You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘foreign policy’ tag.
The Bible sends a clear message that we must stand for the oppressed. Whether the oppressed are slaves in nineteenth-century America, Jews in 1940s Germany, or Palestinians in the twentieth-century Middle East, Christians must put themselves on the side of those who are the victims of injustice. This is made clear by Jesus’ own ‘mission statement’, found in Luke 4.18-19:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
[NRSV]
‘Good news to the poor’ — ‘liberty to the captives’ — these are statements that have intense spiritual meaning and drastic political implications.
This clear concern for the oppressed has led many Christians to conclude that the Church must support military intervention for humanitarian goals. And yet, equally clear in the New Testament, alongside this call for justice is an embrace of nonviolence. As I have written in previous posts, I am a pacifist, and I believe that the use of nonviolence has proven to be not only an effective and aggressive strategy to counter force, but is also the lifestyle most in accord with the teaching of Christ. Consider Luke 6.27-28:
But I say to you who listen, Love you enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. [NRSV]
When we as Christians look at the world and see the shocking reality of oppression in so many places, we are faced with an apparent dilemma: Should we intervene, or should we be pacifists?
Yes.
We must intervene, for God is on the side of the oppressed; and we must be true to Christ’s life, a life of nonviolence. The question is a false dichotomy: it is possible to do both, for the intervention and peace are not mutually exclusive — when viewed rightly. Pacifism rightly understood is the polar opposite of ‘passivism’. It is active, imaginative, and aggressive.
We must reject the framework of ‘humanitarian military intervention’ so popular in certain quarters. Even if we refuse to condemn those who feel they have no choice but to counter injustice with force, we as the Church must be called to a different methodology. Following the model of Christ, we embrace instead a new ideal: interventionist pacifism.
This may seem a ridiculous concept. But I believe that nonviolence has proven its worth as a tool of action against evil, and thus nonviolent intervention is a real possibility. In fact, there is at least one organization already doing so, Christian Peacemaker Teams. Founded in 1984 by the historical peace churches, CPT asks a critical yet rarely-asked question: ‘What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war?’ To answer this question, CPT sends teams of peacemakers dedicated to active nonviolence to hotspots of crisis around the world, seeking to reduce violence and create justice by ‘getting in the way’. They change what it means to intervene: instead of taking control of the situation and ‘solving’ it by external means, CPT empowers the oppressed and points them towards a new way of combating injustice, showing them how through the grace of God oppressed peoples can cause their own liberation. They have sent teams to Palestine, to Iraq, to Colombia, to the American border, and elsewhere, offering a hope of the true liberation that only the Kingdom of Heaven — not the kingdoms of the world — can offer.
So I close with questions. What if multiple high-profile denominations issued a call for young Christian men and women to fill the ranks of teams like those from CPT, going to places of crisis, ministering to the victims of injustice? What if the Church took seriously the possibility of a nonviolent anti-military? What if Christians fostered the idea that nonviolently ‘getting in the way’ and peacfully intervening offers a real alternative to the actions of armed forces? If the Body of Christ stepped up to its potential, if (to borrow a phrase from Stanley Hauerwas) the Church would simply ‘be the Church’…
Anything could happen.
[Also published on Crossleft]
On Digg I found a link to a piece on The Huffington Post by Paul Begala about Bush’s “appeasement comments” in Israel. The HuffPost quotes Bush as saying:
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
Bush is wrong. As Chris Matthews said on Hardball (as quoted on the site Think Progress), distinguishing between Chamberlainesque appeasement and diplomatic negotiation:
“…there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What [British Prime Minister] Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong. Not talking to somebody. Appeasement is giving things away to the enemy.”
In the HuffPost article, Begala cited examples of the Bush administration actually negotiating with “radicals,” and commented, “It should be noted that in each instance, the negotiations actually advanced America’s security position. So even the Bush administration, by its actions, attests to the efficacy of negotiating with evildoers.”
I think that Obama perhaps carries the role of negotiation too far in promising to engage in it it without precondition. But it’s a better position than Bush’s words (which don’t match his actions), which essentially imply “Screw diplomacy, let’s take these bad guys out!”
We should be willing to talk to the enemy. We should not be willing to appease. There is a difference; those who ignore the distinction do so at the peril of international peace and justice.
read more on HuffPost || digg story
