Reframing remembrance: a thought on September 11

Saw this posted by some of the families who lost loved ones on September 11 and couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.


­­“The members of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows are grateful for the expressions of remembrance and concern being offered on the 10th anniversary of the events which took the lives of our loved ones. On this day we ask those who feel compassion for our loss to expand their compassion to include others who continue to experience loss ten years later: innocent families in Afghanistan and Iraq experiencing the loss of their loved ones and displacement from their communities as the result of war and political strife; Muslim-Americans subjected to bias and violence at home; those denied the protections of our Constitution and law, whether in Guantanamo or in our own country; those suffering from job loss and economic dislocation related to the cost of war and rising military budgets; and those who have seen their civil iberties and freedoms exchanged for the false promise of security.

The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a connected world. We rise or fall together. As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On this 10th anniversary, let us honor those we lost by recognizing our kinship with people all over the world, and affirming the values and principles that will guarantee peaceful tomorrows for everyone."

For those wrestling and asking...

This is an interview about a book titled "The Myth of a Christian Nation." I have not yet read it, but watched it this morning and found it helpful in the discussion. Its about 22 minutes (in 3 sections).








Keep the conversation going.

MLK Day

I like Martin Luther King Jr. The man of God was a pioneer and revolutionary voice in a time when this country could have turned far more violent.

One of the contributions I value is his notion of the Cycle of Violence.

Over-simplified, The Cycle of Violence is when an aggressor comes on the scene and humiliates another, the humiliated responds violently to stand up for themselves, fight for what's right and defend their dignity and humanity. That violence is reciprocated by the aggressor and violent conflict is the norm. In violent conflict, there is always a loser and a winner. The winner will then humiliate the loser and the cycle will eventually reproduce. Whenever we enter into the power game, there are losers and winners.

MLK, drawing from the message, teaching and life of Jesus, said that one must engage in breaking the cycle of violence. In other words, if someone seeks to humiliate you, you do not respond violently, but you take a nonviolent stand against the oppressor and when they strike you, you get back up and you stand until they strike you again and again and again. Eventually you will either die, or you will provoke the aggressor to begin questioning why they are striking you, or even better, to recognize your humanity. It is this painful and treacherous road that leads to the end of the cycle of violence. It is in struggle that great and lasting change is achieved. This is how change was initiated in the south in the 60's and how change was initiated in India with Gandhi and how change was initiated in South Africa with Apartheid.

Thanks Dr. King for being a modern reminder of the true ethic of Jesus, that no one has power over me if I refuse to enter the power game they are playing. Thanks for reminding us that this way is the better way, but it is the harder way as well. (Jesus, King, and Gandhi all died violent deaths.)

p.s. on a lesser note, thanks for having a day named after you that gets me a day off of classes too!

peace on earth...? II

Let me start with some history.

The early church, the people who stemmed from the Jesus movement, were pacifists. In fact for three centuries, the followers of Christ refused to enter violent conflict. Some have suggested that Christians did not engage in the military because they would have had to eat food sacrificed to idols. If I remember correctly, there is evidence that soldiers who accepted Christ were instructed by the church that they could remain in the military, but they could not bear arms.

It was in the early 4th century that Constantine came along and had a 'conversion experience'. I think many historians are suspicious of the authenticity of the conversion and think it was more for political gain than any other reason. Irregardless, Constantine forced his conversion on his military and all who recognized him as king. They were all to become Christians. If you were to look up the origins of the tradition of celebrating Christ's birth (Christmas), I think you will find connections to Constantine who made the decree that the common god of that time's celebration would be changed to a celebration of Jesus' birth.

All that to say, by the 5th century things had changed drastically. The Church was no longer the peacemaking minority but (through force/coercion) had become the violent majority. Augustine, often known as the most influential theologian post-Paul in Christian history, then came along and reintroduced a belief that originated in Aristotle's philosophy, called the Just War Theory. War was acceptable and necessary for the church to engage in if certain circumstances/criteria were met. This has been the normative approach to Peace/Conflict ever since by the Roman Catholic Church and by a majority of Protestants as well (There are some sects in both the RCC and Protestantism that reject violence as an acceptable means to conflict resolution.)

You do not have to search too far in your history books to find wars fought by Christians. Violence, particularly against other religions such as Islam and Judaism, have led to some atrocious acts.

So this is a capsule of what the historic church perspective has been for two milennia. I think this is the necessary starting point for a discussion on peace. Where have we been? Where are we now?

The next overview to explore is what Jesus and Paul have to say about Peace & Violence in the New Testament canon. Can we grasp a common ethical thread throughout the body of the New Testament that should inform us of our perspective on War and Peace?

Other posts that must be forthcoming...
-Ok, NT is covered, what about the OT...seems like a violent God doing violent acts. What is the OT notion of peace?
-What is the just war theory and if it is flawed, how is it flawed?
-What is the alternative to JWT?
-What about historic examples? Hitler? Genocide in Rwanda?...etc.

If you have other areas that you would like touched on, submit your questions and I will do the best I can.