On the Sunday evening before Memorial Day, Andy Rooney, a veteran of World War II, fell to ruminating about the problem of war. I do not recall the details of his remarks except that at the end I thought I heard him say perhaps we need a new religion to deal with war.
One can see how Rooney would be disappointed with the record of today's religions. The three most prevalent religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- all have notable occasions in their history when they indulged in war and devastation on behalf of their own agendas. In spite of purporting to follow one called the Prince of Peace, Christianity is probably more famous for warfare than Judaism or Islam.
I recently received a copy of a book titled "The Reformation" by a British scholar named Diarmaid MacCulloch. In the two centuries covered in his survey, there was one religious war after another.
Among the more wide-sweeping were the destruction of the French Huguenot community and the Thirty Years War, which devastated Germany. It seemed as if people who did not agree with others on some of the finer points of Christian doctrine would assault and kill them. Of course, there was more to it than this since princes, kings, emperors and other political types got involved and exacerbated the enmities.
What sort of religion would be needed to respond to Andy Rooney's problem⢠I think it would need to be an international religion.
People from various national groups would need to recognize each other as members of an over-arching entity which would receive their primary loyalty. Right away we see a problem. National instincts are parochial and it is hard to overcome them. The World Council of Churches is a worldwide body and brings together Christian delegates from all over the world. But when it comes to rejecting war, the council hesitates. Near the end of its 1991 assembly in Canberra, Australia, the council passed an action to oppose all war, but rescinded the action after four hours.
A new religion would also need a specific definition of power. It seems generally assumed that power is exercised by domination, and this support's Lord Acton's observation that power corrupts. How else can power be exerted than by domination⢠What about the power of persuasion⢠Also the power of example⢠In the end I suppose that most people do not consider these adequate. People who lead by persuasion and example have to be ready to make concessions. The spirit of domination objects to this. Its only way to deal with enemies is to kill or to capture them -- complete humiliation.
Now the old religions have not been unmindful of the issue which troubled Rooney. I confess I'm not as familiar with Islam as I ought to be, but I believe the name itself means peace. Both the Hebrew and the Christian Bibles contain formulas for responding to enemies other than by killing them. Proverbs 25:21 asserts, "If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink." The Christian theologian Paul quoted this one and added a line, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12: 21). The Lord himself once said, "Love your enemies." Why⢠"So that you may be children of your father in heaven" (Matthew 5:44, 45). If God is generous with those who do not acknowledge him, we should be generous also with our enemies.
Many would say this may sound good in a document which appeared centuries ago, but is anyone doing it today⢠I think of Desmond Tutu, an Anglican Bishop in South Africa. I doubt that he had much domination power, but it is my impression he was one source of a Truth and Reconciliation process which exposed crimes of Apartheid and called for justice to the oppressed. I know also that among the Jews are many concerned about justice in place of oppression.
Among these is Marc Ellis, whose book "Toward a Jewish Theology of Liberation" has come to my attention. Mindful of the Holocaust and a long history of Jewish persecution by Christians, Ellis is yet ready for conversation with Christians. He asks, "Is it possible that one day we could embrace both our differences and our commonality?... could the Holocaust become the catalyst for healing the brokenness that has plagued both communities for almost 2000 years⢠(115).
I'm sorry I do not have a similar quote from a Muslim source, but I'm sure it can be found. In these and other religions are people of goodwill who are ready to take a first step in reconciliation. The problem of who should go first to heal a conflict is always an issue.
Some years ago Charley Reese, whose column used to appear in "The Daily Courier" suggested that after 9/11 George Bush might have asked himself what bin Laden was so upset about and tried to negotiate with him. Presidents do not typically think in those terms unless they get pressed into a corner. Instead, they think of power as domination.
If anything is to change, it will have to be the people calling for the love of enemies instead of vengeance. Some do this, but their gentle voices are generally drowned out by the calls for vengeance and destruction of the enemies. In some ways, we're still in the bad old days of the Reformation.
D. L. Hertzler is a Scottdale resident.
