Beating our Ploughshares into Swords
 |
| Google Image |
Long
enough have I been dwelling
With
those who hate peace.
I am for
peace, but when I speak,
They are
for fighting.
(Psalm 119/120)
This
verse has never been more relevant in light of current electoral politics. Presidential
candidates are falling all over themselves trying to appear tough on potential
enemies, one saying he would “carpet bomb ISIS,” the self-proclaimed Islamic
state, “into oblivion.”
One
of the many ironies of Christianity, now and historically, is that so many of
us who proclaim Christianity ignore what Jesus, our church’s leader and
founder, had to say about violence.
Taking
his cue from the spirit of the psalm above, Jesus covers the subject in his
famous Sermon on the Mount. According to Revised Standard Version of the gospel
of Mathew, he tries to get his listeners to understand that the age-old sayings
that they live by aren’t what God intends, that he expects much more of his
followers than what is acceptable to the culture.
Turning the other cheek
“You
have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I
say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take
your coat, let him have your cloak as well.”
Perhaps
this is an instance of the literary technique called hyperbole, the exaggeration-for-effect
that is common in the Bible. Jesus often used it to get his point across. Other
examples include the “plank in the eye” that he uses in an analogy about
judging others and his suggestion that we “hate” our family members for the
sake of his kingdom.
But
we can’t use this as an excuse to ignore what he was trying to say about
violence. At the minimum, it surely means that his followers shouldn’t initiate
violence or retaliate, and in giving one’s “cloak as well” that we should be
lavish in our generosity. Ok, but what about defending oneself or one’s family,
or one’s country?
 |
| Google Image |
Many
defend violence by resorting to the Hebrew Bible, with its sometimes warlike
language, or the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible with its mysterious
apocalyptic language. Jesus certainly used violent language against the
religious establishment of his time and in the cleansing of the Temple, used
physical violence. But overall, he preached non-violence and acquiesced in his
own execution, the model of unjustified violence.
But
as with many issues, the Bible isn’t entirely clear and most of us need help to
know if and when violence is justified. We often have to depend on
interpretations of his words and actions. And although many of my fellow
Christians would not agree, I believe the “just war theory” is a reasonable way
of interpreting what Jesus intended. If followed, I believe it would eliminate
99 percent of the violence in this world.
The
famous 4th century bishop and theologian Augustine of Hippo was the
first among Christian scholars to consider how violence can be justified.
Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century elaborated, providing the basis
for the just-war doctrine taught by the Catholic Church, to which I belong.
It provides four basic
conditions that could justify war:
1. That damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations contemplating war must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. That all other means to end it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. That a planned war must have serious prospects of success;
4. That the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
In our time, the prospect of nuclear war appears to make meeting the last
criterion virtually impossible.
As people search for God, they need to be more God-like
and not buy into warlike positions. A prophecy of Isaiah envisions God helping
humans to “beat their swords into ploughshares.” How can we talk of beating our
ploughshares into swords?
Comments
Post a Comment