The object of this post is the subject of violence. As stated in the close of the last post this is a subject of much controversy and passion. A most appropriate area of reflection during the week remembered by most of the Christian world as being the "Passion" of Christ. I have picked the title "The Prime Directive" as kind of a reference to the original Star Trek series. Upon further research I guess that name isn't 100% accurate as the term was used to keep star fleet vessels from interfering with extant civilizations. It was a derivative of what was called the "Westphalian doctrine of sovereignty" and was intended as a policy by which one nation/force would not be allowed to interfere in another's internal workings. That doctrine is under challenge in light of the changing nature of world organizations and the interdependency of cultures and nation states. One challenge to the Westphalian model is termed the concept of "Contingent Sovereignty" and I'd like to describe and comment on in the next post. The aspect of the "Prime Directive" which I was impressed with at the time and the focus which I'm referring to here is the idea that force was limited to defensive use only. This approach is an important one and as with most defenses can be misapplied as well as aggressive force and also non-violent protest. It is in that area I'd like to dwell for a bit.
Non violence is a great concept. If you would use a term as the common characteristic of such great world leaders as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, the Dali Lama, and of course Jesus the Christ that concept would probably be "Non Violence". Another descriptive term for this concept would be "Peace" and possibly "Love". As beautiful and altruistic as these concepts are they certainly have not been the best accurate descriptor of the human experience so far. I know that many of the great writers and speakers of this movement today and in ages past make a very good case for "Love" to be the guide for our lives both intrapersonally and societal or international. And as much as I would long for such a reality it appears to be just that, a guide, toward the realization of the dream. It has not proven to be practical in the larger scope of existence. It has been an effective modus in a smaller scale and that in itself is encouraging for the long haul. We lament the assassinations of these great masters and the corruption of their dreams but those dreams are still there for us to model to the best we can. We speak against the imperialization of the life of Jesus but through the ages His lessons have been exemplified by many saints. I'm sure other traditions have examples as well. In the case of M. Gandhi, at least as I've understood his story, it is sobering to realize that even though he was seen as the father of India he underwent deadly fasts even after Independence from England as the country just couldn't get along in peace. To resolve the Muslim/Hindu breach they ended up not with one loving democracy but two separate states of Pakistan and India. My point here is that it appears non violence is a goal to strive for but may in reality be one extreme on the dualistic pendulum of Peace and violence. I don't deny that the practice may have great results and is a most effective course of protest. In the earlier post I quoted Marianne as saying "the soul without body is ineffective and the body without the soul is dangerous". Nonviolence I see as the soul without the body. I believe that as idealistically bad violence seems to be I don't know of a father or mother who wouldn't go to all physical lengths possible to Defend their spouse or children. I do not see defense of life to be in conflict with God's plan. Of course the word plan may not be best here since the ultimate Plan is to have a world peopled with image fullfillers, image of God masters. Maybe a better word would be God's path as that suggests a Pilgrim journey.
The other extreme of this dualistic pendulum has no shortage of examples in the personal all the way up to the world view even including the ecological crisis we are facing in this new millennium. Brian McLaren stated in a recent article about "Christian Militias"; ...is the question of whether we believe God is violent. There is no question that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others have been violent in God's name...The question is whether we believe violence is inherent to the character of God. A nonviolent God cannot be enlisted to sanction aggression, but a violent one is handy for that purpose." Sanction aggression is the key to that statement as in my humble opinion aggression is not synonymous with defense of life. Of course we humans have been defining all kinds of aggression over the ages as being "defensive" and thereby "good" and "Godly". There is the difficulty to redefining the terms. As most of these writers have stated in many different contexts the Self, Ego, Selfishness, and even in the international sense "Sovereignty" puts the "us" in opposition to "them". Good and bad. Right and wrong. We have to as a human race redefine our terms of engagement to be more "Godlike" and Loving! A reduction of the dualistic extremes of our past. And at the same time to honor that which is good in our history. Finding that new path is what I would call the Prime Directive. To find a path through our past, using the strength of the present, to reach for the stars and the heavens in the future. As Marianne said, "..turn our backs on our lower natures, allowing the angels to breath within us." Live Long and Prosper! "-"' , In the Spirit of the Christ! Roberto Vincente
Non violence is a great concept. If you would use a term as the common characteristic of such great world leaders as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, the Dali Lama, and of course Jesus the Christ that concept would probably be "Non Violence". Another descriptive term for this concept would be "Peace" and possibly "Love". As beautiful and altruistic as these concepts are they certainly have not been the best accurate descriptor of the human experience so far. I know that many of the great writers and speakers of this movement today and in ages past make a very good case for "Love" to be the guide for our lives both intrapersonally and societal or international. And as much as I would long for such a reality it appears to be just that, a guide, toward the realization of the dream. It has not proven to be practical in the larger scope of existence. It has been an effective modus in a smaller scale and that in itself is encouraging for the long haul. We lament the assassinations of these great masters and the corruption of their dreams but those dreams are still there for us to model to the best we can. We speak against the imperialization of the life of Jesus but through the ages His lessons have been exemplified by many saints. I'm sure other traditions have examples as well. In the case of M. Gandhi, at least as I've understood his story, it is sobering to realize that even though he was seen as the father of India he underwent deadly fasts even after Independence from England as the country just couldn't get along in peace. To resolve the Muslim/Hindu breach they ended up not with one loving democracy but two separate states of Pakistan and India. My point here is that it appears non violence is a goal to strive for but may in reality be one extreme on the dualistic pendulum of Peace and violence. I don't deny that the practice may have great results and is a most effective course of protest. In the earlier post I quoted Marianne as saying "the soul without body is ineffective and the body without the soul is dangerous". Nonviolence I see as the soul without the body. I believe that as idealistically bad violence seems to be I don't know of a father or mother who wouldn't go to all physical lengths possible to Defend their spouse or children. I do not see defense of life to be in conflict with God's plan. Of course the word plan may not be best here since the ultimate Plan is to have a world peopled with image fullfillers, image of God masters. Maybe a better word would be God's path as that suggests a Pilgrim journey.
The other extreme of this dualistic pendulum has no shortage of examples in the personal all the way up to the world view even including the ecological crisis we are facing in this new millennium. Brian McLaren stated in a recent article about "Christian Militias"; ...is the question of whether we believe God is violent. There is no question that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others have been violent in God's name...The question is whether we believe violence is inherent to the character of God. A nonviolent God cannot be enlisted to sanction aggression, but a violent one is handy for that purpose." Sanction aggression is the key to that statement as in my humble opinion aggression is not synonymous with defense of life. Of course we humans have been defining all kinds of aggression over the ages as being "defensive" and thereby "good" and "Godly". There is the difficulty to redefining the terms. As most of these writers have stated in many different contexts the Self, Ego, Selfishness, and even in the international sense "Sovereignty" puts the "us" in opposition to "them". Good and bad. Right and wrong. We have to as a human race redefine our terms of engagement to be more "Godlike" and Loving! A reduction of the dualistic extremes of our past. And at the same time to honor that which is good in our history. Finding that new path is what I would call the Prime Directive. To find a path through our past, using the strength of the present, to reach for the stars and the heavens in the future. As Marianne said, "..turn our backs on our lower natures, allowing the angels to breath within us." Live Long and Prosper! "-"' , In the Spirit of the Christ! Roberto Vincente
No comments:
Post a Comment