BoppWeBlog

No one reading this is unfamiliar with the tension between Israel and it’s neighbors.  A Jewish community in the middle of an Islamic region.

Currently we are seeing news about the strike Israel is making against it’s neighbors in Gaza.  Clearly this strike has been provoked by the constant bombardment of Israel missiles and suicide bombers.  It would be difficult to really look at the facts and blame the Jewish people turning to war.

The evil situation in the middle east is one that is extremely complicated, and will most likely require a complicated resolution.  Is war and violence the answer?  Or even part of the answer?  I believe alternatives are needed to really bring this region closer to peace.  Alternatives that are far more difficult than war.

The problem with violence

Military retaliation may be the quickest partial resolution to violence inflicted on the Jewish people.  However, it will only fuel the hatred it’s neighbors have for them.  This goes way beyond Hamas or the PLO.  These organizations are inherently violent and are unfortunately part of what may be a violent religion.  It’s the civilians that are gaining hatred for Israel.  Perhaps because their apartment complex was bombed, or witnessing their loved ones injured and killed (who may or may not be part of a terrorist organization).

I would imagine for every attack on Gaza, at least one new enemy will be created.  For example, with each attack in Gaza; Hamas and others like it are getting more support for their cause.  The five year old witnessing this war will be all to eager to prepare him or herself to be the next suicide bomber.  There is no shortage of these people in any of Israels neighboring nations.

The underlining question here is whether or not a problem of violence and terror can be fought with violence and war.  Can you stop someone from bombing you… by bombing them?  Unless everyone in Gaza is killed, and every enemy of Israel removed, there will be terror inflicted on the nation of Israel.  Someone will be in line to bring harm to the Jewish people.

Diplomacy may be the only really answer.  Peaceful action instead of war may be what is needed to bring peace.  This idea may seem so unreasonable and optimistic that it isn’t even worth consideration.  But if the goal is peace at some point in the future, then peaceful action must be used in replace of violence.

I certainly don’t have the answer as to what peaceful action needs to be done.  It will no doubt involve some major creativity.  It is easy for me to sit here watching the news and form my judgment of the situation.  And as I mentioned I can not blame Israel for taking violent action, but this doesn’t make it right or the most productive in the long run.

Peaceful force by Israel will no doubt require great sacrifice on their part.  Just as Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice to bring about a peaceful revolution.  I do not think the world will stand by watching the genocide of a peaceful Jewish nation.

The argument can be made that as long as the Koran is teaching it followers the art of holy war there will be violence and pain.  But that is beyond what I am prepared to discuss in this post.  It will no doubt require the power of God, and the triumph of the human spirit to bring about the revolution needed to solve a crisis like this.

I blame Israel no more than I blame it’s neighbors. I would consider myself on the side of God’s chosen people.  And it is on them that I call to take the higher, more difficult road.  Following the ways of our Lord and allowing his power to prevail.  Turning the impossible into reality.

In my deepest being I believe Peace can NOT be attained through Violence.

Ultimately, someone declaring themselves a Christian must hold their world view against the teachings of Christ. What I feel I must do as a Christian is take each element that I stand by in my world view, each piece I claim as truth, and hold it against what is central to my life, my faith in God. So with this said, what does it mean for a Christian (in this case myself) when it comes to issues of war and violence?

I’ll start with Jesus, referring to possibly his most popular teaching , ‘The sermon on the mount’. He says “In everything, treat people the same way your want them to treat you, for this is the law.” Throughout his life, Jesus taught that the first priority of a Christian is to love God, the second, to love fellow humans. Jesus also said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” It seems to me that Jesus did not teach against the Old Testament, or the ‘Old Law’, but rather he took what was the most important ‘laws’ of following God, and emphasized that they should be more rigorously observed. He affirmed the notion of loving your neighbor, being against killing, but he took it much further. He maintained there was no room for violence, or even anger at times was wrong. His message was to love everyone, even your enemies. When Jesus was arrested and Peter drew his sword he scolded Peter saying that whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword. Jesus lived the ultimate life of peace even forgiving his torturers at his death.

Jesus also says, “Your have heard it said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, resist not him that is evil.” This is particularly interesting since this was opposing a quote from Exodus. Not only this but great men of God like Samson, Joshua, and Gideon, where military men. Despite this Jesus and his followers maintained that Jewish law should be held to a higher standard. And that even though war and violence had been tolerated in the past, they would be no longer. This kind of teaching was one of the fundamentals of Christianity for the first several centuries following Jesus’ time on earth. Christians rejected warfare in all its institutions. The ‘original Christians’ were devoted to anti-militarism.

Jesus never explicitly called out the issue of war that I can tell, but that doesn’t make it any less important in my mind. After all, to use this kind of logic by saying it was never addressed and therefore permissible would be to do the same as those who advocated slavery.

I’ve read about many early Christians who taught along these lines of non-violence. First century Christian writer Ignatius called for an abolition of warfare. Second century writer Origenes Adamantius said that a Christian must refuse warfare even if mandated by the state (in his case the emperor of Rome). It was because of all this that Christians became so troublesome to the Roman empire and were seen as such a threat. Those who are anti war are often seen as anti-state, and a menace to society. Mozi, a first century Christian, said that it was wrong to put your loyalty of your own country above your loyalty to God. I this this is an awesome statement. I love America, but my first and foremost allegiance is to God.

Many people in the history of the church who have been made saints got there by their life of strong anti-violent stances and teachings. (unfortuntely, there are some saints who acheived recognition by the opposite in later church history).

I feel strongly that Jesus came to teach us that peace and love (sounds a bit hippyish) along with our allegiance to God is to be our ‘Golden Rule’ – Even if this is contrary to how we feel, and what we see from fellow humans, and even Christians around us.