“You have heard it said of
old, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you; do not
resist the evil person. If he strikes you on the left, turn to him on the
right”. Jesus tells us in
Matthew 5 verses 38-39 not to contribute to further violence by retribution,
but rather to tolerate the insult and abuse, and to indicate to the abuser that
he is not your enemy. He knew that mortal violence, retaliation, retribution or
vengeance did not resolve any issue. War has often been used to resolve issues,
but are there other ways to solve problems?
The answer is “yes”, but they are not always
successful. The use of economic sanctions is one method, but in many cases it
is a failure. When applied against Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War or
against Rhodesia during the era of white minority rule, or against South Africa
during apartheid, the result was hardship and poverty for the common people,
not a change in attitude or government. The United States has had economic
sanctions against Cuba and the Castro regime since the early 1960s, but the
regime is still in power, perhaps because the Soviet Union was a major ally of
Cuba during the Cold War and gave economic support to Fidel Castro.
A better way to deal with evil is through passive,
peaceful resistance. This is what Jesus meant when he said that we are to
resist evil in all its forms. Jesus encourages us to wage spiritual warfare
against the dark forces of Satan and his followers. Woodrow Wilson, who was the
President of the United States during World War I and its aftermath, saw this
spiritual warfare as extending into all aspects of life. In his mind, there was
no such thing as neutrality. One must choose to serve either Christ or Satan (Magee, 2008)[1].
Unfortunately, as his presidency progressed he became persuaded of his own
divinely-appointed role in implementing God’s will as he saw it. The subsequent
rigidity in his dealings, particularly in leading the Covenant of the League of
Nations through the ratification process in the United States Senate, left him
unable to compromise. It was his belief that comprise was an act of
unfaithfulness. Partly as a result of his rigidity, the United States did not
join the League and pursued an isolationist foreign policy until shortly before
it entered World War II.
Peace can and does overcome evil, especially through
peaceful, passive, active resistance. The church can and does have a role to
play by spreading the word of Christ’s love through its own actions. Even by
doing simple things such as relieving poverty, Christian-based organizations
such as Samaritan’s Purse and the Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund
combat the evil forces of poverty and hunger. Unfortunately, sometimes the lack
of peaceful resistance by the church and theologians contributes to the forces
of evil.
A good example is German Theologian Martin Niemoller.
He was a U-boat captain in the German Navy during World War I and became a
theologian and ordained minister in 1929. He argued that the Nazi Party’s
program was “a renewal movement based on Christian moral foundation” (Martin Niemoller). He also supported Hitler’s
views on race and nationality. His views did not change until Adolf Hitler
refused to revoke the appointment of Ludwig Muller as Germany’s Reich Bishop of
the Protestant Church. Along with Karl Barth, professor of theology at Bonn
University, and other supporters, Niemoller formed the Confessional
Church.
Niemoller and fellow German theologian Dietrich
Bonheoffer also formed the Pastors’ Emergency League and published a document
opposing Hitler’s religious policies, especially the policy that Jews who
converted to Christianity should be expelled from the church. Niemoller did,
however, remain a member of the Nazi Party. He later admitted that the Pastors’
Emergency League “acted as if we only had to sustain the church” and did not
take “responsibility for the whole nation”. (Martin
Niemoller) When members of the Protestant Church were arrested,
Niemoller finally spoke up. For this he was arrested and held in various
concentration camps.
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels urged Hitler
in 1938 to have Niemoller executed; however, Hitler, fearing that Niemoller’s
execution would provide an opportunity for foreign theologians such as George
Bell, the Bishop of Chichester in England, to attack the German government,
allowed him to live. Eventually Niemoller and other political prisoners were to
be executed; however, they were rescued by the Allies just before the end of
the war.
Niemoller went on to become an opponent of both the
Cold War and nuclear weapons. He argued, “The
church has to serve the communists as well as all human beings…communism must
and can only be fought and defeated with spiritual weapons. All other powers
will fail”. He also upset the American government in two ways:
1.
By
stating that former President Harry S. Truman was the greatest murder in the
world after Adolf Hitler for his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki
2.
By
visiting North Vietnam in 1965 and meeting with North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi
Minh.
Niemoller later came to regret his early support for
the Nazis, as expressed in the following quote: “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up
because I was not a Communist. Then they
came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I was a not Jew. Then they
came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade
unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was
a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak
up” (Lewis, 1995-2009)
Why were the churches silent? They were silent for the
same reason that many churches are often silent in regards to evils in our own
society. They had much to lose if they “rocked the boat” by making too many
waves. We must act as though everything depended on us. We need to assume
responsibility for what goes on around us if it lies within our power to do so.
If we do, God will be with us. He might not save us from death, but he will
raise us from the dead as Jesus was raised. (Kreilkamp,
1984)
Contrast this, if you will, with the more active
resistance role played by Dietrich Bonheoffer. In his 1939 book, “The Cost of
Discipleship”, he argued that real grace is the grace that will cost a man his
life, the grace made dear by the life that Christ sacrificed to purchase man’s
redemption from sin. He went on to argue in a paper on the Sermon on the Mount
that the meek are those who believe that only the reign of Christ can bring
true peace and paradise. Those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake are
willing to suffer for the cause of Christ. (Kappelman)
Bonheoffer heeded Christ’s words in John 15:13: “Greater love hath no man than this, but that
a man lay down his life for his friends “. Bonheoffer was arrested and
executed by the Nazis. He was one of the few Christian leaders to actively
resist the Nazis (Braun). For Bonheoffer,
peace and justice was impossible without truth (Hauerwas),
and he was willing to lay down his life for truth. His letters and books have
inspired readers throughout the world.
During the struggle for democracy, human rights and freedom of religion
in South Korea in the 1970s, many Christians were arrested, tortured and
imprisoned. To them, Bonheoffer’s words were like pages from the New Testament
and gave them courage for face punishment. (Kreilkamp,
1984)
The contrast between Bonheoffer and Niemoller is an
example of the mixed and ambivalent character of human nature as emphasized by
Reinhold Niebuhr, a renowned North American Presbyterian minister, theologian
and political philosopher. His belief was that human nature consisted of
creative impulses matched by destructive impulses and regard for others overruled
by excessive self-regard. He said, “Man’s
capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to
injustice makes democracy necessary”.
This argument had the dubious honour of accounting for Hitler and Stalin
and for the necessity of standing up to them. Although he was a pacifist, he
also realized that “a democracy cannot of course engage in an explicit,
preventive war”. (Schlessinger, 2005) (Pause)
The current war on terror has brought Niebuhr’s ideas
back into focus, particularly the struggle between realism and idealism and the
debate over the place of religion in our sense of ourselves. Niebuhr justifies
war for all the right causes by arguing “Our
idealists are divided between those who would renounce the responsibilities of
power for the sake of preserving the purity of our soul and those who are ready
to cover every ambiguity of good and evil in our actions by the frantic
insistence that any measure taken in a good cause must be unequivocally
virtuous”. Our virtues and vices are inextricable joined. In other words,
we can’t have one without the other. We are to take any necessary measures to
defend freedom against tyranny (including morally hazardous actions), but we
are to do so in cooperation with other like-minded Christians and nations. In
other words, we are not to be like former United States President George W.
Bush, who ordered the invasion of Iraq without support from other nations and
then, once American troops were in Iraq, asked for help. In the words of Martin
Luther King, “…groups tend to be more
immoral than individuals…Freedom is never given voluntarily by the oppressor;
it must be demanded by the oppressed”. (Elie,
2007)
Reinhold Niebuhr’s younger brother Richard, who was an
ordained minister and professor at Eden Theological Seminary and Yale
University, echoed his concerns. In his treatise entitled, “The Responsible
Self”, Richard Niebuhr argued that human beings are always responding to some
influence, whether it be another human being, a community, the natural order of
history, or God. He elaborates on this in an article entitled “The
Reconstruction of Faith” by stating that “We
do not doubt our fellow men when they tell us of the loyalty of Jesus Christ. We
are not inclined to believe that they are deceiving us. What we doubt is not
the possibility of such goodness, but we are skeptical of its power…” (Niebuhr)
Richard Niebuhr argued that the church is responsible
for the society and which it lives. (Niebuhr,
The Responsibility of the Church for Society, 1946)[2]
Many churches today share the same belief. Christianity is called upon to
address the injustices of our modern society as it has been since the beginning
of its history. Many of the early hospitals in this nation were run by
churches, and many universities such as Saint Mary’s, Kings, and Mount Saint
Vincent owe their creation to the church. Many churches operate local food
banks. In fact, our local food bank was originally started by the now-defunct
Queens County Association of Churches. If we want to have a society where
people can live in peace, the church must do its part to create and promote
peace.
In order to do its part, the church must be proactive,
not reactive or isolationist. The isolationist church knows that it is
accountable to God for its deeds and values, but it only shows concern for
itself and not for society as a whole. In order to preach and promote peace,
the church must promote the peace of Christ-the good news of Christ combined
with the bad news of God’s justice. God will deal with the evil people of this
world who do not repent and turn from their evil ways. We as members of the church are not to judge
but are to be shepherds of the sheep, seekers of the lost, friends of sinners,
the poor and brokenhearted. The church cannot be responsible to God for individuals
without becoming responsible for society.
Bibliography
Braun, E.
(n.d.). Dietrich Bonheoffer. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Jewish
Virtual Library: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Bonheoffer.html
Elie, P.
(2007, November). A Man for All Reasons. Retrieved February 16, 2009,
from The Atlantic Online: ww.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200711/reinhold-niebuhr
Hauerwas, S.
(n.d.). Dietrich Bonheoffer on Truth and Politics. Retrieved February
16, 2009, from CT Inquiry:
www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_6/hauerwas.htm
Kappelman, T.
(n.d.). Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Man and HIs Mission. Retrieved February
16, 2009, from Leadership U: www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bonhoeffer.html
Kreilkamp,
H. D. (1984, July). Dietrich Bonheoffer: Prophet of Human Solidarity.
Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Spirituality Today:
www.spirituallitytoday.org/spir2day/843625kreilkamp.html
Lewis, J. J.
(1995-2009). Martin Niemoller. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Wisdom
Quotes: www.wisdomquotes.com/001665.html
Magee, M.
(2008). What the World Should Be: Woodrow WIlson and the Crafting of a
Faith-Based Foreign Policy. Waco, Texas, USA: Baylor University Press.
Martin
Niemoller. (n.d.).
Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Sparticus Educational:
www.sparticus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERniemoller.htm
Niebuhr, R.
(n.d.). The Reconstrucion of FAith. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from
Religion Online: www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=858
Niebuhr, R.
(1946). The Responsibility of the Church for Society. In K. S. Latourette, The
gospel, The World and the Church.
Schlessinger,
A. (2005, September` 18). Forgetting Rienhold Niebuhr. Retrieved
February 16, 2009, from The New York Times:
www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/books/review/18schlesinger.html?_r=1&pagewanted...
[1] As reviewed by David T. Koyzis for Christian History magazine.
Retrieved on Feb. 28, 2009 from www.christianitytoday.com/ch/booksandresources.reviews/foreignpolicy.html
[2] As retrieved from the Religion Online web site at www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2731
No comments:
Post a Comment