We are in the midst of a war that is draining vast amounts of our treasure and is costing the blood of our armed forces. I am a person who believes in peace, but not peace at any price. However, I said before the war in Iraq began that the wisest course would be to wage war against Saddam Hussein, not the whole nation of Iraq. When faced with the threat of a comparable dictator in our own hemisphere, would it not be wiser to wage war against one person rather than finding ourselves down the road locked in a bitter struggle with a whole nation?
The brilliant Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived under the hellish conditions of Nazi Germany, is reported to have said:
"If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver."
Some are quite offended that Mr. Robertson would dare compare himself with Dietrich Bonhoeffer. To me it simply points to his shallowness. I'm no expert on Bonhoeffer but the little reading of him I've done (Life Together) indicates a profoundly deep thinking man. He was accused by Hitler of participating in a plot to assassinate him and while the evidence is inconclusive, I found the following discussion of his life and his views on pacifism revealing of the dilemma he faced:
BONHOEFFER, CONVINCED sufficiently of the arguments for pacifism that he arranged to visit Gandhi in the mid-1930s (something he was unable to do), eventually supported a plot to assassinate Hitler. He simply could not accept the personal perfection of withdrawal. In doing that, one "sets his own personal innocence above his responsibility for [humanity], and he is blind to the more irredeemable guilt which he incurs precisely in this," Bonhoeffer wrote.
Of the elites and never a populist, Bonhoeffer left the immortal phrase that it was essential "to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed, the reviled-in short from the perspective of those who suffer."
One thing is clear, to me at least: Bonhoeffer was far closer to the situation in Germany, and the evil more starkly apparent, than Pat Robertson's perspective on Venezuela. More importantly, Robertson's comments on the war "draining vast amounts of our treasure" and the call to "take out" Saddam (not assassinate, mind you, Pat makes it clear that there are numerous ways to "take out" a leader), go to show where his heart is.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
To my main point about modern evangelical meta-narratives: we have been far too quick to resort to natural means to fight the battle. Or perhaps the problem is that we have been too focused on fighting "our" battle and not the Lord's. In any case, the article that prompted this ramble is more about Brother Roger. I love his thoughts on the role of the humble and obscure in bringing about a future of peace and trust...
SojoNet: Faith, Politics, and Culture: "Brother Roger was well-known for his letters, many of which were addressed to young people. 'So many young people all across the earth carry within them a yearning for peace, for communion, and for joy,' he wrote in one such letter last year. 'They are also mindful of the untold suffering of the innocent. They know all too well that poverty in the world is on the rise. It is not only the leaders of nations who build the world of tomorrow. The most obscure and humble people can play a part in bringing about a future of peace and trust. However powerless we may seem to be, God enables us to bring reconciliation where there are oppositions and hope where there is anxiety. God calls us to make his compassion for human beings accessible by the way we live.'"
No comments:
Post a Comment