When moderation is no virtue

On a posting on Jesus Radicals, this quote from Albert Camus about the Church speaking out clearly:

In 1948 the philosopher Albert Camus was asked by a group of Catholic scholars to address the question, why did not the Church speak more clearly and forcefully against the crimes of the Nazis?  “Why shall I not say this here?” Camus asked.  “For a long time I waited during those terrible years, for a strong voice to be lifted up in Rome. I, an unbeliever?  Exactly.  For I knew that spirit would be lost if it did not raise the cry of condemnation in the presence of force.  It appears that this voice was raised.  But I swear to you that millions of people, myself included, never heard it; and that there was in the hearts of believers and unbelievers a solitude which did not cease to grow as the days went by and the executioners multiplied. It was later explained to me that the condemnation had indeed been uttered, but in the language of encyclicals, which is not clear.  The condemnation had been pronounced but it had not been understood.  Who cannot see that this is where the real condemnation lies?  Who does not see that this example contains within it one of the elements of the answer, perhaps the whole answer to the question you have asked me?  What the world expects of Christians is that Christians speak out and utter their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never a single doubt can arise in the heart of even the simplest person.  That Christians get out of their abstractions and stand face to face with the bloody mess that is our history today.   The gathering we need today is the gathering together of people who are resolved to speak out clearly and to pay with their own person.”

Is the triumphant church any church at all?

Via Andrew Sullivan, these comments by Greg Boyd on Church, state and triumphalism.

This is What Standing Up to the Powers Looks Like

In 2004, I had the chance to meet Elbon Kilpatrick, a minister, former prison chaplain and antiwar activist and someone who had made tremendous personal sacrifices in order to conform his actions to his beliefs.

This week, he had a brief piece on the new Jesus Radicals site talking about his practice of protesting war outside of churches in the American south. I will let Elbon tell the story

I protest in front of small rural churches and large city churches.  The church responses to the protests – no matter the size or denomination – are usually the same:

• “You couldn’t stand there if Christians didn’t fight to protect your/our freedom of speech.”

• “God commanded the killing of enemies in the Old Testament and calls us to obey the civil authorities which includes going to war against this country’s enemies.”

• “We are required to defend ourselves.  Do you think we should allow the Muslims to invade and conquer us?  Would allow someone to break into your home and kill your wife and children?

• “Jesus taught us to love personal enemies – not national enemies.”

• Physical responses:  shouting profanities, church members surrounding me so others cannot see the sign, and extending a closed fist with an extended middle finger.

• Call the police.  This happens at most of the protests.  No arrest is made because the protests are a protected citizen right.  However, a municipality may require the obtaining of a permit prior to the protest so police may maintain order by planning for supervision of the protest.  If this is the case, the police will provide the information on how the permit may be obtained when they respond to the call.

My response to these arguments or actions is the following:

Jesus commanded the love of enemies.  He gave a new commandment to love one another as he loved us (John 15:12).  By giving us this new commandment he made himself the model of love – an unconditional love for not only friends but also enemies.  When Jesus told his followers to take up their crosses and follow him he showed them/us how to bear their/our crosses by bearing his cross.  Jesus prayed mercy and forgiveness for his enemies while they murdered him.  Therefore, Jesus does not teach an ethics of survival by defending ourselves and others against personal or national enemies.

I was deeply moved by Elbon when I met him and I continue to be now. And I am humbled. We all talk about the Gospel, but this is what it looks like to live it.

Some Disturbing Thoughts about Humanitarian Aid

Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker has raised some disturbing questions both about the outcomes of humanitarian aid and the moral complicity of providers, particularly Christian aid groups,  in horrific crimes by recipients.

Whether or not this has some basis in fact needs to be investigated. Particularly as these groups hold themselves, and are generally held, above reproach. Or as Gourevitch describes it

Aid organizations and their workers are entirely self-policing, which means that when it comes to the political consequences of their actions they are simply not policed. When a mission ends in catastrophe, they write their own evaluations. And if there are investigations of the crimes that follow on their aid, the humanitarians get airbrushed out of the story. Polman’s suggestion that it should not be so is particularly timely just now, as a new U.N. report on atrocities in the Congo between 1993 and 2003 has revived the question of responsibility for the bloody aftermath of the camps. There can be no proper accounting of such a history as long as humanitarians continue to enjoy total impunity.

And surely the Church has a role here as well. Not only do we put our imprimatur on these more often than not faith based groups but we funnel vast resources to them as well. Yet in my experience, we do little to hold them to account. Given what is done in our name, surely it is time to start.

Andrew Bacevich and the Futility of the Afghan War

As I write this, I am watching an interview with Andrew Bacevich on Bill Moyer's Journal. To my mind, Bacevich, a retired colonel and historian has about as much credibility as anyone talking about this today.

In the interview, he said two remarkable things. First, he asserted that General Stanley McChrystal is not fully in charge of the war effort, especially the activities of special forces under his command. The second is that this war is being waged with the full knowledge that its objectives will not be accomplished.

And of course, here in Canada, where the entire debate focuses on our support of the troops fighting the war rather than whether we want to have them killed, wounded and psychologically scarred in a completely pointless military effort.