You know I keep reading the news about the growing threat in Iran, and I can't help but wonder how I would handle the situation if I were in our leaders shoes. I hear that earlier this week Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that talk about Iran's plan to become a nuclear power had been closed. He also made some foolish remarks about his belief that the Holocaust didn't occur and that there are no homosexuals in Iran. For some this only added fuel to the fire of hatred, and others just laughed.So how do we address this growing problem. How do we implement the teachings of Christ into our foreign policy? First off, I believe it fairly obvious that we don't seek war as an viable option. I'll just leave it at that. Do we, in an effort to avoid war, laugh at his comments and ignore a growing threat? Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Personally I believe that turning the other cheek is not a passive action intended to show submission. I believe that it is a gutsy, proactive gesture that levels the playing field between the victim and the offender.
I am coming to realize that there is never only two possible solutions to a problem. Our culture is obsessed with black and white, right or wrong, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, that we are not creative enough to think of a third way. We find that every time Jesus was put into a situation where the Pharisees intended for him to make a mistake in chosing one side over another, Jesus always seemed to have a third way. The third way was always creative and effective. Why can't we be as creative as he was?Now how can this apply to our foreign policy? A few minutes ago I read a comment about Jim Wallis's blog. The reader made a point that really shed light on a new insight for me. "That's why we need to look for the equivalent of turning the other cheek: a paradigm-busting, gutsy move that redefines the debate. Unilateral nuclear disarmament fits the bill." Wow, now there is an idea. Why don't we show Iran how serious we really are about the abuse of nuclear power? I think we all agree that the use of nuclear power as a weapon was a mistake for mankind, yet we continue to stockpile enough weapons to destroy the world several times over. One would think that if the US were serious about nuclear non-proliferation, we would start with our own stockpile. I believe that as a leading world power, the US has a responsibility to lead my example and only then will we be effective in disarming other nations.
Am I naive? It is okay. You can tell me. I won't be offended :-)
5 comments:
Naive? I hope not!
Thanks for the good thoughts to chew on.
~lisa
In response to "implementing the teachings of Christ into foreign policy" the reality is that the church and the government have separate respnsibilities. The government is not expected to act like the church (it would be great if they would OR would it?) and the church should not react like the government does. In response to your thoughts about nuclear weapons I beleive your candidate, Obama is advocating the use of nuclear weapons against our enemies. Something I have not heard the current President suggesting :)
I deeply appreciated this entry. There is always a third way, it's just not as obvious or simple as the others. I always feel frustrated when people equate pacifism with surrender or submission. Turning the other cheek calls us all to participate in a conversation rather than say our piece and ignore the response. There is nothing naive about wanting to discover that third option, particularly when doing what Christ has called us to do. We may not be able to live as the body through our foreign policy (stupid separation of church and state! ;-) but we can most certainly attempt to live that way in our interactions with others. If there is one thing I have learned in the past year, it is that this situation, along with countless others around the world, does not have a simple solution. This is frustrating and painful for many of us, but it is an incredible opportunity to live into the hope that we all say we have. At least, that is what challenges me.
What are you, some kind of liberal commie? But seriously, this spat between the U.S. and uh, the rest of the world reminds me that, as a follower of Jesus, my loyalty is not to any nation state but to Jesus and the people he served. How about that for a political platform?
hey bruce! Really liked this post and the comments. I agree with you and jojo on the whole 'third way' idea...that is so very important, and pacifism (or nonviolence or turning the cheek) is at the core not a way to avoid problems but rather to deal with problems and evil without resorting to evil.
As for the idea of eliminating weapons, here's my take illuminated some by what i've seen in the nonproliferation community. First, the U.S. gov't is indeed decreasing the size of its arsenal and is designing a way of scaling back while still maintaining the 'nuclear deterrent' through the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. So the US is taking some good steps, but complete disarmament is not an option at this point (not me saying this, but the US position). We just got a new head of the NNSA lately and I actually got to have lunch with him (and other fellows) and really thought he was good. He saw this as a first step in reducing the arsenal so that we could continue cooperation with Russia in that, and hopefully somewhere down the road full disarmament could become more feasible (disarmament is actually mandated/called for in the NPT, Nonproliferation Treaty that is always in the news).
This, however, gets to the question of church and state. Although nuclear deterrence may be effective in preventing nuclear war (and possibly some other wars but only so far, anyway) it is still based on fear and threat of massive mutual retaliation. As Christians we know this is not a solid foundation (God is love and love drives out all fear). The Christian response is certainly to get rid of all nuclear weapons as they are an abomination but can we expect a government that represents people who aren't ready to face the fear of attack by others without the deterrence of nuclear weapons? Like in pacifism, we have to be ready to face the possibility of death by another country who could attack with nuclear weapons if they knew they could get away with it (not saying this is likely necessarily, but you see what I mean). Disarmament would also be an *extremely* unpopular political stance to take and politicians would probably lose their jobs as a result and still not get anything done.
(I think that to some degree all governments are based on a coercive type of power and on violence [i.e. the military]) as opposed to Jesus' power of love (or if that sounds too cheesy, power from below instead of power from above). You will not lord it over them like the rulers do.
Hope you're doing great, bruce...I'm trying to get back into this blogging thing. I've been blogging on mine much more lately. Peace, bruce. Miss ya. -Ethan
Post a Comment