Barack Obama knocked it out of the ball park at the Correspondents Dinner 2 nights ago (see here for evidence http://www.youtube.com/wat
I have a feeling that, in some deep dark childish part of himself, all Obama really wanted to do after making the announcement about Bin Laden was to turn to the gathered crowd and say, 'OK, who wants to see my Birth Certificate NOW then? Huh? I can't hear you?' *Obama drops microphone and walks off saying 'BOOM, have that'*
I think that this Blog Title sounds like the most twisted Kids Book (a la 'Harry Potter') that ever existed. But, today there is rejoicing in America, and other places, over the death of Americas Most Wanted Man.
I woke to the news of Osama Bin Ladens death with an incredible sense of sadness and grief.
Why?
Don't I think that he has committed unthinkable atrocities? Yes, I do.
Don't I think this is a day on which all those who lost loved ones in the tragedy of 9/11 can find some peace? Well, yes, but it depends what you mean by 'peace'.
Don't I think he deserved to be brought to Justice? Yes, I do.
Don't I think that he has incited others to violence in a way that means the lack of his presence can only be good? Well, the jury's out on that one.
However, I am still sad.
I abhor a society in which a man can be conditioned to hate so much that he could think that committing such heinous acts of violence is ever a response that would change what he so hates about the west, but I also find it hard to see a society that respond to the death of even a man like Bin Laden with such joy.
And so, the Myth of Redemptive Violence is perpetuated.
The death of Bin Laden will not end this cycle. In fact, it will only enforce it and make it stronger. The US have already warned their embassies to be on high alert for retaliatory attacks. What will follow these retailatory attacks I wonder? Possibly, thinking outside the box here (!), more attacks from America?
You killed us, so we kill you, and then you kill more of us, so we kill more of you, which makes you want to kill more of us, which results in us having to kill more of you...and on and on we go ad nauseum.
Surely there has to be a different way?
As a Christian I believe that there is.
Not for us the path of Passivity, where oppression and evil goes unchecked.
Not for us the path of Violence, where we become what we are fighting in a horrific cartoon of irony.
But, for us, the Third Way.
Amazing theologians such as Walter Wink and John Yoder, the acts of the Catholic Workers and organisation such as PlowShares, Voices in the Wilderness and CPT, have all explored what this could look like.
I paraphrase Walter Wink from his wonderful book, 'Jesus and Non Violence,':
Matthew 5: 38-48
Jesus says ‘you’ve heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ A law originally intended not to encourage vengeance, but to make sure someone only paid for the offence they’d done, and no more, intended to cut down on violence anyway. Then Jesus says…’but I tell you, do not resist an evil person.’
The word resist here is a military word – anti-histeme. Anti, against, histeme – to stand.
Jesus is here in the midst of this occupied, oppressed people, and he’s saying, look, you have thousands of opportunities every day to pick up a sword and fight back.
Jesus says don't. Don’t resist in a violent military way. He then proceeds to give us several verses of resistance. Not passivity, not violence, but active engagement in resistance.
Jesus teaches three examples.
EXAMPLE ONE:
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
If someone slaps you on the cheek…
If you turn to him the other, you cant slap that without contorting yourself.
In that culture, there were two ways to hit. Slap or hit. A slap was something you gave to someone whom you thought was beneath you. Remember that jewish hierarchy was very important, a master would slap a servant, a Roman would slap a Jew. You would only hit someone you thought was your equal – it was the way that equals went at it.
So, what’s happening here? Jesus is saying that if someone strikes you (which would be a slap in these circumstances) turn to him the other cheek also.
What does the person slapping have to do? He’s left in the awkward position of having to hit him.
The initial slap intimates that this guy is better than the person he's slapping, but the turning of the cheek? What’s this saying? 'I know you slapped me, I know you think you’re better than me, but take your best shot, 'cos you and I are equals, and you will not treat me like that.'
In the simple act of turning the other cheek this guy is overthrowing and subverting everything that is going on here. He gives the guy hitting him a choice – hit me again, but hit me as an equal, or walk away.
To the listening crowd, this is dynamite stuff! The most provocative thing. It’s genius. Subvertive, powerful, yet generous.
This isn’t some 'nicey nice passage about being a nice Christian' – this is Jesus giving people practical tools to turn their world upside down.
Do you get what Jesus is doing here?
EXAMPLE 2:
If someone want to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak aswell.
The economic situation for the average person on the street in Roman Ruled Israel was noot good. Taxation was ridiculously high. How many of us would be in bad shape? Lose our houses, see our businesses shutting down. This is the situation into which Jesus is teaching. When He says ‘are not 2 sparrows sold for a penny’ he’s not making some nice comment, he’s saying 'look how bad the economy is'.
Jesus lived and moved in the midst of an economy that was falling apart.
Jewish people would have family lands. Lands that had been handed down through generation to generation. A vineyard, olive grove, wheat field. In a lot of cases in this situation people were having to sell off their lands in order to survive - lands that had been in their families since the time of Joshua.
So, what’s Jesus saying?
People were in incredible financial difficulty and many would find themselves being sued. If someone is suing you, they have the means to take you to court – you’re in a tight spot. In Deuteronomy it says that if you owe someone something, and you cant pay them back, you can take your cloak or your shirt and give it to them as a pledge to say, ' know I owe you, but take this, and I’m going to figure out a way to pay you.'
Most people would have 2 garments that they'd wear – one against your skin, a tunic, and your overcloak.
Jesus says if someone is coming after you, and you have nothing left to give to them, if they sue you for your tunic, give them you cloak too.
You have 2 garments. If he sues you and takes your tunic, and you then take off your cloak and offer that to him, what are you wearing?
Nothing.
In Jewish culture nakedness wasn’t first and foremost the shame or humiliation of the person who was naked, it was the humiliation of the person who witnessed it. This is why Noahs sons, when Noah gets drunk and naked are in such a bad way, because they witnessed it.
It’s the person who sees the nakedness who bears the shame.
The picture Jesus paints here is of someone so oppressed by the financial situation that he is being sued for his tunic, standing there buck naked offering his cloak. Which puts the shame and humiliation on who?
The guy suing him.
This guy has taken all his shame, all his humiliation, all his powerlessness against the system and has instantly, in holding out his cloak and saying, take this too, turned it around, flipped it over.
The guys standing there is now in this awkward position. Am I such a hard hearted person that I would take the second garment?
Again, here’s the genius that the crowd listening to Jesus would have seen. To oppressed, humiliated people, these teachings are dynamite.
This guy who’s being sued, he doesn’t do nothing, he doesn’t pick up a sword, he holds out his cloak, and in an instant reasserts his dignity, and most importantly offers the person who is suing him a chance. A chance to reconsider, a chance to redeem himself, a chance to not be that guy who takes the cloak too.
Genius.
EXAMPLE 3:
If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him 2 miles.
Everywhere you went in Israel at that time were Roman Soldiers, and they had to carry their packs everywhere they went. They would contain all they needed to live and work and would generally weigh about 60/80 lb.
This would be a common everyday sight. Soldiers carrying their packs.
There were strict rules in the Roman Army about what you could do when you conquered a land and were oppressing a foreign people. There was a strict protocol about what you could and couldn’t get your foreign subjects to do.
According to Roman military law one of the things that you could demand was that someone – in this case it would be a Jew – could carry your pack for a mile. If they carried it more than a mile, it was considered cruel ('cos when you’re conquering the world and slaughtering lots of innocent people, whatever you do, don’t be cruel).
So, these specific rules were enforced by Generals & Commanding Officers. If a Roman soldier stops you and forces you to go one mile, you would take the pack and walk a mile.
What happens if the Jew goes more than one mile? Well…this is where it gets interesting. Let’s say he crossed the one mile mark, and carries on going and he’s now on the second mile.
If you’re the soldier, what starts to happen? Who do you not want to see you? Your general or commanding officer, because you’re now breaking military protocol – you could get pay docked, time in military prison…you are now in the awkward position of having a shield, a sword, you're a powerful person, but you’re asking this Jew to do what? To stop!
The guy carrying the pack now has what? The power.
Genius! The people would have been going wild for what Jesus was saying.
Is this a power that is rooted in co-ersion and violence? No, it’s a power that comes from generosity. It’s like the ultimate judo move! You now have a soldier who’s cruelly forced this Jew to carry a pack for a mile walking behind him saying, 'stop, stop, please stop!'
He has spun the whole thing, and in this act of generosity has reclaimed his humanity and now holds the power in this situation.
He’s not done nothing, and he’s not reacted with violence, he’s done the Jesus thing.
It’s mindblowing what Jesus is doing here. The original audience wouldn’t have heard these teachings as high and lofty gestures about how to be a nice Christian – these were subversive practical ways to reclaim humanity in the face of oppression.
Jesus offers us a different way.
A Third Way.
In such a militarised world this Third Way may look naive to the bystander. It may look weak and passive and impotent.
But, history tells us that it is not.
No, not for me the way of violence, not for me the way of passivity.
For me, I choose the way of Jesus.
So what, in practical terms, should Obama have done based on the above??
ReplyDeleteThat's the million dollar question isn't it. It's easy to have great views on these things, but the practical outworkings are what really matter.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, whilst I totally understand the 'reasoning' behind killing him as opposed to keeping him alive - preventing his followers from holding the US to ransom in different ways, escalating violence etc - something more redemptive and creative could have occurred had he not been killed. A huge part of this conflict has to be about his de-humanisation of the victims, so how about rehumanising the people he has killed making him watch home videos on a loop of all the people who have suffered at the hands of his terrorism, by getting any members of families who have lost loved ones who were prepared to face him come and tell him what they've lost as a result of his (and others) actions. How about showing him the face of the west that is not the 'empire' that he so hates. What would happen if such a violent man with such a scope of influence had his heart melted and changed - that would have a huge impact on the wider cause of terrorism against the west.
Some may think this persepective naive, but surely it offers a more creative and hopeful opportunity for change than merely killing. The re-humanisation of people - both at home and overseas - would, I think, have a more lasting impact in the longer term.