The Harried Mystic

This week, President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, acknowledging both his aspirational leadership, and game-changing actions in his first year to cool down the rhetorical belligerence and strident voices of American exceptionalism.

He has, and continues, to reach out in all directions to encourage dialogue on the complex issues of our times among allies and adversaries. His language reveals his sizable mind and heart, the depth of his deliberateness, and his appreciation for complex decision-making. He understands the need to grapple with dilemmas and the delicate and difficult task of threading a needle between polarized passionate views. The speech itself modeled the reasons he deserves the award so early in his  tenure.

It was the work of a realist with vision, a pragmatist with clear aspirational values, and the voice of one who fully recognizes that he cannot be the leader of one faction or political persuasion. He masterfully travels the middle road, while irrational fears, extreme and unthinking ideology, and propaganda designed to distract, obfuscate, frighten, and derail inspire the speech and actions of lesser leaders.

Of course, this is the nature of political theater, but the central issues shaping the political landscape of this new century are undeniably important matters for our meditations.

In his Oslo speech, the President took great pains to refer to the need to accept that there is real evil in the World. He went on to say that the idea of a “just war” is reasonable. He commented that as Commander-in-Chief, he did not have the luxury to simply follow the examples of Mandela, King, Gandhi and so many other unsung heros of nonviolent resistance in India, Pakistan, China, Iran, Africa and elsewhere. He expressed the need to consider, also, the awards bestowed on such leaders as George Catlett Marshall.

This is the dilemma a sitting President and, frankly,  any political leader faces. As an ordained person, this raises for me the question: Can one be an authentic disciple of the Teacher of Righteousness, Jesus of Nazareth, and still support the idea of a “just war.” Roman Catholicism put this to bed for their parishioners a long time ago by declaring that a war is “just” if it meets a few clear guidelines ( paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church):

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The Society of Friends, the Quakers, of which I was a member for several years, takes the opposing point of view ( i.e., that there is no justification for war at any time and in any form). I agree without reservation.

It is at best disingenuous and, at worst, intellectually dishonest, to engage in a sophistry that easily interprets circumstances to make armed conflict fit the criteria. To be a disciple of  the Nazarene while arguing for a just war is oxymoronic.

Disciples must opt out and fight for peace non-violently. True disciples may find it necessary to refrain from formal political office for the very reason that compromise and accommodation are required to do the job. The well-being and protection of nation states are  justifiable endeavors of their elected leadership. However, followers of the Teacher of Nazareth must abide by a much more stringent and unwavering rule: “Love thy enemy.”

It’s not easy. It is even counter-intuitive. It’s inconvenient, especially when we are fearful for those we love, and for ourselves. On lifting a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter struck a soldier in defense of his Master as the arresting soldiers advanced.  In fact, Peter severed a soldier’s ear. Jesus admonished him for doing so.

Again, we have a choice: live in bad faith and accept the modern idea of “just war,” (releasing us from the tension caused by this difficult teaching), or reject war totally. On 9/11, I too wanted emotional satisfaction. The moral outrage and the loss of innocence on American soil was enough for anyone to want to take up arms against the aggressors. The Bush reaction, though, was blindly bellicose and misdirected anger in the extreme, and only fueled the flames of hatred worldwide over eight long years (even condoning torture in the name of justice).

I stand with Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and King.  My choice is easy as I remind myself of the commands issued by a higher commander-in-chief. His mandate could not be clearer or more direct: show your enemy love.

The book, Three Cups of Tea, does a beautiful job illustrating the power of building schools as an act of generosity, to turn the world away from hatred, a few people or villages at a time.  It happened at the initiative of one man. I know for a fact that the US Army is both impressed by and very serious about the 3 cup strategy. ( I highly recommend the book if you haven’t read it.) To me, this is on the right track.

The Gospels contain many hard lessons. The teachings of Buddha are parallel and no easier. Is it acceptable to eat animals? In killing even an insect, do I not kill a piece of myself spiritually? What of right action, and right speech?

The lessons of the Christos hold us to a very high bar, and it’s not one that feels right much of the time. So many times, I find myself venting my spleen at one or another loud pundit on the extreme right or left of the political spectrum who is making up stuff just to obstruct, confuse or make self-serving noise.

I get angry at the suffering of the innocent at the hands of disturbed and misguided jihadists and I want them to pay.  At times, my emotion can get fever pitched, and I want them to bleed just as they wantonly drew blood. Sure. Nothing new or surprising about all that. It’s part of the old brain and the mind of the dark primitive inside us all. And, that’s not a reaction to either justify or feel proud. That is not the way of a disciple.

I cannot be enlightened, commune with the Beloved, experience the Spirit with true and full intimacy, and transcend suffering, if I subscribe personally to the idea of a just war.

So, o.k., what about Hitler? That’s the one everyone asks about next. Should we not have gone to war with him given the depth of his evil? Well, we actually waited a long time before getting involved.

It took the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor to get us interested. The rest of Europe and the U.S. engaged in appeasement for years. They acted as enablers and then, after the cancer had spread widely, war was inevitable.

We propped up Saddam Hussein as a “friend” of the US in the region for a while before he became the bad boy of Baghdad. We supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan where Osama ben Laden was a leader and before he became the veritable Prince of Darkness. Faustian bargains usually turn out very badly for the Fausts. If force is justified to protect innocence, why aren’t we in Darfur?

The World is flawed and that is obvious and self-evident.  Politicians do what they are elected to do. Disciples, however, have to choose by other extra-Worldly criteria. While nations play their deadly games, “blessed are the peacemakers,” who create conditions that keep conflict from boiling over into bloodshed.

A hypothetical is then often the next challenge: What if someone threatens your family?

Well, I would do whatever I had to do to protect them without hesitation. I would hope to deter aggression without deadly force. If I kill, then the stain is permanent and there’s no going back (though I am legally and socially justified). [I think we can all stand to learn a martial art with the intent to know how to protect ourselves and others without the need to kill or be killed. My choice had been Tai chi. There are, of course, many others.]

The Theologian, Karl Barth, summed up this teaching and mandate quite powerfully:

What the disciples are enjoined is that they should love their enemies ( Matt 5:44). This destroys the whole friend-foe relationship for when we love our enemy he ceases to be our enemy. It thus abolishes the whole exercise of force, which presupposes this relationship, and has no meaning apart from it. According to the sense of the New Testament, we cannot be pacificists only in principle, but in practice. But we have to consider very closely whether , if we are called to discipleship, we can avoid being practical pacifists, or fail to be so.”

Again, I remind myself, that the mystical intent behind all things, all dramas, all tensions, all koans, all challenges, and all situations is our enlightenment.

How will we choose?

© Brother Anton and The Harried Mystic, 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.