If the notions expressed in this presentation seem favorable, the reader is encouraged to pass copies on to others. Contacting me with reactions either favorable, unfavorable or other kinds of thoughts is also encouraged.
Eighteen years ago I was a Jewish-American atheist running CNN's Middle East Bureau located at that time in Beirut. My moral and ethical codes were ambivalent with respect to my reactions to the world and ambiguous with respect to my actions in it. I think you could describe my outlook and commitments as unapologetically main stream.
But shortly after I was kidnapped on March 7th 1984 by a Hizballah cell, I reasoned my way to a faith, which, I was astonished to realize, would be inadequate without Jesus. My faith would be inadequate, I reasoned, because of his historically unique, historically consistent, and historically indispensable message of unconditional love and nonviolence. It would be additionally inadequate, I reflected, because of his consistent modeling of the essential behaviors, which were, I now comprehended, deeply rooted in his revolutionary concepts of love, peace, and hope-generating nonviolent perseverance. That message and the behavior called for, I also understood, was thoroughly and demonstrably out of the main stream.
For me this was a crucial light-going-on moment, because up to that pivotal moral, ethical, and potentially spiritualizing instant, even more than the idea of God, I had always scorned Jesus' prescriptions for achieving peace on earth. They were, I had been sure, unworkable. Forgiveness in particular was an impractical act that only served to leave the forgiver dangerously vulnerable. Jesus, I was sure, was a wimp! A wonk! A nerd! A scrawny 98 pound weakling in a callused world that knew better how to take care of itself than he did.
However, the more I thought about forgiveness and also his ideas concerning repentance, love and reconciliation, the more I realized how exactly appropriate those actions have been and are for creating the only environment in which true tranquility, true peace, and true justice can universally exist. It became clear to me that the absence of Jesus' teachings as the primary motivating force in terms of conduct in people's lives, especially where peacemaking has been concerned, has been the root of the world's most critical continuing problems; and they remain undoubtedly the most crucial problem that the world needs to face up to -- without blinking -- if humankind is to survive.
But despite this awe-inducing insight and notwithstanding the profoundly constructive radical and equally credible worth of his notions, which were inspiring my conceptual turnaround, deciding to declare for him was, nevertheless, a dicey proposition. The problem was his followers -- Christians.
I was a conscientious objector to Christianity, because it seemed to me that I could not possibly associate myself with it, even conceptually, because of the interminable violence and other kinds of sufferings inflicted on my people by its fervent and at times rabidly fanatic followers. Jews had been violently victimized, battered, and abused by Christians in nearly every part of the world and in nearly every age. Christianity's too often vile and violent behavior seemed to be due to systemic (if not, at times, systematic) spiritual and moral flaws. I subscribed one hundred percent to André Schwarz-Bart agonized analysis of our tortured post-crucifixion history, (and still do), "The Christians say they love [Jesus], but I think they hate him without knowing it. So they take the cross by the other end and make a sword out of it and strike us with it!" [1]
Don't Blame Christ For Christians
Then I recalled the memorable Grand Inquisitor scene from Dostoevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov. In it is a nightmare account of Jesus' reappearance in Spain during the Inquisition. Once back, he picks up where he left off, performing miracles: demonstrations of the truth and the power of his teachings about God, about love, reconciliation, forgiveness, and above all repentance.
The Grand Inquisitor immediately has him arrested. He plans to burn him at the stake before too many people learn that he is back and allow his presence to rekindle their desire for release from autocratic and hierarchical bondage. He visits Jesus in his cell and explains that to let him continue his work would undermine the church to the point of destroying it, since it was operating at that time on entirely opposite principles. Its hold on the people was not inspirational but authoritarian. People were burned at the stake for not conforming. But in the end, the Grand Inquisitor, instead of sending Jesus to the stake, lets him go, because he is sure the church was in such unassailable control that not even he could threaten it.
Remembering that story, I understood that I should not blame Christ for Christians -- at least not all of them. He was guilty of no outrages; so spiritual identification with him was appropriate. However, identifying with institutional Christianity was another matter, because the obvious flaws in so-called Christianity were and are not in what he taught but in the terribly flawed institutions that were built and continue to be upheld in his name. So I decided that enrolling in institutional Christianity is an option not a requirement.
Yet not long after I reached freedom I decided to take up that option, despite the fact that too often corporate Christianity is like an overripe Swiss cheese -- unpleasantly odiferous and full of holes. I made that crucial decision because of some Christians my wife, Sis, made sure I met as quickly as possible. They were out of the main stream followers of Jesus. But I now learned that they had been the restorers of her hope, and the inspiration, and coaches behind her decision to publicly challenge the silence and inaction here at home by much of our exceedingly diffident and at times down right reticent first through fourth estates with respect to relieving the Lebanon hostage predicament.
Many of those out of the main stream role models belonged to faith groups comprising the unique Church of the Savior community in Washington, DC. Beginning with Gordon Cosby, its founder, they were effectively instrumental in her turn from fear and submissiveness to a feisty disdain for clearly suspect temporal and religious authority and practices.
Working From Within Rather Than Sniping From Without
Through those new friends I came to understand that, despite its flaws, the church nevertheless remains the potentially most viable and potentially most potent institution for laying the groundwork for what Jim Douglass has called the nonviolent coming of God; even though and despite the fact that the flawed church is infested (infected?) with so many representatives of what Jim has also described as "Milieu-Christianity [where] self-critical response to Christ does not arise." In that society "Christ is defined for all by consensus, that it is to say cultural dogma; [and] damnation is not the obedience of Eichman but the rebellion of a draft card burner." [2] So, I decided early on that I needed to get on board and try to work from within rather than snipe from without.
Of course, it now seems inevitable that through those new friends, especially Bill Price and other World Peacemakers, Sis and I were led in the Spring of 2001 to John Stoner and through John to Every Church a Peace Church (EPAPC) [3] and CPT (Christian peacemaker Teams) [4]. All those out of the main stream Christian movements are uniquely the most viable forms of counter-terrorism, because all embody superbly and genuinely the goal of infusing into Church teachings and actions -- especially in Sunday school -- Christ's unequivocal message of assertive nonviolent activism and love for everyone.
As a result of those better late than never efforts, we hope that the obvious truths about achieving real and really true peace will no longer be rationalized by persons -- in and out of the main stream -- as concepts that passeth all understanding. We hope that they will no longer be rationalized as incomprehensible, but instead be acknowledged and honored by skeptics whether radical, conservative, or middle of the road. And finally we hope that every kind of scoffer will become inspired to move from doubt and derision to conscientious assent, which in turn will motivate them to go with the flow of a rising intentional tide of justice and righteousness-striving humanity willing to become directly involved in consequential Christ inspired nonviolent peace seeking.
So my captivity turned out to be a unique, and, I know now, God-given opportunity to ponder for the first time in my life such existential questions as the one uttered by the post-Torah Hebrew prophet who asked rhetorically, "What does the Lord require of you?" That question persists as one of humankind's most celebrated and necessary queries, as was the immediate equally celebrated and eternally necessary answer, "Do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with your God." [5]
As a rhetorical question, I suppose it ranks right alongside the one, which was prophetically similar, but, which was asked much earlier in scripture: "Where is your brother Abel?"
Acknowledging The Futility Of Violence
Thoughts in captivity such as those led to my conceptualizing what I have since called the context of my captivity. And that context, I quickly decided was "the futility of violence." But not just the futility of the violence of the so-called bad guys, but the futility of the violence of the so-called good guys too.
By that I mean not just the futility of the violence of free lance terrorists. That is easy to spot. But I mean also the futility of governments (including our own) which inspire and dictate violent military, paramilitary, guerilla, and/or terrorist actions directly imperiling noncombatants, and, which history has proved, is much more difficult to acknowledge: difficult because its terror is more easily rationalized if and when attempts to obscure it by the powerfully entrenched are so blatant as to require more subtle means to authenticate it.
When Sis and I were reunited after my escape from captivity, due mainly to her Gospels oriented behind the scenes efforts, I quickly learned that she too had reached the same conclusion as to the context of our joint ordeal: i. e. the futility of violence. And she, as I, felt a compelling and irresistible call to share our understandings of that insight. So Sis went back to school to acquire the knowledge and skills that come with a doctorate in International Education with an emphasis on teaching peace to children; while I, driven by intuition and conviction (and considerable curiosity), have been plumbing the heights and depths of scripture and other disciplines to get a handle on the unfolding account of humankind's chronic ambivalence with respect to violence, or, worse than that, its chronic and unrelenting purposefulness as to its use.
It is not by accident that Walter Wink's vital vision for effectively penetrating the defenses and obfuscating subtleties of the defiantly malign by effectively enabling the Sermon on the Mount begins with these words: "Violence is the ethos of our times. It is the spirituality of the modern world." [6] And, "It, and not Christianity, is the real religion of America." [7] Wink's discerning verdict echoes Douglass' seething critique of cultural Christianity (cited earlier), while the Reverend C. T. Vivian, a veteran associate of Martin Luther King, Jr., has compressed the incisive thinking of Wink, Douglass, and others into a tersely emphatic and insightful observation that humankind is involved in a "conflict between Christ and Culture." [8]
Teaching the Old Testament Too Soon In Sunday School
For Sis her understandings fortified by our inquiries have led her to create a potentially transforming pedagogical undertaking aimed at young people. The vision is of an educational universe comprised of teachers who have been carefully taught how to teach their students alternatives to violence -- a fundamental peace building bloc -- systemically (K-12) and comprehensively.
We see the pervasive absence of such a potentially transformative endeavor in the United States (and, of course, elsewhere) as deliberate cultural and spiritual evasion. For that reason I sometimes ponder the radical and paradoxical thought that teaching the Old Testament in Sunday school may well be premature for, let's say, youngsters up to and including the 10th grade -- doled out as it is in anecdotal snatches complete with coloring books that clearly glorify and rationalize violence. Given the state of mind of milieu Christianity with respect to the efficacy of violence, it is clear that the contrary warnings of the later prophets, who courageously and accurately catalogued over and over again its consequences, are being lost and/or drowned out in Sunday school classes. It does not seem that they are ever emphasized and clarified with the same zeal (ardor?) that Joshua's, Gideon's, or David's violent militant campaigns for land and power are taught.
If instead only the New Testament was taught during those several years, we could hope that by the eleventh grade our young people's Gospels orientation and comprehension with respect to viable conduct would be potentially indelible. Then the last two years could be devoted to adding in the Old Testament so that students can better understand that, as important as those books have been both theologically and sociologically, one of the most important purposes they serve in combination is to demonstrate for us where humankind once was with respect to abandoning its violent behavior but not where it should be now. If we don't know how to "listen to the booming voices of the prophets," C. T. Vivian has warned, we will be obliged to "accept the bombs that are dropped." [9] The problem with not knowing how to hear those anxious voices is because humanity not being satisfied with spreading violence throughout the country has been scandalously doing it in the temple too." [10]
Such provocative heedlessness with respect to a potentially apocalyptic end to our time must not be allowed to become a self-fulfilling prediction of the world's end. We must with mature intentionality struggle harder to reach and teach that "area in all people [italics added] that is vulnerable to the message of the prophets and which yearns for life, love, and justice." [11]
We must do that because the post-crucifixion world -- the post World Trade Center, Pentagon attacks world -- cannot afford to have lessons that rationalize violence taught our children and grandchildren anymore. For in so doing, our young are being subverted with the notion that at crucial moments we -- any one of us -- can take God's place rather than be obedient to his intentions with respect to violence as finally and unequivocally revealed through the life and death of Jesus.
So inevitably, Sis and I believe that the times do not call for one more minute of tit for tat violence as practiced in the Holy Land [12] or in Afghanistan. Instead they cry out for conscientious objection to not just punishing violence but the violence of aggression as well on as massive a scale as the kinds of violence those affected consciences are driving us to try to discredit.
In fact, in view of the undeniable effects of scriptural freeze framing [13], which seek to deny the unfolding truths about the futility of violence -- its absolute inefficacy in all respects -- in both the Old and New Testament, the times are clearly desperate for men, women, and their children who will steadfastly heed Micah's call. They -- we -- are needed to heed that call as it was finally heroically and benevolently perfected and exemplified by the counter-hero -- the anti-hero in fact -- who died for us all on the Cross.
Founding Fathers Do Not Always Get It Right The First Time
When trying to get one's mind around how to teach nonviolence, I think learning to love one's enemies is the starting point. It is crucial because millions of people who consider themselves both righteous and just Christians use many of the stories in the Old Testament as a kind of perpetual authority to be violent. But, in my opinion, those excessively Old Testament oriented Christians are indulging themselves in the dubious, actually terribly dangerous theological freeze framing exercise, with perhaps apocalyptic consequences.
Clinging to the applicability of ancient scriptural license for violence that is clearly superseded theologically and ethically by the Gospels is similar to what might happen right here if Americans were to find authority for reimposing slavery, and all the violence imposed to prolong it, because it was not forbidden in the original Bill of Rights. The 13th Amendment was based on the valid insight attested to by the historical fact that founding fathers do not always get it right the first time.
It is clear to me that "ethnocentrism creates its own logic in support of a crude here today gone tomorrow morality that easily rationalizes violence. Ethnocentrism, more than Christology, informs and moves too much of our culture. Ethnocentric me-meism too often is what most of our children are taught, not the message of the Cross. For instance, culture values hypocrisy. This truth is demonstrated by a cardinal cultural rule propounded endlessly by apparently ethically brain and soul dead parents who warn their children to don't do as I do. Do as I say. Then we wonder what has gone wrong when we find that their children defiantly and disgustedly don't do as they are told, but do as their parents do -- or worse.
So despite what children and teenagers may hear or even be taught about being peaceful by adults, too many "don't do as I do. Do as I say" grown-ups who are so quick to find and persecute so-called enemies have been astonishingly successful at passing on those violent habits to young people instead.
I speak from painful and failed experience. As I got older, even though I did not like what I saw those "don't do as I do. Do as I say" adults doing, I began acting the same way. Somehow I acquired, by emotional osmosis I guess, the same terrible habits: such habits as being mean to others (while at the same time not liking it when others were mean to me), the habit of being a bully (even though I did not like being bullied), and the habit of turning up my nose at others and not being friends with boys and girls -- and later on men and women -- who were not quite like me, or actually quite different, (in spite of the fact that I did not like being treated that way).
I have spent more than half my life trying -- but not always successfully -- to unlearn those bad character habits and trying to learn instead how to get on peacefully in the world instead of getting even. My own painful growing up experience has also taught me that not only do old violent habits acquired when we are very young die hard, those habits can become addictive. So, yes, I am a recovering violence addict.
I thank God and, Sis -- ever patient, faithful, and so incredibly loving and forgiving -- for my delivery from that terrible affliction. Getting my sometimes abusive violent temper under control has been far more important to me than my deliverance from violent captivity in Lebanon close to a generation ago.
Culture, therefore, delivers one kind of Christian -- the Cross another. As a result, not just culture's unbelievers but also its so-called believers have massively repudiated Jesus' mainly still untried and unfollowed philosophy of nonviolence. He painfully acknowledged that rejection during that startling instant on the Cross when he asked with nearly his last breath, Forgive them for they do not know what they are doing. In pondering those momentous words, I perceive more than forgiveness in them. Despite the incredible physical pain as well as the emotional pain that accompanied the knowledge that he had been rejected and deserted by almost everyone, he still had the presence of mind and heart to articulate that final insight with respect to the state of the revolution in conduct, which he had tried to inaugurate. The unique commandment to love one's enemies that he had tried to teach, tried to explain was still as pervasively unlearned and unfollowed back then, as it is today. That was and is the downside to his tragic plea.
(continued)
Find the balance of this article at www.ecapc.org/articles/LevinJ_FindingOurWay2.asp