"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
We held a very safe class discussion about the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, comparing his eventual efforts to engage in religious tyranny (involvement in attempt to kill Hitler, whom he believed to be the anti-Christ) to Ghandi and his peace position revealed in this quote: "I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill." Dr. Tom asked the question if, as Christians, we are to focus on spiritual pursuits, living our lives as purported examples, or work to make the world a better place (even to the point of committing murder). I have participated in more than one Unity sponsored class where the discussion included finding the Divine spark that lived in Hitler as an exercise of grappling with ideas of evil in the world. The discussion is often presented in a tidy manner with little variance in comments regarding views on pacifism as good and evil as errant thought and misuse of Divine power.
I find it difficult to comment on the morality of assassination when I can go to sleep each night with certainty that a bomb will not fall on my sleeping children nor will an army invade my home with intent to rape, kill, or steal us. Were that not my every day assumption, at what point would I feel spiritually justified in supporting the killing of the dictator of said evil? And the bigger question, at what point are those who possess the means to end such activity held morally accountable for looking the other way? It is easier to spout off the higher moral ground 'be peace expressing in the world' when life supports the experience of peace. In considering Dr. Tom's question of what is mine to do as a spiritual practitioner on the spectrum that at one end would find me living in a mountain cave in meditative devotion and at the other end would find me a religious tyrant traveling the world looking for evil-doers to kill, I have to say that while I might from time to time fantasize about both planes of being- I'm just not sexy enough for either extreme. I live in the middle somewhere. I am deeply influenced by my trailblazing aunt, Dolores Huerta, who along with Cesar Chavez founded the United Farmworkers union and has spent her life influencing the government and the creation of laws to protect migrant farmworkers in that I am spiritually called to support, educate, and inspire better living. What is my duty to support, educate, and inspire peace in the world? Do my spiritual convictions allow me to live peacefully with a mass murderer? Let's get down and dirty here. The U.S. government has not been stopped by the voices of the mass in efforts to seek and destroy the likes of Hussein, Bin Laden, Koresh. While some may disagree with the decision and effort, as a society we agree to leave the dirty work to the government and by and large without protest. Do we divide our spiritual conviction from our moral code as citizens? Bonhoeffer did not and he is labeled religious tyrant. We sit in class and say with confidence murder in the name of religion is wrong, yet our own government (by the people, for the people) practices the death penalty and our military participates in assassination missions against those who break the law, the law which reflects the moral conviction held by our society. I feel like we cheat the question by not recognizing the full scope of our context. And for the ability to cheat the question, I am grateful. For the general safety and freedom I experience, I am grateful. It is good to consider how our spiritual conviction determines our activity in making the world a better place and to what extent is the scope of duty defined by these convictions.
"The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still small voice within." -Ghandi
Thank you Jacquie for telling it like "it is" in your world in your place of "middle ground" and honoring that there can be two planes of what we label as "the peace within" depending on the physical place of that space in which we find ourselves dwelling. Yes, what is a reason and a passion of one clearly based on circumstance is not clearly defined for another and that does not make them "wrong." It is in the contradiction of "speaking and doing" that it makes the most sense.
ReplyDeleteGoing with your flow may not come out across to the next person, but I hear you recognizing how there are many frames and lenses of reference that bring out the conviction of another. What is by my standard of love and inclusive acceptance in my house was not the same in the house of my grandparents, yet they were good, loving, honest and spiritually convicted people; and that is levels of conscious awareness based on the scope of life and external experiences of the different life and times. Thank you
I enjoyed the sudden 2x4 hit to my head in the form of the realization that I'm not "sexy enough" to run off to the hinterlands of my heart's desire to foment rebellion wither I go. Perhaps I'm just getting old and bourgeois as i wrote in my post. I have always tried to put into practice my belief systems. In my former employment as an attorney I was the President of the Mid-Missouri ACLU and helped get a wrongfully convicted man off of Death Row, helping to set a new precedent for claims of "actual innocence" in this State. On the other hand, I was approached by the Westboro Baptist Church ("God Hates Fags.com") to help them in challenging a local funeral ordinance in Columbia they wanted to challenge (they would have won hand down eventually). While I believed in their 2nd Amendment rights to speak, I didn't "like" their message and wasn't able to take the case in good conscience. So apparently my praxis doesn't always align with my belief. I support a moratorium and eventual abolition of the death penalty, but don't send any money to the legal fund. I understand what you say by cheating the question but I disagree that it's a function of not realizing the whole scope of the context. It seems to be more a conscious or unconscious function of choice. For example, Professor Shepherd warns of the need to "guard [him]self from the tendency to drift from dialogue to diatribe," that theology is the discussion and free exchange of ideas and points. I agree, but don't necessarily feel a need to engage in a dialogue with those who are intractable or manipulative or destructive or un-examined, etc., etc. Those choices are political in nature serving to define who I am at any particular point of time. So the choice is informed and "cheating" but not from malice. Interesting questions- I love your thinking.
ReplyDeleteNot to Act is to Act. I found that very powerful. This is so much a reminder for me to take all that I have learned and DO SOMETHING WITH IT. I am wandering in the wilderness a bit as I figure out what my next steps are in life. Each day is a cloud parting, as I find out what is mine to do. Not to Act is to Act. It is time for me to Act.
ReplyDelete