peace movement of the '60s and '70s did not posses the spirit of peace. The hippies fought against war, which is still a form of fighting. They did not embrace the essence of what Jesus taught and what Ghandi lived. It takes a remarkable will and a couragous heart to embrace non-violence.
May peace be with us all ways, may peace prevail on Earth.
Posted by: Ryan | April 21, 2009 9:24 AM
Ben,
Yes, thanks you for the talk. I much appreciate the discussion.
Vince,
I realize now that I was quite unclear in my definition of redemptive violence, and I think your comment was justified. Let me clarify: I do not think that most Christians, especially today, think that violence of any kind will help our mission as followers of Christ. I realize now that is what my statement implied, and I apologize.
I was really trying to make two small points by that statement which you quoted, but I more or less failed at both, so allow me to try again.
First, I believe that by supporting violence of any kind, you are saying that, in some way, that good will come through that violence. That through they violent means, something much better will result, that was worth the cost of the violence. This is what I mean by redemptive violence. That in the end, something "redemptive" will come out of the violent action.
Secondly, I also believe that we as Christians must look carefully at the things that we support, and consider where they fit into our mission as followers of Christ, a mission which is so amazing and huge that it can't be compartmentalized into one area of our lives. By supporting violence and war of any kind, even just war, I believe that we hinder that mission, by buying into the idea that violence can be redemptive at times. Any violence is violence against the very people we are called to love. It says that some people are beyond the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. This is why I am against violence, especially violence on a national scale.
I hope that clarifies by thoughts a bit better.
Thanks everyone for the respectful debate. Much love.
Luke
Posted by: Luke | April 24, 2009 10:43 AM