This is the thirty-first in a periodic series of reflections on Brian D. McLaren's everything must change. Quotations used by kind permission of the author, with page citations from the edition featured on the Emerging Church Reading List to your right.
Matthew 5:21-22: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago: ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca’ [Aramaic for ‘empty-head’] is answerable to the Sanhedrin [the Jewish Council]. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Brian comments: “Jesus’ disciples must work to dehabitualize and delegitimize even small expressions of aggression like name-calling. They must realize the dangers of language that dehumanizes the other― whether it is the Hutus in Rwanda calling Tutsis ‘cockroaches’ and ‘tall trees,’ or political and religious leaders using language like ‘infidel’ or ‘terrorist,’ or ‘axis of evil,’ or a husband and wife trading insults in a loud, late-night argument.
“Care on the level of dehumanizing language helps preempt escalations that lead to violence, murder, and war. One backs away from the narrow ledge of murder, back from the slippery slope where one is angry, back to the edge of the hill where one is tempted to call names. One quenches conflict there, while the potential aggression is still a spark. Instead of dealing with war strategy while the improvised explosive devices are detonating or the missiles are launching, one deals with conflict when anger begins to simmer and insults start forming in the mind” (p. 179).
A minor quibble before a major question: While I agree that “infidel” and “axis-of-evil” are, at the least, counter-productive pejoratives, ‘terrorist’ may be an apt descriptor for someone who blows up innocent people.
Major question: While appreciating the wisdom of this approach for interpersonal relationships, how can this wisdom be applied to the Global Problem of War? Brian answers this way:
“In defending the American ‘war on terror,’ former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld summed up his, and the US government’s, security strategy: ‘We have a choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we choose the latter.’
“In light of the security policy of Jesus, I would say it slightly differently: ‘We have a choice, either to change the unacceptable way we live, or to change the unacceptable way they live, which is impossible to do against their will― without stooping to ethnic cleansing so they don’t live at all. So, we choose the former, in the confidence that a voluntary change in our behavior will precipitate an unexpected change in their behavior.’”
To me, this begs a further question, unasked and therefore unanswered as this chapter comes to its conclusion: What if the change in our behavior doesn’t precipitate the unexpected change in their behavior. Apparently, as of this writing, President Obama’s attempt to engage Iran through diplomatic words instead of dehumanizing words has precipitated nothing. What is the security policy of Jesus when the desire for conversation rather than confrontation isn’t reciprocated? What would be the security policy of Jesus if Iran were to arm its first nuclear missile or its first nuclear suicide bomber?
If you have an answer to offer, please Comment.
Comments