29 August 2005

Do No Harm?

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it..It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
-Pat Robertson on assassinating Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?"
-Jesus talking to some people on a mountain

Call me crazy...but I'm not sure that killing someone is the best way to love them.

Maybe the best way to think about all of this is to think of someone you love. Your mother. Your friend. Your husband or wife. Hold that image in your mind. Remember and feel the depth of emotion that represents your love for them.

And then try to imagine yourself feeling that way for Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler.

It's like that. Or at least, I think it is. That's the call, apparently.

The interesting thing is, I think, that Jesus ties this command right to God. He says that the sun shines on the just and the unjust alike. That God shows grace to all of us...and we should too.

Jesus is telling His followers to be different than the world. He's telling me to be different. And that's hard sometimes. A lot of times.

You see, he's saying to stand for something else. To not give in to the power plays and politics and "common sense" arguments that urge us to hate our enemies because it will be better for us that way.

Yet I sympathize with Pat. From a certain point of view he is right. Heck, from the point of view I sometimes see from he's right. But from Jesus' point of view? Well...

Jesus doesn't put any conditions on His words. We are to love our enemies even if they don't ever love us back. Even if the consequences of that love are catastrophic for us. And odds are, if they are our enemies they have both the will and power to do a great deal of harm to us.

It is easy to hate someone. It is easy to ignore someone. It's even easy to love someone who's a pretty rotten guy.

But to love your worst enemy? The one who has ruined your life, taken your livelihood, ripped away from you that for which you cared the most? That's not easy...not easy at all.

But then, I guess, that's why the tax collectors kept on doing things the regular way.

3 comments:

miguelito said...

An interesting thought Josh. I like what you say. Consider this: you point out that our enemies have, almost defenitionaly, an ability to do us harm. However, change the perspective for a moment. I think you are right, but perhaps in a different way than you intended. Any harm done to us here is both temporal and temporary. It is, in effect, no more than a scratch that can and will most defenitly heal. But through our enemies, we have the ability to harm ourselves and others in a great way. Through our enemies, we can harm ourselves through not forgiving, which cuts us off, apparently, from full forgiveness ourselves. That is the greatest harm that can possibly come to us. I sympathize for Mr. Robertson, but I do not think he is in the least bit right. I sympathize with him for two reasons. First, because he obviously needs to know the full love of God, and secondly, because he will someday be accountable for that comment, and for the hate which it stirred up in the hearts of those he proclaims to lead. It is said that we will know them by thier fruits. It is also said in John that the sheep hear the shephards voice, and no it, and they go to him through the gate. Jesus is the gate, and the good shephard. Anyone who enters through a different gate is a thief and a murderer, and the sheep do not know his voice, and he does not know the shephard's voice. What does this mean for Robertson?

miguelito said...

p.s: sorry for all the spelling errors...really tired.

Anonymous said...

do you remember reading "the enigma of affliction" in prolegomena? if i recall, Allen's take on Simone Weil regarded affliction as something deeper than emotional pain and suffering; an existential wound - something that causes the soul to implode. i recall one of the analogies in his article: a rape victim had come to believe that she was at fault for the violation against her. she collapsed from within. affliction is the thing that causes one to become dehumanized to the extent that one would consider his or herself deserving of such abuse. i know we all think eleanor roosevelt's little adage about nobody being able to degrade one without one's own consent is a gospel truth, but there are those whose actions are so reprehensible that they cause not just temporary and temporal harm.

yet even these we are called to love.

from a safe and cozy classroom in central california it was incredibly easy for me to post on my bulletin board on sept. 12, 2001 a sign which read "pray for those who persecute you and shamefully abuse you" (loc cit). were i teaching a class full of high schoolers in soho i don't know that i'd be so brave or brazen. and yet i believe it with every ounce of my being. could i love the men who killed my family? can i love the ultra-right wing religioso? i'd better learn how.