La francité et l’altérité : Turquerie et moquerie dans Le Bourgeois gentilhomme

moliere1(Copyright 2016 by S. J. Munson)

Dans son étude marquante sur l’orientalisme, Edward Said soutient que, pour l’Europe, l’Orient est non seulement la source de sa civilisation et de ses langues et « son adversaire culturel », mais aussi une image constante de l’altérité. L’Orient, dit-il, aida de définir l’Occident, en constituant son image et sa personnalité contrastées.[1]

A la fin du quatrième Acte du Bourgeois gentilhomme (1670) de Molière, il y a une « cérémonie des Turcs » qui, à première vue, ne semble que se moquer des coutumes et de la culture de l’Orient ottoman. Depuis sa première représentation, la pièce continue à attirer d’interminables spéculations sur l’origine et la signifiance de cette turquerie. Le présent document vise à examiner le texte de la pièce dans son contexte historique afin de explorer le rôle signifiant de l’altérité dans l’auto-définition française. Nous verrons aussi que la satire de la cérémonie turque a un double objectif : la moquerie d’un ennemi, ainsi que des critiques de la société française contemporaine.

Par turquerie on entend la mode orientaliste populaire dans l’Occident pendant le XVIe à XVIIIe siècles, qui imitait des aspects culturels turcs : en particulier dans la musique, l’architecture, les autres beaux-arts, et la mode. Avec l’arrivée d’une amélioration de relations politiques et commerciales entre la France et la Sublime Porte au XVIe siècle, l’appétit français pour les produits turcs et pour les récits des aventuriers explosa.[2] C’était pendant une époque d’exploration où les européens commençaient à se définir par rapport à un Nouveau Monde et l’exotique. Les grandes civilisations de l’Orient—la Chine, l’Inde, et l’Empire ottoman—exerçaient depuis longtemps en Europe une fascination particulière comme l’Autre ultime. Comme le plus proche, le Turc vint à constituer un Autre plus familier, en alliant dans l’imagination populaire l’opulence et le barbarisme, la volupté et la sauvagerie. En résumé, malgré cet attrait irrésistible, l’Ottoman servait comme une image photographique négative, assumant tout ce que les Français pensaient qu’ils n’étaient pas.[3] En même temps, les Français se sentaient inférieurs aux Turcs, qui les surpassaient au niveau de pompe et d’apparat. Pour l’Europe en général, longtemps habitué à se battre entre eux, l’Empire ottoman représentait la seule menace militaire externe, et pour la France, un obstacle obstiné à son hégémonie politique et culturelle.

Comme création artistique, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme de Molière est profondément enraciné dans les événements diplomatiques et sociaux de la fin du XVIIe siècle. La pièce fut représentée pour la première fois le 14 octobre 1670 au Château de Chambord, où le Roi chassait, avec Molière dans le rôle de M. Jourdain et Lully le compositeur dans celui du Grand Mufti. Le moment n’aurait pas pu être mieux choisi.

L’automne précédent, Suleyman Aga, l’ambassadeur turc, se présente à la cour. Le Roi Soleil donne un grand festin, un gala somptueux où il essaie d’éclipser la gloire de la cour ottomane :

…le Roi y [sur un trône d’argent] paraissait dans toute sa majesté, revêtu d’un brocart d’or, mais tellement couvert de diamants, qu’il semblait qu’il fut environné de lumière, en ayant aussi un chapeau tout brillant, avec un bouquet de plumes des plus magnifiques.[4]

Cependant, le Roi est ses nobles n’auraient pas dû se donner de peine, car « l’ambassadeur » déçu leurs atteints à tous les niveaux et les surprit en ayant monté sa propre mascarade. Il ne s’habilla pas comme prévu (il portait un manteau simple de laine) et refusa de s’incliner devant le Roi. Au lieu de cela, il exigea que Louis se soit levé pour honorer son Maître le Sultan.[5] De plus, Suleyman Aga se révéla pas comme un diplomate de haut rang, mais comme un officiel mineur. Et comme si cela ne suffisait pas comme insulte, il fournit la preuve de son mépris à l’égard de la cour française lorsqu’il fit remarquer que le cheval de son Maître était mieux caparaçonné que le Roi français dans toute sa gloire. D’après Laurent D’Arvieux (1635-1702), marchand et linguiste qui, comme interprète, fut témoin de cet incident diplomatique entier :

Tout ce qu’on avait préparé pour frapper les yeux de l’Ambassadeur ne les frappa point. On remarqua qu’il sortit avec un air chagrin de ce qu’on ne lui avait pas accordé tout ce qu’il avait demandé. Il s’était mis en tête que tout ce superbe appareil n’avait été étalé que pour braver en quelque sorte le faste ottoman, et il crut s’en venger en ne jetant pas les yeux dessus. On avait même observé la même chose dans ses domestiques, à qui on prétendait qu’il avait défendu de rien regarder.[6]

Le Roi, sa fantaisie turque en ruines, humilié devant sa cour par un humble fonctionnaire étranger sans titre, n’avait que peu d’options diplomatiques au mieux. Il commença par bannir Suleyman Aga de Versailles à Paris, où l’envoyé s’installa et immédiatement brilla en société en introduisant le café aux élites, servi par ses domestiques en costumes ottomanes.

La deuxième option que sa Majesté choisit était la même arme que le Maître de philosophie prend dans la pièce pour se consoler et se venger contre ses ennemis:

Jourdain : Ah ! monsieur, je suis fâché des coups qu’ils vous ont donnés.

Maître de philosophie : Cela n’est rien. Un philosophe sait recevoir comme il faut les choses, et je vais composer contre eux une satire du style de Juvénal, qui les déchirera de la belle façon (II.iv.3-7).[7]

Encore D’Arvieux, un spécialiste de l’Orient, nous donne un témoignage de la commande du Roi :

Sa Majesté m’ordonna de me joindre à Messieurs Molière et Lulli pour se composer une pièce de théâtre où l’on pût faire entrer quelque chose des habillements et des manières des Turcs. Je me rendis pour cet effet au Village d’Auteuil, où M. de Molière avoit une maison fort jolie. Ce fut là que nous travaillâmes à cette pièce de Théâtre… Je fus chargé de tout ce qui regardoit les habillements, les manières des Turcs… Je demeurai huit jours chez Baraillon le maître tailleur, pour faire les habits et turbans à la Turque…[8]

Ce n’était pas par hasard que Louis choisit un satiriste et un spécialiste des choses turques pour exécuter cette petite drôlerie, et sans regarder à la dépense. Il n’appela ni Corneille ni Racine. La comédie peut être bien plus coupante et mortelle que la tragédie. En exerçant leur commission royale, Molière et D’Arvieux étaient astucieux ; ils surent d’où le vent soufflait et interprétèrent correctement le mandat du Roi. La pièce ne serait pas seulement un divertissement des turqueries pour une cour déjà repue. Sa Majesté était en quête de sang. Donc par turquerie il voulait dire la moquerie. Louis se vengerait, et rira bien qui rira le dernier. Louis le moqué deviendrait Louis le moqueur.

Dans cette pièce la turquerie est gardée en réserve comme dénouement, et la première cible turque est Suleyman Aga lui-même, qui pendant son séjour tomba amoureux d’une bourgeoise Parisienne. La liaison provoqua beaucoup de remous dans la capitale, incitant un journaliste à composer en vers,

L’envoyé de la Porte ici

Ayant rencontré dans Issi

Entre les belles de Lutèce

Qui le lorgnaient illec sans cesse

Une brune dont l’œil fendant

A sur les cœurs grand ascendant,

Se fit informer en peu d’heure

Des qualité, noms et demeure

De ce charmant Objet Bourgeois.

Ensuite comme un franc Turquois,

Il la fit marchander au père,

Sans en faire plus de mystère,

Pour la conduire au Grand Seigneur ;

L’assurant qu’elle aurait l’honneur

De recevoir de sa Hautesse

Le cher signal de sa tendresse :

C’est, cela s’entend, le mouchoir

Qui veut dire : « Bonjour, bonsoir.

Je désire, ô belle pouponne,

Que vous joignant à ma personne,

Nous puissions faire à communs frais,

Un petit sultanin tout frais. »

Mais le bourgeois tout en colère

Luy respondit : lere lan lere.[9]

En lisant ce poème, nous nous rappelons immédiatement de la scène dans la pièce où le bourgeois Jourdain vend sa fille pour un titre :

Covielle : Vous savez que le fils du Grand Turc est ici ?

Jourdain : Moi ? Non.

Covielle : Comment ! Il a un train tout a fait magnifique : tout le monde le va voir, et il a été reçu en ce pays comme un seigneur d’importance.

Jourdain : Par ma foi, je ne savais pas cela.

Covielle : Ce qu’il y a d’avantageux pour vous, c’est qu’il est amoureux de votre fille.

Jourdain : Le fils du Grand Turc ?

Covielle : Oui ; et il veut être votre gendre…et pour avoir un beau père qui soit digne de lui, il vous faire Mamamouchi, qui est une certaine grande dignité de son pays (IV.v.45-54,84-86).

Dans le poème et la scène ci-dessus, une fille reçoit une demande en mariage par un imposteur : Suleyman Aga, le faux-ambassadeur, et Cléonte déguisé en Turc. Nous supposons du poème que le père de la bourgeoise s’opposa habilement au mariage de sa fille pour motifs religieux ou culturels (peut-être il ne voulait pas que sa fille soit voilée et vive dans un sérail). Par contre, dans la pièce le marchand Jourdain n’a pas de scrupule à immoler son enfant sur l’autel de sa vanité. Elle n’est que de marchandise. L’idée d’un tel mariage le flatte, correspond bien à son ambition, et devient l’appât qui fait avancer l’intrigue.

On croit que même le vain titre mamamouchi est calqué sur celui de l’envoyé turc : Muta Feraca. Personne à la cour, même un interprète versé en turc comme D’Arvieux, ne savait la signifiance de ce titre, mais ils soupçonnaient que c’était sans valeur.[10] (En réalité, c’était simplement son nom : Suleyman Aga Moustafa Raca.) Le nom mamamouchi fut inventé par le dramaturge (avec l’aide évidemment du linguiste D’Arvieux), et il est probablement basé sur des mots arabes (ma menou schi) qui veulent dire avec à-propos « bon à rien », une belle récompense pour une telle dupe.[11]

Molière continue par ridiculiser l’étiquette (ou l’arrogance) de la Sublime Porte. Dans son Journal (1686), le chevalier Jean Chardin (1643-1713), voyageur et écrivain, note que l’ambassadeur français à la Sublime Porte « …fit sa harangue, qui dura près d’un quart d’heure. Elle ne servait de guère, car l’Interprète n’en expliqua que le sens au Vizir, et en peu de parole, et le Vizir dit en deux mots au Grand Seigneur».[12] De façon similaire, le valet Covielle (déguisé « en voyageur ») interprète les mots du fils du Sultan (Cléonte, son maître), au grand étonnement de Jourdain :

Cleónte : Bel-men.

Covielle : Il dit que vous alliez vite avec lui vous préparer pour la cérémonie, afin de voir ensuite votre fille et de conclure le mariage.

Jourdain : Tant de choses en deux mots ?

Covielle : Oui, la langue turque est comme cela, elle dit beaucoup en peu de paroles (IV.vi. 14-20)

Ici, Molière jette des doutes sur l’intégrité des truchements dans la cour ottomane, des interprètes qui étaient normalement des tierces parties pas très fiables et toujours veillant à leurs propres intérêts. D’après D’Arvieux, ces dragomans étaient responsables de la plupart des querelles entre la cour ottoman et les marchands européens.[13]

La cérémonie turque (après IV.viii), où le marchand reçoit son titre mamamouchi, peut être, dans une certaine mesure, une parodie burlesque des rites d’initiation des derviches, en particulier ceux de la réception des novices. La scène du tapis et du turban, avec la répétition du nom Alli (cousin de Mahomet et troisième khalife) sont particulièrement caractéristiques de ce rite. C’était certainement D’Arvieux qui donna l’idée au dramaturge, puisque le voyageur décrit ce spectacle et d’autres dans ses Mémoires. Cependant, selon Pierre Martino (1911), les éléments de la cérémonie de Molière sont tellement variés (par exemple, les interrogations sur le caractère de l’initié, des aspects militaires, les danses, la bastonnade, et l’invocation d’Allah avec Jourdain servant comme pupitre pour le Coran), ils devront avoir leur origine dans les plusieurs voyages du chevalier à travers la région méditerranéenne (le Maghreb, l’Egypte, le Levant, et la Turquie).[14] Donc ce que nous avons devant nous est probablement plus un pastiche des éléments de divers rites religieux (ou d’autres cérémonies).

Mary Hossain (1990) raisonne bien que beaucoup de ses éléments peuvent être reliés pas aux rites musulmans, mais à la cérémonie d’initiation de l’Ordre du Saint-Sépulcre de Jerusalem, un ordre chrétien créé par Godfroy du Bouillon au terme de la première croisade (1099). Cette connexion est logique eu garde aux questions étranges concernant la religion de Jourdain et l’attention aux sectes hérétiques (« Qui star quista ? …Anabatista ? …Zuinglista ? …Hussita ? »). Les initiés dans cet ordre devaient être catholique, fournir la preuve de leur noblesse, et jurer de défendre la Terre-Sainte (« deffender Palestina ») et l’église contre les hérétiques. A la fin du rite, comme Jourdain, l’initié recevait quelques coups sur le cou avec un sabre. D’Arvieux avait été initiè pendant sa visite à Jerusalem, et selon ses Mémoires, il avait été dégouté du nombre de marchands européens (comme lui) qui se faufilaient dans l’ordre. Plus tard, quand les marchands de Marseilles s’opposèrent à sa nomination au poste d’ambassadeur à Constantinople, il se vengea en les ridiculisant dans cette pièce.[15]

La provenance kaléidoscopique de la cérémonie turque est particulièrement évidente dans les langues variées que Molière emploie dans l’Acte IV. Covielle, déguisé en voyageur, utilise les quelques mots turcs et arabes dont il dispose. Le reste est un charabia. On pourrait penser que Cléonte, qui ne possède aucune expérience en les langues de l’Orient, parlerait seulement en baragouin, mais il parvient à utiliser quelques mots turcs ou arabes élémentaires (yoc [non], salamalequi, bel-men [je ne sais pas]) que son valet lui a enseigné.

Il est ironique que la cérémonie turque elle-même ne se déroule pas en turc, mais presque entièrement en sabir, une lingua franca qui mélange l’italien, l’espagnol, et le français. Le sabir était une langue de commerce, des marins et des marchands (comme Jourdain et son père). Il se trouvait principalement dans les ports de l’Afrique du Nord. C’était aussi la langue diplomatique officielle de Tunis, et non pas celle de la Sublime Porte.

Pourquoi Molière choisit-il de faire la cérémonie en sabir ? Evidemment, c’était une langue comprise par les marchands comme Jourdain. Mais, sa compréhension n’est pas nécessaire pour l’action de cette mascarade. En fait, il n’est pas clair si le mamamouchi lui-même le comprenne du tout. En réalité, il n’est qu’un accessoire de scène. Son seul texte est « Ouf ! » (après qu’on lui a oté l’Alcoran de dessus le dos, 48). Probablement, l’auteur était préoccupé davantage par le spectateur. Donc il choisit une langue qui pouvait être compréhensible à la cour et à l’amateur de théâtre. La plupart des mots sabirs utilisés dans la scène ont ses mots apparentés en français :

Mufti : Se ti sabir,

Ti respondir ;

Se non sabir,

Tazir, tazir.

Mi star Mufti.

Ti qui star ti ?

Non intendir ?

Tazir, tazir…

Non tener honta ;

Questa star l’ultimz affronta (1-8, 63-64)

En résumé, Molière réussit à avilir l’Islam par reléguer les derviches, les muftis, et le Coran au statut d’accessoires.[16] Les langues, il les réduire aux bêtises. La provenance chrétienne de la cérémonie (l’Ordre du Saint-Sépulcre), bien que le rite soit ridiculisé, renforce le contraste entre les deux religions : être français veut dire être catholique.[17] La francité encore se définit dans le reflet de l’Autre.

Pendant l’interrogation, le Mufti demande quelle sorte d’homme est-il, ce Jourdin ?

 Mufti : Dice, Turque, qui star quista ? Anabatista ?…Zuinglista ?… Coffita ?…Hussita ? Morista ? Fronista ?…Star Pagana ?…Luterana ?…Puritana ?…Bramina ? Moffina ? Zurina ?… (10-25)

Chaque fois les turcs répondent par un « yoc (non) » retentissant. Il n’est pas étonnant que la plupart de ces noms soient des sectes protestantes. Donc ces Autres aussi sont rassemblés avec d’autres religions considérées comme païennes. Sous Louis XIV, la France devint plus xénophobe, alors qu’il essayait d’unifier le pays sous lui-même—un roi, une religion. Bientôt, il révoquera l’Edit de Nantes (1685), qui rallumera la persécution des protestants et provoquera un exode massif de ces « Autres ».

De nos jours, il semble que la cérémonie des turcs a perdu sa pertinence, comme un ajout après coup pour satisfaire l’appétit du public pour l’exotique. Mais en 1670 la turquerie était le clou du spectacle, et non seulement pour les raisons orientalistes. Les spectateurs affluèrent pour voir un parvenu recevoir sa juste punition. Louis XIV lui-même demanda et assista à sept représentations consécutives. En effet, la bastonnade que Jourdain subit de la part des faux-turcs dut provoquer un tonnerre d’applaudissements. L’envoyé arrogant avec le faux titre qui osa de ridiculiser le Roi-Soleil fut ridiculisé. Sa Majesté s’était vengé. Mais il est possible que M. Jourdain et Suleyman Aga ne soient pas les seuls arrivistes à être remis à leur place dans la pièce.

On pourrait penser que cette turquerie a peu en commun avec les deux principales thématiques de la pièce : l’ascension sociale de la bourgeoisie et le snobisme d’une aristocratie sans sou qui en fait sa proie. En réalité, la cérémonie des turques a un rôle plus intégrant dans la critique sociale de Molière. Comme marchand, Jourdain représente pour l’auteur et pour son public une classe montante et puissante. Pour la noblesse, il constitue une menace. Les postes diplomatiques étaient, pendant des siècles, réservés aux aristocrates. Mais l’établissement des relations diplomatiques entre la France et l’Empire ottoman et l’ouverture de nouveaux marchés dans la Méditerranée orientale exigeaient un nouveau genre de diplomate avec des compétences linguistique, une sensibilité culturelle, et un sens des affaires. Un de ces hommes, un Monsieur Roboly, était bourgeois et polyglotte. Colbert, contrôleur général des finances sous Louis XIV, était déterminé à enrichir le royaume en faisant avancer les intérêts commerciaux.[18] (Il était lui-même descendant d’une grande famille marchande). Pendant une longue crise diplomatique (1661-1665), Roboly fut persuadé de servir comme envoyé officiel à la Porte. Son succès provoqua des remous parmi la noblesse et la nouvelle fonction publique, mettant en question la nécessité d’une représentation aristocratique. Les Ottomans étaient moins délicats au sujet de la conscience de classe et toujours méfiant à l’idée de représentation permanente étrangère, dont l’objectif réel était l’espionnage. Ils préféraient négocier avec les marchands français, qui étaient plus coopératifs et comprenaient mieux le commerce.

Le Marseillais Laurent Arviou, marchand aventureux et linguiste était arrivée à Versailles avec un seul but : de faire fortune en s’attirant les bonnes grâces du Roi et des nobles. Il appartenait à la petite noblesse pauvre, qui, grâce à Richelieu, était désormais libre de participer au commerce.[19] Son arrivée à Versailles avait fait sensation parce qu’il vendait ce que son public brulait d’envie d’entendre : des contes émoustillants de l’Orient exotique. Il avait colporté son petit spectacle de foire, même devant le Roi qui, dans la panique de l’arrivée de Suleyman Aga, avait décidé de lui permettre à organiser la réception diplomatique. Il finit par devenir Laurent, chevalier d’Arvieux, envoyé extraordinaire à Constantinople et à Tunis, et plus tard, consul à Alger et à Alep.

Tristement célèbre pour son ascension sociale et son autopromotion éhontée, D’Arvieux faisait rire les aristocrates, même en leur donnant des frissons. Est-il aussi une cible involontaire de cette satire de Molière ? Il est bien possible, en particulier si l’on considère que l’artiste aurait pu s’irriter de la collaboration. De toute façon, il est un drôle de hasard que, dans des telles circonstances, le dramaturge choisit pour son personnage principal un marchand qui se ridiculise en essayant de monter l’échelle sociale.

Evidemment, le titre de la pièce est un oxymore, car les bourgeois gentilshommes existaient rarement, et la quête du marchand pour devenir une personne de qualité n’est qu’une chimère. Même sa richesse ne peut jamais lui acheter le titre. Il n’en était cependant pas ainsi dans le cas de D’Arvieux. A la différence de M. Jourdain, il n’y avait pas de richesse pour commencer. Mais à la fin, ses talents et sa détermination furent récompensés. Encore contrairement à Jourdain, il devint « paladin » (chevalier de l’ordre de Saint Lazare) ; il gagna son titre, mais aussi grand soit ce titre, en réalité, il n’appartiendrait jamais à la grande noblesse et resta en marge jusqu’à sa mort.

Quoiqu’il puisse paraître que Molière ici prend parti pour l’aristocratie (ailleurs il se moque de l’hypocrisie et le snobisme de cette classe dans les personnages de Dorante et Dorimène), il met son doigt sur une question sociale qui faisait peur « les gens de qualité ». Avec son titre imaginaire, Jourdain Mamamouchi est immédiatement élevé au rang précédemment impensable : le beau-père du fils du Grand Turc. Le titre, bien qu’il soit vain, représente une vraie fluidité de classe dans la culture ottomane qui menaçait l’ordre social français. Malgré tous ses défauts du point de vue français, la société turque manifestait moins de rigidité de classe et plus de mobilité sociale, par laquelle des hommes simples comme Suleyman Aga pouvaient monter plus facilement. Il n’y avait pas d’aristocratie turque à l’époque.[20] Un grand vizir avait été autrefois un vendeur de fruits, un autre un cocher. C’est ce qui constituait, pour Louis et sa cour, une vraie menace culturelle. Donc, se moquer des arrivistes comme Jourdain, Suleyman Aga, Roboly, et D’Arvieux était se moquer d’une structure qui permettait une telle ascension sociale. Nous avons ici l’Ottoman en tant qu’Autre : une image inversée qui représente exactement le contraire de l’image nationale française à cette époque (au moins une image promue par la haute société).

En même temps que la cérémonie ridiculise les Turcs, le spectacle est tellement exagéré et dépourvu de sincérité qu’il devient une parodie en soi de la fascination du public pour les turqueries. En d’autres termes, c’est ici que la moquerie se tourne pour se moquer du spectateur. De cette façon, Molière accuse la cour royale et le public d’insincérité et de superficialité. Comme Jourdain, ils sont facilement dupés, séduits par les apparences, et contents d’une sorte d’orientalisme cosmétique.[21] Une telle critique est en accord avec l’attitude que le ministre Colbert voulait cultiver envers l’Orient : une meilleure compréhension de la culture et une connaissance plus sérieuse, plus profonde de l’Autre au service de l’expansion marchande et politique de la France.[22]

Il appartient maintenant à l’interlude final, « Le Ballet des nations » (après l’Acte V), de servir comme redressement et de régler des derniers détails. Rarement joué aujourd’hui, le ballet peut sembler comme une confection superflue après le dénouement heureux de la pièce. En réalité, cet interlude joue un rôle important en réaffirmant ce qui définit la francité par rapport à l’altérité.

Au début, dans la première entrée, qui est chantée en français, on remarque le contraste entre les quatre gens « du bel air » et les deux bourgeois babillards stéréotypés. Les différences de classes sont clairement marquées. Les seuls « Autres » sont un gascon et un suisse, qui parlent français avec un accent exagéré. Ils sont ridicules, mais tolérés en marge de la société. Dans le troisième à cinquième entrées, on constate l’absence manifeste de l’Ottoman dans ce cortège coloré. Ayant été ridiculisé et jugé indigne, le Turc, l’Autre ultime, est banni en tout jamais en coulisse. Après tout, le ballet sert comme réaffirmation de ce qui est français ; l’Autre est exclu. Absent également est l’Autre primordial, l’Angleterre, l’ancien ennemi et un pays protestant. (De plus, elle tua récemment son roi.) Les seules représentées sont les trois grands pays catholiques de l’Europe occidentale (l’Espagne, l’Italie, et la France), qui partagent une histoire commune et une proximité de langues. Contrairement aux sons rauques du faux-turc dans l’Acte IV, ces sont les langues de l’amour. Après le chaos de la turquerie et de la prétension sociale de M. Jourdain, ces danses reflètent clairement les sens de l’identité française dans la pièce: une langue (le français), une religion (le catholicisme), et un ordre social, où chacun connaît sa place.

Comme cette étude l’a révélé, le théâtre peut servir en tant qu’une soupape de sécurité, un moyen culturel pour le règlement pacifique des griefs sociaux et même internationaux. Il peut être utilisé pour exposer la folie, ridiculiser l’hypocrisie, ou même façonner une identité nationale. En particulier sous le patronage royal ou de l’état, le théâtre aussi peut être un moyen subtil de contrôle social.

Comme nous l’avons vu, la première représentation du Bourgeois gentilhomme servit comme une catharsis nationale longuement attendue. A l’exception de guerre, Louis avait peu d’options pour venger sa fierté blessée. Mais les insultes publiques infligées sur sa Majesté et sa cour par un envoyé étranger devaient été sanctionnée en public. Heureusement, pour nous et pour la postérité, le Roi choisi une voie plus éclairée, celle de rire.

Louis espérait probablement que Molière le satiriste, assisté par un spécialiste des langues et des coutumes orientales, pourrait au moins remettre ce faux-ambassadeur Suleyman Aga à sa place. Entre les mains d’un génie, cet objectif fut largement dépassé, car la satire coupe sur plusieurs niveaux différents. Au niveau superficiel, la pièce se moque (particulièrement dans la cérémonie des turcs) de la cour ottomane, ainsi que sa langue, sa culture, et sa religion, tout ce qui les rend différents, non-français et d’Autres. Mais au niveau de satire sociale, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme se moque de la folie et de la vanité d’autres étrangers : des arrivistes comme le bourgeois Jourdain, Suleyman Aga, les marchands Marseillais, et même D’Arvieux, qui ne connaissent pas leur place, essayant d’être ce qu’ils ne sont pas. Ici le dramaturge pourrait être considéré comme conformiste, conventionnel, conservateur, ou même réactionnaire. Pourtant, une analyse plus attentive montre que Molière va au-délà de ces critiques sociales en attaquant la nature même de l’orientalisme du spectateur, une fascination superficielle fondée sur le divertissement.

Finalement, la pièce est une célébration de tout ce qui est français et une rejection de tout ce qui est Autre. Comme Edward Said le croyait, la culture européenne gagna « en force et en identité » en se distinguant de l’Orient. Pour bien fonctionner, l’orientalisme doit toujours tirer sa force d’une « supériorité de position ».[23] Pour Louis XIV et pour Molière, la crise diplomatique était aussi une occasion de définir davantage la francité aux dépens de l’altérité. Pour le dramaturge, et pour la cour, la langue française, la religion catholique, et une hiérarchie sociale rigide étaient les questions au centre de l’identité française dans cette époque.

 

Notes

[1] Edward W. Said, Orientalism, (New York: Vintage, 1979), 1,2.

[2] Gérard Tongas, Les Relations de la France avec l’Empire ottoman durant la première moitié du XVIIe siècle, (Toulouse: F. Boisseau, 1942), 7.

[3] Dainel Hosford and Chong J. Wojtkowski, eds., French Orientalism: Culture, Politics, and the Imagined Other, (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 2010), 1.

[4] Gazette, 19 décembre 1669, p.1197, cité dans Ali Behdad, «The Oriental(ist) Encounter: The Politics of turquerie in Molière», L’Esprit Créateur, Vol. 32:3 (Fall 1992), 37.

[5]Pierre Martino, «La cérémonie turque du Bourgeois gentilhomme », Révue de l’Histoire littéraire de la France, 18e année, No 1, 38.

[6] Le Chevalier D’Arvieux, Mémoires [1670], cité dans Martino, 38.

[7] Molière, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, ed. Anne Régent, (Editions Larousse, 2007), 42.

[8] D’Arvieux, Mémoires, cité dans Michèle Longino, Orientalism in French Classical Drama, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 1.

[9] Charles Robinet de Saint-Jean, Lettres en vers: 21 décembre 1669; cité dans Martino, 39-40.

[10] Martino, 39.

[11] Molière, 104 n2.

[12] Cité en Longino, 110.

[13] Longino, 137.

[14] Martino, 40-43.

[15] Mary Hossain, « The Chevalier D’Arvieux and Le Bourgeois gentilhomme », Seventeenth-century French Studies, vol 12, no 1, 1990, 80.

[16] Longino, 143.

[17] François Karro, « La Cérémonie turque du Bourgeois gentilhomme: mouvance temporelle et spirituelle de la foi », in Le Bourgeois gentilhomme: Problème de la comédie ballet, ed. by Volker Kapp, (Seattle: Biblio 17, 1991), 63.

[18] Longino, 114.

[19] Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, Orientalism in Early Modern France: Eurasian Trade, Exoticism, and the Ancien Régime, (New York: Berg, 2008), 84.

[20] Laurens, Henry. « L’Orientalisme au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles », in L’Orient—concept et images: XVe Colloque de l’Iinstitut de recherches sur les civilisations de l’Occident moderne, 28 février 1987, (Paris: Sorbonne, 1988), 54.

[21] Behdad, 46.

[22] Paul Masson, Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIIe siècle. (Paris: Hachette, 1896), 137.

[23] Said, 3,7.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Policy Recommendations for Reducing the Threat of Islamic Terrorism Worldwide

terrorism(Copyright 2016 by S. J. Munson)

Islamic terrorism is currently perceived in the media and by most Americans as the most significant threat to global peace. The conflict is most often seen as a so-called “clash of civilizations,” in which Western ideals of democracy and religious freedom are under attack by an Islamic “fundamentalism” which hates both. It is the purpose of this study to examine the elements within contemporary Islam that seem to give rise to terrorism and to uncover the root causes of the phenomenon. In addition, we will propose strategies for counteracting or neutralizing the threat of terrorism.

The Wahhabist threat ?

Viewed from the perspective of the Qur’an, Islam is in itself largely a religion of mercy, compassion, and peace, and the vast majority of its adherents are peace-loving (Abou El Fadl, 11). For them jihad refers simply to the inner “striving” of individual believers to serve God. Historically, however, the term has also held an outward interpretation in regard to the struggle against infidels.

The spread of terrorism and terrorist groups within the Muslim world today, however, has often been blamed on a particular reform movement within Islam called Salafism, more commonly referred to by its Saudi form Wahhabism, a puritanical or fundamentalist movement originating in Arabia. Wahhabism urges its followers to a more stringent life based on a literal interpretation of the Qur’an. If it had not been for the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, Wahhabism might have remained just one of many regional expressions of Islam. Today, however, the Saudi monarchy, which has long identified itself with the movement, zealously pumps billions of dollars each year into the spread of Wahhabist doctrine worldwide.

Fundamentalism in general (whether Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Christian) is a global phenomenon. Its appeal lies in its ability to simplify the complexities of life into dualistic terms (good versus evil, light versus darkness) and to channel the anger of those who (like many Muslims) are disaffected by modernism or marginalized by globalization. Although Salafism’s austere tendencies and intolerance may indeed provide soil favorable to the growth of violent jihad (Salafism is quite diverse, but there is a small branch that both justifies and advocates terrorism), the spread of this movement is not the cause of terrorism (Economist). Instead, the chief blame for Islamic terrorism, whether against the West or against Middle Eastern regimes, must be attributed to the ongoing history of Western colonialism and economic and cultural imperialism in the region.

“…the chief blame for Islamic terrorism, whether against the West or against Middle Eastern regimes, must be attributed to the ongoing history of Western colonialism and economic and cultural imperialism in the region.”

Western colonialism today

For the average Muslim, colonialism is not dead; it is alive and well in the West’s continued military interventions and its cultural and economic dominance in the Muslim world, including support for repressive, pro-Western regimes (the former Shah of Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Syria are a few examples). Similarly, the recent rise in Muslim violence against Christians (in particular in Sudan, Egypt, and Iraq), is rooted not so much in ancient rivalries between the two religions as in current hostilities between East and West. Such attacks are most often sparked by Western, especially American, interference in the region. Local Christians become targets because they are seen as allied with the West (a view that stretches back to the Crusades in the eleventh century) and thus become the nearest receptacle for Muslim rage.

“‘…America’s direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits…'” (2004 DOD Task Force Report)

U.S. intervention, bombing and drone campaigns:

The conflict we are now engaged in is really one of perception, that is, how people in the Muslim world see America. In 2004 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked the Pentagon’s own Science Board Task Force to study the impact of administration policies (specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) on terrorism and Islamic radicalism. Not surprisingly, the report found that “…Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities.” Our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, drone attacks, and detention policies are meant to make us safe, we are told. In reality, they have had the opposite effect of radicalizing more and more Muslims and making the U.S. increasingly hated in the Islamic world. In fact, our foreign policies of the last fifteen years are probably the best public relations tool al-Qaeda or ISIS ever had. According to the report,

America’s direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies. Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights and the long-standing and even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States… Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be… deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination (DOD study, quoted in Greenwald).

Farea al-Muslimi, a young U.S.-educated Yemeni activist with deep ties to America, testified before a 2013 Senate hearing on President Obama’s controversial assassination program. Speaking with great emotion about the bombing of his own village by a drone, he said,

What Wessab’s villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences here. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time….What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village, one drone strike accomplished in an instant: there is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America (Al-Muslimi, 3-4).

It is believed among some terrorism experts that Osama bin-Laden had planned all along for the U.S. to be drawn into an unwinnable ground war in Afghanistan: that our great military machine, like that of other empires before us, would founder upon that country’s unforgiving terrain and resilient population, and that we would be both bankrupted and exposed as the cruel imperial tyrant hiding behind the mask of freedom and democracy. Empires, after all, do not die in battle; they collapse from within, usually through overextending themselves. Bin-Laden ought to know: he assisted in the demise of the U.S.S.R. “We, alongside the mujahiddin, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt,” he once boasted (Klein).

Muslims see that the U.S. lacks consistency between its rhetoric and international actions, that the U.S. is, and has always been, a nation tragically at odds with itself.  We stand for one thing, but pursue another.  We speak soaring words that make the world dream– of freedom, democracy and the sacred rights of humanity– but too often our ambassadors are not Jefferson or Lincoln;  they are Caterpillar, Monsanto, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Blackwater.

Blowback is the term government personnel use to describe the sometimes violent reaction in response to a military or covert U.S. action. For example, sixty-three years later we are still reaping the fruit of the CIA’s toppling of Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, and replacing him with an absolute monarchy. Supporting repressive regimes is convenient in the short term, but very costly in the long run. We cannot treat the Middle East as we do Central America.

“‘…Had the United States built a school or hospital, it would have instantly changed the lives of my fellow villagers for the better and been the most effective counterterrorism tool…'” (Farea al-Muslimi)

The power of humanitarian aid

For fifteen years the U.S. has waged war in revenge for 9-11, “to make America safe.” Sadly, however, the real war we are fighting is really one against poverty and fear, oppression and ignorance, corruption and greed, and we are fighting such a war with daisy cutter bombs and drones—exactly as the terrorists would have us do—instead of helping to plant crops, building schools, or sending food and medical supplies.

Following the great Kashmir earthquake and the Indian Ocean tsunami disasters, both in 2005, the arrival of U.S. aid to these afflicted regions was not only greeted favorably by local populations, it also had a surprising impact on how the U.S. is viewed. Both the New York Times and Washington Post ran articles about this phenomenon:

A survey of 1,200 Indonesians one month after the tsunami…conducted by a leading Indonesian pollster, found that, for the first time, more Indonesians (40 percent) supported the U.S. terrorism fight than opposed it (36 percent). Sixty-five percent of those surveyed had a more favorable impression of the United States, with support strongest among those younger than 30, while support for Osama bin Laden dropped from 58 percent before the tsunami to 23 percent… Husain Haqqani, director of the Center for International Relations at Boston…said the experience in Indonesia could easily be replicated in Pakistan. Haqqani, a former adviser to several Pakistani political leaders, said that anti-American Islamic groups have begun to realize this and have opposed the U.S. aid because “this may take the wind out of their sails” (Kessler).

Al-Muslimi made a similar point in his testimony before the Senate and urged the U.S. to reevaluate the effectiveness of its drone policy in the light of more humanitarian goals:

There is nothing villagers in Wessab needed more than a school to educate the local children or a hospital to help decrease the number of women and children dying every day. Had the United States built a school or hospital, it would have instantly changed the lives of my fellow villagers for the better and been the most effective counterterrorism tool. And I can almost certainly assure you that the villagers would have gone to arrest the target themselves. Instead of first experiencing America through a school or a hospital, most people in Wessab first experienced America through the terror of a drone strike (Al-Muslimi, 3-4).

Reducing tensions in the Palestinian-Zionist crisis

In addition, a solution must be found to the Palestinian-Zionist conflict, which adherents to Islam worldwide tend to see as most symbolic of the injustices committed by the West against Muslims. In the eyes of most Arab Muslims, it was the West, specifically Britain, who seized control of Palestine after the First World War, allowed a flood of Jewish immigration, then essentially abandoned the local Arabs to their fate. Former President Jimmy Carter has been active in the peace process since his presidency. His organization, the Carter Center, has been in Palestine helping to negotiate peace for decades. In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he states emphatically:

Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.…The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or even abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories (Carter).

Since the birth rate among Palestinians far outpaces that of Israelis, the so-called two-state solution is the only viable alternative for peace. Yet, to achieve this goal, Israel must cease its occupation and settlement building. To make the Israeli government amenable, Washington must apply pressure by threatening to cut off aid. (Israel now accounts for one quarter of all American foreign aid.) Most Israeli politicians would tremble, since they rely so heavily on U.S. gifts to maintain their massive military arsenal, the largest in the region. Yet taking such a hard line would mean standing up to the powerful Israel lobby in Washington (AIPAC), of which American conservative evangelicals also form no small part. For this to happen, the American public must pressure Washington. For the public to pressure Washington, they must first be told the truth. The old media narrative of a beleaguered Israel defending itself against unjustified Arab hostility must be replaced with a more balanced view that shows Israeli acts of brutality and oppression for what they are and a more human, less demonized view of Palestinians in their quest for survival. This could be achieved chiefly through a steady stream of accurate information leaked to key media outlets. It might also prove advantageous to exploit the current growing rift between younger Jewish-Americans (as well as young conservative evangelicals) and the Zionist old guard by exposing and marginalizing the latter’s views. Unless the U.S. takes this hard line, the situation will only grow worse. Tensions in the Middle East will continue to boil, providing more and more fodder for violent jihad against the West, until the U.S., too, like Israel, becomes an armed camp.

“‘…The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or even abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories…'” (Jimmy Carter).

Achieving energy independence

Lastly, from the toppling of Mossadegh (1953) to the invasion of Iraq (2003), the underlying motivation for U.S. military intervention and support of dictatorships in the region has always been oil (Betz). Also, of the seven states that have appeared on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, five are major oil exporters (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria [Wenar, 84]). Achieving energy independence at home would thus reduce the need to project American power abroad or to prop up repressive regimes (such as Saudi Arabia). As one former Department of Energy official emphatically believes, “a combination of measures to reduce oil imports reduces the need for an American military presence in the Middle East” (Hakes, 8). In addition, although Wahhabism itself cannot be eradicated, its spread and influence could be limited over time by reducing the financial power that backs it (i.e., Saudi oil). To achieve this, the U.S. and its allies must be more aggressive in their pursuit of renewable energies.

“Instead of playing a violent and futile game of Whack-a-Mole with terrorists around the globe, which has been clearly shown only to increase hostility toward America, the U.S should focus more on aid and humanitarian relief, which have been shown to have a significant impact on how the U.S. is perceived, thus undercutting terrorist recruitment.”

Conclusions

It is the finding of this study that the rise in global terrorism is not so much linked to Islam in general but to particular trends within Islam, which are in turn a reaction against past Western imperialism and continued interference in the Muslim world. It is thus a conflict rooted more in history than in religion. Instead of playing a violent and futile game of Whack-a-Mole with terrorists around the globe, which has been clearly shown only to increase hostility toward America, the U.S should focus more on aid and humanitarian relief, which have been shown to have a significant impact on how the U.S. is perceived, thus undercutting terrorist recruitment. In order to heal its image abroad, the U.S. must also cease its support for repressive regimes, in particular its complicity in the continued occupation and oppression of Palestine.

 

Sources Cited

Abou El Fadl, Khaled. The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. New York: Harper-Collins, 2005.

Al-Muslimi, Farea. Testimony before U.S. Senate, “Drone Wars: The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing,” 23 April 2013. http://www.judiciary.senate.gov. Retrieved 10 June 2016.

Betz, Charles. “Blood, Oil and Ecology.”

Carter, Jimmy. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. New York : Simon & Schuster, 2007.

Greenwald, Glenn. “A Rumsfeld-Era Reminder about What Causes Terrorism.” Salon (20 October 2009). Retrieved 10 June 2016.

Hakes, Jay. Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from Foreign Oil Can Improve National Security, Our Economy, and The Environment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008.

Kessler, Glenn and Robin Wright. “Earthquake Aid for Pakistan Might Help U.S. Image,” Washington Post (13 October 2005). http://www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 10 June 2016.

Klein, Ezra. “Bin Ladin’s War against the U.S. Economy,” Washington Post (3 May 2011). http://www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 10 June 2016.

“Salafism: Politics and the Puritanical,” The Economist (27 June 2015). http://www.economist.com. Retrieved 12 June 2016.

Wenar, Leif. Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules that Run the World. New York : Oxford University Press, 2016.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Political Opinion and the Whole Person

GSand“I believe that a man’s political opinion is the whole man. Tell me your heart and your head, and I will tell you your political opinions. In whatever rank or party chance has caused us to be born, our character wins out sooner or later over the prejudices and beliefs of our education. Perhaps you will think this a sweeping statement ; but how could I choose to augur well of a mind that clings to certain systems that humaneness rejects ? Show me someone who supports the usefulness of the death penalty, and, however conscientious and enlightened he may be, I defy you to establish any sympathetic connection between him and me. If this person wants to teach me facts that I don’t know, he will not succeed ; for he cannot count on me to trust him.” —George Sand, Indiana (1832)

In her novel Indiana, French author George Sand (1804-1876), whose real name was Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin, ventures to explain why people can fall out so completely over politics. I believe she got it in one. People’s politics do demonstrate who they are, not in the sense of telling everything about them, but by revealing something very deep about the state of their hearts.

I do not believe that Sand means that civil dialogue itself is impossible, or that we should judge or utterly reject those with whom we disagree. She herself was un auteur engagé, a passionate writer with a cause, who spilled a great deal of ink to set forth her political positions and to educate the public mind. Rather, what she is driving at is something more fundamental: that personal politics has deep roots in our soul, bypassing, eventually, even the prejudices of our upbringing, to reveal in its flowering something basic about our personality or even, one might say, our maturity as human beings.

Modern psychology has hypothesized a spectrum of spiritual development which might also be applied in this case. From the work of Fowler and Peck, we see a series of natural stages of spiritual growth from the toddler to the mystic, or from egoism to altruism. Peck observed, however, that some of his patients, for various reasons, got stuck in one stage or another, perhaps because of trauma or fear, or because their context somehow rewarded or reinforced their behavior. Take someone like Donald Trump, for example, whose blustering and boardroom bullying (toddler stage) has made him successful in the corporate world. Sand herself might be characterized as having spent most of her adult life in the adolescent (or rebel) stage, as witnessed by her frequently wearing men’s clothes, smoking tobacco, and having a long series of romantic liaisons with men of genius (poet Alfred de Musset and composer Frederic Chopin being among the most notable).

Sand, however, does not refer to natural stages of spiritual development, but to political opinions, which seem to be a kind of snapshot of a person’s quiddity. I do see a great deal that is true in what she says, although my fear is that taking the conclusion too far might lead us to dismiss individual human beings as monoliths and therefore justify our further polarization as a society.

Yet what would Sand say, for instance, of the “Christian” who pulls into the church parking lot, his SUV plastered with stickers lauding John Galt (a hero in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged) or The Donald ? Would it be fair or even accurate to infer that the stickers represent the person himself ? I know that none of us is perfect, yet if this person so opposes everything Jesus stands for, why is he at church at all? What is to be done with such people, who seem now to make up such a significant proportion of the church? How are we to have anything in common with them when they are, effectively, our enemies?

Yes, enemies. Not because they vote differently or stand on the other side of some political spectrum, but because they want to empower a man who stands for greed and militarism, the eradication of civility and kindness, the further destruction of our planet, inhumanity toward the poor and immigrants, and racism and bigotry. Is not such an individual an enemy of mankind? I look at them, then I look at my child and ask myself what kind of world she will live in. Will she be denied opportunities because of the color of her skin? Will there even be a habitable world for her to live in? What kind of world are these bigots and climate-deniers preparing for her?

I must say that the current political polarization in this country is frightening. Yet even more disturbing is the support Donald Trump has among so-called “evangelicals.” The word evangelical is code in the media for older white voters who identify themselves as evangelicals. So thankfully, they do not represent the entire evangelical community in this country. The same demographic questions are not used by pollsters when interviewing black or young voters among the left. If they did, they might discover the evangelical world is a lot more diverse than traditionally depicted in the media. Yet it is enough that so many who do consider themselves evangelicals are praising Trump to the skies and are largely responsible for his unyielding success.

It is astounding that these white voters seem not to be put off by the GOP candidate’s blatant racism, misogyny, and contempt for the poor and immigrants. It is impossible to deny that each of these positions is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Has the mask finally slipped ? Has the religious right finally found a candidate who (like Archie Bunker on steroids) is willing to say what they are all thinking but have been afraid to say ? Has their concern for abortion and family values all along been but a smoke screen for their real concern, which is the inexorable decline in white dominance ?

Sadly, the latter is probably the real issue (just as the religious right itself sprang into being in the 1970s, not as a religious reaction to Roe v. Wade, but in response to the federal government’s threatening the tax exempt status of Christian universities that resisted racial integration). Yes, in supporting Trump, these voters seem willing to threaten world peace and pull our whole democratic system and the Constitution down around us merely in order to turn back the clock on civil discourse, the rights of women, immigration reform, and economic and racial equality. The slogan “Make America Great Again” is just a dog whistle for a return to white dominance at home and abroad. Talk about a pipe dream. No, Donald, like you, America may be a bully, but she will never be truly great until she is good, just, and fair—both here and over there.

Perhaps worse than the Trump supporters among the church is the church leadership itself who, in general, seem to be taking refuge in silence, afraid to take on the angry crowd. I’m sorry, but church leaders do not get a pass on this. We are pastors, shepherds, commissioned to protect the sheep. Silence does not signify, “I don’t want to get involved.” Silence means consent. For those afraid to wade into politics, let me just say that this is no longer about liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican. This is about right versus wrong, and good versus evil. We have crossed a line in this country, and we now stand at a crossroads, just as the German church did in the early 1930s.

Quoting Micah 7:6, Jesus tells of a time before the end when “a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household” (Mt 10:36). At the same time, he also commands us to love and pray for our enemies. The apostle Paul likewise instructs us with the following strategy:

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,  and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will” (2Tim2:24-26)

Lord, give us the words to speak to our erring, angry, and frightened brothers and sisters.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Learning to Love by Loving Our Enemies

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, there-fore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. —Matthew 5:43-48

In 2001, incited by the 9-11 attacks, a Texas man went on a shooting rampage and killed two people, severely wounding another. The wounded man, who lost an eye when the assailant sprayed him with shotgun pellets, survived because he shrewdly played dead. Ten years later, the State of Texas was set to execute the shooter, when the survivor unexpectedly stepped forward to plead for him. “If I can forgive my offender who tried to take my life,” he told BBC News, “we can all work together to forgive each other and move forward and take a new narrative on the tenth anniversary of 11 September.”[i] In short, he was asking the State of Texas to turn the other cheek, as he had done, the very cheek that was still full of pellets.

Texas, long known for the conservative evangelicalism of its governors, refused, and the shooter, Mark Stroman, a white supremacist, was executed. His victim, Rais Bhuiyan, is a Muslim immigrant born in Bangladesh. As Rais explained, it was while on pilgrimage in Mecca after the attack that he received a “ray of light” regarding forgiveness and compassion. Drawing on his own faith, he decided not only to forgive Stroman but also to take the further step to try to save him from execution. The Qur’an teaches that those who forsake retribution and forgive those who have wronged them become closer to God, he said. “My faith teaches me that saving a life is like saving the entire human race.”

In this quest Rais was joined by the widows and family members of the two other victims killed during Stroman’s anti-Muslim rampage, a Pakistani and a Hindu from India. “We decided to forgive him and want to give him a chance to be a better person,” said the brother-in-law of one of the slain. Bhuiyan also received a great deal of encouragement from all over the world, even from fellow Muslims back in Pakistan.[ii]

However, both the Texas Governor and the Pardon Board refused to hear the request. Mr. Bhuiyan was also prevented from meeting personally with Stroman, as was his right under law, but the two were allowed to speak briefly on the telephone just hours before the execution. While the condemned man seemed resigned to his fate, he told reporters,

It is due to Rais’ message of forgiveness that I am more content now than I have ever been. I received a message that Rais loved me and that is powerful…I want to thank him in person for his inspiring act of compassion. He has forgiven the unforgiveable.[iii]

In chapter 5 of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges the popular understanding of some key commandments and, instead, teaches God’s true purpose behind the law. For example, regarding murder, Jesus says, “You know that the law says, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but I tell you that even if you are angry with your brother, that is murder too, for murder begins in the heart.” In the same way, with adultery, he says, “The law states, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I tell you that even looking at a woman lustfully in your heart is adultery, because that is where it begins.”

God’s intention in giving the Old Testament law was more than to provide a list of dos and don’ts that could be checked off. That is what the Pharisees were doing: keeping the externals of the law, without allowing it to touch their hearts. They were superficially righteous, and in being so, they thought they could tame the law and make it manageable.

God’s intention in the law, however, was quite different. His desire was that the law might break us, that when we looked into its polished stone, we might see ourselves as we truly are and, like the tax collector in Jesus’ story (Lk 18:9-14), beat our breast, saying, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” That man, if you remember, not the self-righteous Pharisee, went home justified before God.

If all this were not hard enough, Jesus saves the toughest commandment for last. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” The Old Testament law frequently taught love of neighbor and even of the foreigner in the land. It warned against hating a fellow Israelite in one’s heart (Lev 19:17-18). The rabbis of Jesus’ day were generous enough to apply the status of neighbor generally to any fellow Jew, but not to Israel’s national enemies, Gentiles, or the wicked. Jesus, however, categorically rejects the interpolation that commanded hatred of one’s enemies. In his teaching and ministry he expands the definition of neighbor to embrace such traditional enemies as Samaritans and outrages his more pious listeners by including God-fearing Gentiles and even repentant “lost causes” (prostitutes and tax collectors) in his eschatological banquet (cf. Mt 8:11; Lk 19:9).

What does it mean to love your enemies? The parallel passage in Luke 6 reads, “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” In other words, love is not just a feeling we have—“Oh, I just love those enemies of mine!” That is not where it starts. We love our enemies not just by the things we don’t do—that is, by not doing evil to them—but by doing good to them: serving them, blessing them, praying for them, and in Rais Bhuiyan’s case, not only by forgiving them, but actively, tirelessly working for their good. Love is active: it does things. And as we bless our enemies with both our mouths and our actions, our hearts begin to change as well. It is hard to keep hating someone whom you are praying for, blessing, serving. Serving our enemies? Why would we want to do that? That just sounds naive and dangerous!

Why does Jesus command this of us? He says, “so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” In Near Eastern language and culture, to be the son of someone is to be like someone. We say, “he’s a true son of his father,” or “he’s a chip off the old block.” In Romans 8 the apostle Paul writes that “Those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he [Jesus] might be the first born among many brothers and sisters.” We were chosen to grow up into Christlikeness: here is a reference not only to our physical transformation (our future resurrection, in which we will receive new, immortal bodies, like Jesus’) but also to our sanctification (that we would be like him in character, in the way we act, speak, and love).

How God Loves

The Almighty does not have one kind of love for some people and another kind for others. He loves everyone actively. The passage says, “He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” We all enjoy the same sunshine, whether we are “good” or evil. God’s heart is wide open, and undivided. He has standards, and yes, he hates and must judge sin. But he loves sinners. If he did not, you and I would not be here.

Jesus goes on, “If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?” In other words, even the world is nice to people who are nice to them; they bless those who bless them, love those who love them. That is not hard. What separates us from the world, what makes us different, is that we love even those who hate us; we do good to those who do evil to us, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who plot evil against us.

This command to love our enemies is probably the most radical of Jesus’ teachings. It certainly can seem like a bitter pill to swallow. The world may call it foolishness, weakness, or stupidity. The Bible calls it Christlikeness. For as Paul says, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners Christ died for us” (Ro 5:8). That is his way, and that is why we were called: to make us like Jesus. To bring a little bit of heaven to earth.

I stated before that the Father’s intention is that we would love our enemies as our neighbor. Why? Because our enemy is our neighbor! Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates this point in a powerful, though disturbing way. You probably know the story. A man is traveling on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and is set upon by robbers, who strip him of his clothing and beat him almost to death, dumping his body beside the road. Two men passing by, one a Jewish priest, the other a Levite who worked in the temple, choose not to stop. But one man does, and that man is a Samaritan, the enemy of the Jews, of a people considered so unclean, they could not be touched or their land even walked upon. Yet this man, Jesus says, takes the injured man in his arms, bandages his wounds, carries him to an inn, and pays the landlord generously to look after him.

Christ then asks the question, “Now which man was a neighbor to the wounded man?” The teacher of the law, to whom this parable is addressed, is so scandalized, he cannot even bring himself to use the word Samaritan. Instead, he says grudgingly, “The man who had mercy on him.” Jesus replies, “Go and do likewise.”

The point of the parable is—and this is what got Jesus into such hot water with the religious establishment of his day—not just that we are to love and set an example of mercy and compassion to our enemies. In this case, our enemy is the example, to our shame! So our hearts are exposed, and we have to ask, “So why do we hate them again?”

Over the past fourteen years, I have been listening to, reading, and watching the news and internet, and so have you. Our country is up in arms against those people. You know whom I mean. I am referring to Muslims. We hear all the rhetoric, invective, slander, and inflammatory language, and it does something to us inside, does it not? It makes us angry. But angry in one of two ways. Either we get angry and want to grab our torches and pitch forks and join the mob. Or we feel repulsed by all the hate speech and demagoguery, people using intolerance (against minorities, the weak, and outcasts) as a means to gain power. Bullies do it to gain social standing. Politicians, too. From the beginning of time, there have been those who will play upon the very worst in human nature just to get a vote. And to a certain extent, I suppose, we expect that from the world. At least, it should not surprise us. But when we see Christians, or those who use the name, doing the same thing, it should grieve us; it should alarm us, make us angry. I hope it does you.

In the summer of 2010, the town of Temecula, California, was up in arms over the proposed building of an Islamic Center in their town, right across from two established churches. So some “concerned citizens” banded together and told each other, “Bring your guns, your Bibles, and your dogs, and meet us for a rally in front of the site.” (Dogs, of course, are considered unclean to most Muslims.)

Meanwhile, 3000 miles away, in Manhattan, a similar controversy was brewing—one that involved the whole country—regarding whether a certain Islamic religious center should be built near Ground Zero. That same summer a crowd of “patriotic” citizens gathered at the site to protest, which is their constitutional right. But when they saw two tan-skinned men walk by, chatting in what sounded suspiciously like Arabic, they surrounded and started menacing them, hurling racial and religious slurs, spewing hatred. The police had to come to rescue these men. As they were led away, one of the men shouted, “But we’re Christians!” They were Copts, Orthodox Christians from Egypt. Did you know that some of the oldest churches in the world are Arabic-speaking? That did not matter. It certainly did not make up for speaking with an Arab accent. Once a crowd becomes a mob, it has no brain; it thinks with its fists. There is something about a mob that seems to give courage and legitimacy to stupidity and ignorance.

You do not have to agree with someone’s religion or their politics to love them. Is that what Jesus said? “Love your enemies, but only those whose religion you agree with or whose politics you like?”

Jesus and the Qur’an

The Qur’an (Islam’s holy book) says some amazing things about Jesus. It refers to him as “the Messiah” (Q 3:45), the “Word of God” (Q 4:171), “conceived by God’s Spirit” (Q 19:27), “born of a Virgin” (Q 19:20), “he died according to God’s plan” (Q 8:17), “God raised him to himself” (Q 4:158). Some of this almost sounds like the Apostles’ Creed. But wait, there is more. The Qur’an also says that Jesus intercedes with God according to God’s will (Q2:255), that he was without sin (Q 19:19), that God gave him miracles (Q 2:87,253) and the New Testament, in which is guidance and light (Q 5:46).[iv]

There is, of course, an important difference: Islam clearly teaches that Jesus is not God’s Son and therefore not God. Muslims consider any claim to his divinity to be blasphemy. That is a big problem for Christians, but recall there were Jews who thought the same thing. Most still do. Yet Christians still love and pray for them. In particular, I remember a man named Saul from Tarsus, who just did not get it. God was willing to work with him.

The Qur’an makes other statements we might not agree with, some that could be interpreted as hostile to Christians and Jews. Whether these verses were intended for all times, or limited by circumstance and context, is debated. Yet, why begin there? Why not start with what unites us? Why not use love to build bridges, instead of fear to erect walls?

Yes, there are huge obstacles. But what a great start! With what other religion, besides Judaism, do we have such an advantage and so much in common? They even call him by name! Yesa-al-Mesih. Jesus the Messiah. The prophet Muhammed, despite his errors, had a profound respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and he commanded his followers to have the same. Our Gospels make up part of Islam’s holy books. The vast majority of Muslims have more reverence for our Lord and follow more of his teaching than many people who are superficially Christian. They have no problem with Jesus; they revere him. Like the rest of the world, it is Christians and Christianity they cannot stand. They fear us, and for good reasons (over a thousand years’ worth of Crusades, colonialism, and Western meddling in the region).

Think of Rais Bhuiyan, the man who was shot in Texas, a very devout Muslim. Does he seem so far from the kingdom of God that we should reject him? Perhaps some would agree that he is at least more “outwardly Christian” than many of us who use the name. Can we deny that the Holy Spirit is doing a remarkable work in and through this man’s life? Does it not seem ironic, but very much like God, that he would use such a person to teach us something deeply significant about forgiveness? Did not Jesus frequently use foreigners, Gentiles, even Samaritans, as examples of righteousness and faith to rouse his fellow Jews to repentance? (cf. Mt 8:5-13; 15:21-28; Mk 15:39; Lk 4:25-27; 10:25-37; 17:11-19; Ac 10:1-8.)

Do you think God wants to reach these people? After all, our enemy is not the real enemy, right? The Enemy (Satan) is our enemy. I have been discussing loving our enemies, when in reality, these people are not our enemies at all! Our real enemies are our own fear and ignorance, which are tools of Satan’s kingdom.

What is really at stake here? Why has Satan worked so hard over fourteen centuries to keep Muslims and Christians at each others’ throats, to keep us living in fear of one another? There are a billion and a half souls, one quarter of humanity, who follow Islam. We cannot dismiss them with a wave of the hand—certainly not when so many are so close to the kingdom of God!

Did you know there are some Muslims who follow Christ but still call themselves “Muslim”? They love Jesus, follow his teaching, and call him Lord and Savior. There are thousands of Iranians who have had open visions of Jesus Christ. There are churches being planted in the Middle East every day, in very hostile soil. Why do we want to make it harder for them? Why do we want to push them away? God is doing something there, and we can either join in by praying and loving them or—as the church has done so often throughout its history—we can resist what God is doing and work against him instead of for him, and the angels will weep for us.

We were created, God chose us to become like Christ. So let us become like Christ, not conformed to the hatred and bigotry of this world. There are people in positions of power in this country and in the media who want to control and manipulate us with fear, to make us become part of a mob that hates and persecutes. Hysterical voices tell us, “They want to kill us! They want to impose their Sharia law on us!” That may be true of some, but definitely not the vast majority of Muslims, who are peaceful. They want the same things, the same opportunities for themselves and their children: peace, health, a good job, education, even democracy.

Islamophobia is a huge industry. Hate sells. So does fear. Together, they sell guns, bombs, and wars. Do not be led by these. Be led by God’s Spirit, his holy Word, and the teachings of our Lord and Savior. As God told the prophet Isaiah: “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it” (Isa. 8:12). Fear God alone. Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” In other words, we are to be good citizens, but when push comes to shove, there is a higher loyalty, a higher citizenship. If loving our enemies seems foolish or unpatriotic, then so be it.

God came to reconcile himself to a world that was his enemy—that is at the heart of our gospel.

 

[i] “Muslim Victim Forgives, Texas Executes,” Press TV, (22 July 2011). Web. PressTV.ir.

[ii] Kari Huus, “A Victim of 9/11 Hate Crime Now Fights for His Attacker’s Life,” NBC News, (30 June 2011). Web. NBCNews.com.

[iii] John Rudolf, “Rais Bhuiyan, Victim of Post-9/11 Shooting Spree, Pleads To Spare Attacker Mark Stroman’s Life,” Huffington Post, (18 July 2011). Web. HuffingtonPost.com.

[iv] Carl Medearis, Muslims, Christians, and Jesus: Gaining Understanding and Building Relationships (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2008), 70-72.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Tyranny of the Righteous (Part 2)

That America is and always has been a “Christian nation” is one of our most enduring national myths. Yet in 1796 the newly formed United States of America negotiated a treaty with the Muslim-ruled Barbary state of Tripoli in North Africa, assuring them that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”[i] The treaty was later approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.

From its creation, the United States of America has always been a secular state. The Declaration of Independence mentions only the “Creator” or “Divine Providence,” the usage of which is rooted in Deism, not orthodox Christianity. The Constitution does not mention God at all. Its various references to religion merely limit what the government can do.

Some governments outlaw certain religions; others blend religion and state. Our Founders shrewdly resisted both extremes and sought a via media that remains officially neutral toward religion, a principle designed to protect every one by favoring no one. Again, Ingersoll says it best:

Our fathers founded the first secular government that was ever founded in this world. Recollect that. The first secular government; the first government that said every church has exactly the same rights, and no more; every religion has the same rights, and no more. In other words, our fathers were the first men who had the sense, who had the genius, to know that no church should be allowed to have a sword; that it should be allowed only to exert its moral influence.[ii]

To claim that we have always been a Christian nation is to create confusion and misunderstanding among non-Christian individuals and nations. From a Christian viewpoint, one might even find such a claim to be blasphemous. Would a truly Christian nation enslave people? Would it practice ethnic or cultural cleansing? Would it steal land that belongs to others, or oppress and exploit other nations? Would it go to war to extend its territory or influence, or show little to no concern for the poor among its own people? Surely, it would not drop atomic weapons, torture, kill innocents with drones, or prop up dictators! One might try to justify some of these actions based on the necessities of realpolitik, but there is nothing “Christian” about them.

Rather, what people really mean by “our Christian nation” is that, in the past at least, more Americans have claimed adherence to that faith than to any other. Christianity, also, more than any other religion, has had and continues to have a profound influence here. Many good things that today we take for granted have had their roots in Christian faith and experience: the abolition of slavery, civil rights, child labor laws, women’s suffrage, Social Security. Even our War of Independence, as well as some aspects of our form of government and Constitution, were heavily influenced by eighteenth-century Reformed Christian theology and polity.

American Protestants may mourn the loss of a simpler and more homogeneous time, even not so long ago, when they still formed an overwhelming majority. Since 2006, however, Protestants have actually slipped to minority status. This gradual decline is partly the result of the great tide of immigration of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as more recent immigration from Asia and the Middle East. There is also an ever-increasing demographic that identifies itself as agnostic, atheistic, non-theist, or unaffiliated with any religion.

The U.S.A. now comprises the world’s most religiously diverse population, and with increasing diversity comes an increasing need for tolerance and sensitivity at all levels. If Christians wish to see their rights and religious freedoms protected, they must respect and protect those of others. It is one of the responsibilities that come with living in a free society.

There is much talk in Christian circles about “taking this country back.” If we wish to do so, we will have to do it the hard way, Jesus’ way: on our knees, with humility, sacrificial service, loving hearts, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Not by winning elections or by legislative fiat, but by actually caring for the poor and oppressed, healing the sick, working for peace, and winning and mentoring souls, one by one. Instead of complaining about the exploding secularism of our society, we might consider changing our own attitudes and making our lives (and churches) more attractive by reflecting more of the kindness and character of the Savior we claim to follow.

Atheism and disillusionment continue to grow, much of it due to the power-grabbing of the Religious Right: its marriage with a single political party, its abandonment of the poor and reduction of the faith to a couple of hot-button issues, its xenophobia, as well as its influence over some of our nation’s more disastrous policies and militarism. To reverse this trend, Christians might want to take a page from a book often quoted but seldom followed:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant… (Phil. 2:5-7).

A City Upon a Hill

Listening to the radio one day, I was reminded of how much our collective American vocabulary is still firmly rooted in what has been called the “Puritan experiment.” The image of America as “a city upon a hill” has been used in political rhetoric by leaders as diverse as John Adams and Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy and Sarah Palin. The metaphor, of course, goes back to Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount, but Puritan governor Jonathan Winthrop was perhaps the first to apply it in a socio-political sense in referring to the fledgling Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The phrase is almost always quoted out of its original, narrow context. Applied to the United States as a whole, a creation of a later century, it acquires a somewhat self-righteous and supercilious air. American exceptionalism has been used to justify our most egregious injustices against other people groups, our wars, as well as our most well-meaning but blundering foreign policies.

It seems ironic, therefore, to consider that Winthrop’s 1630 sermon, given aboard the good ship Arbella en route to the shores of the New World, is actually entitled “Christian Charitie, a Model Thereof.” In it he lays down the scriptural rules of conduct by which relationships and commerce within the new colony were to be guided: In short, all is to be governed by justice and mercy, by love, compassion, and generosity. The Almighty, in his wisdom, has ordained that some be rich, others poor, some mighty, others lowly, and God does this, Winthrop reasons, that “every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection.”[iii]

Both the “natural law” and the gospel command us to love our neighbor as ourselves, he states, and so we must give generously, lend freely, forgive the debts of the penniless, love our enemies, deny ourselves, and in every way care for one another. As each of us is part of one body, there is no soundness in the whole if there is sickness or misery in the part. For Winthrop, quoting Isaiah 58, such social solidarity and unselfishness are the surest road to God’s blessing and prosperity. How foreign this sounds to our American sense of individualism and self-reliance, and how far we have departed from this ideal!

Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck [God’s judgment], and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God….We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities….We must…make others’ conditions our own…always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body.[iv]

“For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us,” he says. “So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.”[v]

The Governor’s words speak of opportunity and responsibility, not a God-given right or noblesse oblige. Winthrop did not envision a society where each member could pull himself up by his own bootstraps. Rather, his vision could be achieved only if all worked together, sacrificed, shared with, and cared for one another.

Despite the fact that the Massachusetts Puritans were attempting to build a theocratic, rather than a pluralistic society, this sermon still has something to teach us about what it means to be truly blessed as a nation—if we really wish to be that shining city upon a hill—a calling that is not just a privilege, but also a great responsibility and sacrifice.

A Pyrrhic Victory

During the 2012 election a letter to the editor appeared in a small U.S. newspaper. Its author stated that the election had been an eye-opening experience, from which he had learned a great deal about American evangelicalism. In their quest for power, he said, (the power to impose their beliefs on others, whose beliefs they would not want imposed on themselves), evangelicals have embraced candidates who share little of the true values Jesus preached, such as concern for the poor. Instead, they have targeted same-sex marriage and abortion as the great enemies, while at the same time treating women as little more than “breeding cattle.” They care more for an “unfeeling clump of cells” than for real suffering humanity, he wrote. In short, they have abrogated their master’s teaching to become “idolaters at the altar of politics.”[vi]

The letter encapsulates the disillusionment of a growing segment of our culture that increasingly identifies itself as religiously unaffiliated, secular, or even atheist. If you read it with compassion, you might have caught a tone of bitterness and disappointment, as if the author once had higher expectations for evangelicals and perhaps still does. He may even be an admirer of Jesus, but certainly not of the church.

While the letter did not surprise me, it still filled me with sadness and not a little anger. As an evangelical, I do not share all of the author’s opinions, but I do understand his feelings—not because I supported either party’s agenda, but because I, too, hope for much better from my fellow Christians.

If evangelicals could claim any victory in forty years of culture wars, it would certainly be a Pyrrhic one, a case of winning the battle but losing the war. Such victories are costly if we win electoral or legislative battles only by alienating the very souls for whom we ought to be burdened.

Continuing the Culture War

In October 2009 a group of Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders and scholars gathered in our nation’s capital to sign a new declaration. Drafted by the late Chuck Colson and others, and signed by a broad range of evangelicals, including James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Tim Keller, and Ron Sider, the Manhattan Declaration begins with soaring and inspiring prose extolling the courage and heroism of the church from the Roman period to the 1960s. “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word,” it states, “seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.”[vii] So far so good.

Sadly, however, the document then descends into the same old shibboleths about abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty that have characterized the narrow agenda of the Religious Right for over a generation. So much for heroism.

The declaration is fine as far as it goes; it just does not go very far, like a huge cannon that hisses and booms and turns out to be nothing but an oversized beanbag shooter. Continuing the evangelical culture war begun in the 1970s (now in the guise of an ecumenical confession), Mr. Colson et al. give full vent to the old rants over how Christians have been forced to violate their consciences due to a government overly officious in its devotion to the separation of church and state. To be fair, there have been numerous cases of government overreach, both on the federal and local levels.

The declaration justifies passive resistance to governmental authority. It even attempts to co-opt the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., even though the latter’s goals were quite different. Nowhere does it actually address, as King would, the other gaping wounds of our society, such as poverty, the growing disparity between rich and poor, racial prejudice, corporate greed, drugs and violence, AIDS, government corruption, imperialism, torture, and the victims of war.

Why the silence? The agenda of the “culture war” is perforce limited, since to do otherwise would involve our having to take a hard look at ourselves. It also shields from exposure the corporate backers of this agenda who want the Christian vote without the “meddlesome” concern for social justice that characterizes so much of God’s Word.

For decades conservative evangelicals in this country have campaigned to make America a righteous nation. But will the Lord God bless a people who have successfully banned abortions yet allow greed to run rampant? Will he bless a nation that has outlawed same-sex marriage yet permits the poor to be trampled by the rich? Will he bless a country that prays at football games but whose security and prosperity rest on the brutal oppression of its neighbors? The church in America has largely been silent on these latter issues, our prophets and leaders like Isaiah’s “dogs that cannot bark” (Isa 56:10).

Fresh Air Instead of Fresh Ire

Working together? Not something ideologues and fanatics on both sides of an issue are best at doing. But wherever you stand on abortion, you have to admit that reducing the number of or need for abortions is a worthwhile goal.

Over the past four decades, the abortion argument has raged on, pitting members of families and communities as well as religious denominations against one another. There is no question that the harsh rhetoric and bitterness have helped to foster a division in this country that has not been seen since the Civil War.

During his 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama took what many regarded as a risky stand in proposing that pro-life and pro-choice advocates should try to find some “common ground.” It was an idea he continued to outline in his “controversial” commencement speech at Notre Dame a year later:

Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women...

Understand…I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it—indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory—the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.[viii]

Mr. Obama and most evangelical Christians may be on opposite sides of the table when it comes to abortion, but his proposal seemed, well, helpful. Of course, there are passionate ideologues on either end of the abortion issue, but calling both parties to talk and try to work together seems very reasonable. After all, we need one another. Hurling curses at each other over a dividing wall has certainly accomplished nothing.

As Christians we must resist the tendency to demonize the opposition. We must fight the temptation to remain obdurate, to dominate, to exclude. These are the characteristics and mindset of extremism, which destroys even the very thing it would build. We do not have to change our belief system in order to negotiate; we do not have to agree with someone to work hand in hand for the common good.

America is a nation growing in diversity. Therefore, we need all the more to listen to, to respect and work with one another if we are going to achieve anything. Instead of waiting zealously for some magic moment in the future when Roe v. Wade is overturned (an outcome that is by no means certain) and, somehow, all our ills wiped away, can we not go to the table now and hammer out how, through targeted programs and compassion, we can make abortion in this country as rare as possible?

This, at least, would seem to be the most rational approach to saving the lives of the unborn—that is, of course, assuming we have an interest in rational approaches. The fact that such rapprochement or cooperation seldom ever happens ought to show us that we are not only being poorly led but also downright manipulated—and by forces that are thoroughly invested, not in ending abortion, but in keeping the culture war going and the flames of hostility burning, for their own political purposes.

In a 1981 interview Billy Graham told Parade magazine,

I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.[ix]

 

Notes:

[i]“Treaty with Tripoli (1796)”, in The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Governmenet in 1789, to March 3, 1845, (Little, Brown & Co., 1867), vol. 8, 155.

[ii] Ingersoll, “Centennial Oration” (1876), in Works, vol. 9, 74.

[iii] Jonathan Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity” (1630), in Classics of American Political and Constitutional Thought, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2007), 13.

[iv] Winthrop, 17.

[v] Winthrop, 18.

[vi] Letter to the Editor, Winston Salem Journal, 4 November 2012. Web. JournalNow.com.

[vii] “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” 2009.

[viii] “Obama’s Commencement Address at Notre Dame,” New York Times, (17 May 2009). Web. NYTimes.com.

[ix] Marguerite Michaels, “Billy Graham: America Is Not God’s Only Kingdom,” Parade, (1 February 1981), 6-7.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

How to Reduce Gun Violence

The Guardian just published a thought-provoking article about reducing gun violence. Definitely worth a read.

…In response, jurisdictions all over the country passed get-tough gun laws, gang ordinances, three-strikes laws and school zone violations – laws that caused our prison population to explode. In 2002, when the shooting epidemic began to subside, the National Institute of Justice published a study showing that all of those get-tough laws had virtually no preventative impact on gun violence.

On the other hand, experts found, there was a way to shut gun deaths off like a switch. In Boston, where the strategy was first tested, homicides went from 113 in 1991 to 31 in 1999. They called it Operation Ceasefire.

Walk through this door, the men doing the shooting were told, and we will help you get jobs and build a life. But go back out there and keep at it, and you will not like what comes next. After the first meeting in 1996, not a single teen in Beantown was shot to death for 29 straight months. In Chicago gun violence was reduced by as much as 73%. According to a report co-published by Pro Publica and The New Republic last month, the same thing happened in cities all across the United States.

Despite these outcomes, Boston police discontinued the Ceasefire meetings in January 2000. Homicides skyrocketed to 69 in 2001, and up to 75 in 2005. When it became clear that our police stings and aggressive crackdowns – max bail, max jail was our motto in court – weren’t working, I quit my job as a prosecutor in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston and started a program that was modeled after Ceasefire across the street from the courthouse.

The guys in my program – mostly former gang members – told us that, when they carried guns, it was because they were hustling for money and in constant danger of getting robbed or shot. We could’ve passed laws with 100-year minimums, outlawed every type of gun (and Boston tried), but it wouldn’t have made the slightest difference to our participants because no penalty outweighed the need to eat, pay rent and live.

So we tried a different approach. We helped young men with arrest records pay their court debts, which researchers had determined were a major impediment to rehabilitation, and we helped them apply for jobs. In no time most of them were working in the mainstream economy…

The article begs the question, why would city officials de-fund a program that achieved such dramatic results? Hmm. Could it be that many local governments and law enforcement are highly invested in keeping inner city violence high? Gun violence creates fear, which justifies their violent crackdown on people of color. The war on drugs, after all, has as its political goal the decimation of entire communities and the disenfranchisement, especially, of young black men. Draconian drug laws also feed our for-profit prison system.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Tyranny of the Righteous: Part One

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross! (Phil 2:3-8)

“There’s nothing more dangerous in all the world than a Presbyterian fresh off his knees!” The remark is most often attributed to King Charles I (1600-1649) of England. Although there is no scholarly evidence that he ever said it, the quote well encapsulates His Majesty’s well-known frustration with the Moral Majority of his day. Another seventeenth-century wag did write that he would rather meet coming against him “a whole regiment with drawn swords than one Calvinist convinced he is doing the will of God.”

Charles was an intensely high-principled but ham-fisted monarch who found himself constantly at odds with his Scottish homeland, controlled by Presbyterians, and an equally inflexible English Parliament, packed with Puritans. Talk about being a lion in a den of Daniels! What the King found so galling and frustrating about these religious zealots was not only that they were always refusing to let him have his way, but also that they were convinced they were always right and that God was on their side. “It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good,” writes the apostle Paul (Gal 4:18). Yet unalloyed with humility, religious zeal can be as deadly a force as anarchy.

Unfortunately, being “right” in one’s religious doctrine does not necessarily make one a pleasant person, nor does it automatically make one right about everything else. There is something about religious pride that stinks to everyone but the stinker. There was a time when Christianity demanded humility and sacrificial service. It was our Lord himself who announced, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me,” and “Whoever wants to be great among you, must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all“ (Lk 9:23; Mk 10:43-44).

One wonders if abortion, same-sex marriage, lack of prayer in schools, or any of the other deadly sins on the evangelical hit list these days will prove to be quite so poisonous to our society in the long run as our own pride and arrogance as Christians. Humility was once held to be a hallmark Christian virtue. Yet in the case of those who strive to unite spiritual and temporal power, it is often in short supply. “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prv 16:18).

Examining the surge of fundamentalism as a phenomenon in other world religions, as well as our own, we quickly see certain commonalities. (I speak of fundamentalism as a dynamic force, rather than a body of doctrine.) Fundamentalism convinces itself that it is always right and that therefore God must be on its side. It seeks to dominate or squelch all dissent or diversity and to exclude rather than to include others. We would do well to spurn these unholy tendencies if we wish to avoid the mistakes of the past. (Of course, as the philosopher Hegel wrote, the one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn anything from history.)

Fundamentalism, however, does not limit itself to places of worship, but eventually seeks to exercise control in the political sphere as well. Note the difference between Christians who wish to influence politics and those who try to dominate or control it.

In his book Our Endangered Values, former President Jimmy Carter warns that

During the last quarter century there has been a parallel right-wing movement within American politics, often directly tied to the attributes of like-minded Christian groups. The revolutionary new political principles involve special favors for the powerful at the expense of others, abandonment of social justice, denigration of those who differ, failure to protect the environment, attempts to exclude those who refuse to conform, a tendency toward unilateral diplomatic action and away from international agreements, an excessive inclination toward conflict, and reliance on fear as a means of persuasion.[i]

A wise man once opined, “I would rather be humble than right.” When you are humble, you at least know that you don’t know everything and you seek God for what is right. But being right without humility can lead to pride, inflexibility, intolerance, bigotry, and a host of other demons. (Yes, of course, it is best to be both humble and right.)

The English Puritans dreamed of building a perfect commonwealth where godliness reigned. The trouble was, once they had power, they could not cooperate among themselves long enough to do much nation building. The greatest source of their conflict was the interpretation of the very thing that should have united them: the Bible. They could not move forward, for they could not agree on what it said. They did manage to issue a ban on Christmas celebrations (too popish, they said), and of course the king’s head was removed from his body (an operation which severely impeded his ability to govern wisely). Politicians rarely agree with one another, but add to this a layer of religious zeal and you have an intoxicating brew sure to produce either anarchy or gridlock in its most violent form.

There was one “mad” seventeenth-century English faction (called Levellers) who envisioned a nation built upon a constitution, which would guarantee certain natural rights, such as freedom of worship, due process, and no taxation without consent of the governed. They resisted religious language in their manifestos since they claimed the Bible gave no clear model for civil government. The Puritan Parliament, whose sympathies were staunchly with the moneyed interests, had no patience with such radicalism. Those Levellers who were not shot were quickly neutralized.

With few exceptions, history shows that Christians have been little better, if not worse, in governing than their secular counterparts. Obtaining power (if that is what you seek) does nothing to check pride, ambition, arrogance, greed, ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity. On the contrary, it seems to give these forces an open outlet.

“I would rather have a smart Turk as my king than a dumb Christian” is a quote long misattributed to Martin Luther. Dr. Luther probably would never have made such a statement, especially with the Ottomans breathing on the gates of Vienna, but the reformer did strongly believe in a separation of powers, or two kingdoms. For him it was not the business of civil government to enforce conformity to Christianity or to enter into matters of the soul. As an Augustinian, Luther embraced St. Augustine’s theology of the two cities (the City of God and the City of Man).

In Geneva John Calvin, too, passionately opposed the fusion of church and empire. Both reformers were reacting to two extremes. The first was the Pope’s claim to be the inheritor of the imperium of the old Roman empire in the West, an assertion based on a spurious medieval document purporting to be Constantine’s conferring of such power on Pope Sylvester I in the fourth century. The second was the teaching of certain radical Anabaptist groups who regarded all temporal authority as evil and thus irrelevant for Christians. Both Luther and Calvin attempted to find some rational middle ground, whereby Christians could be in the world but not of it.

As theologian N.T Wright notes, in stating that his “kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18:36), Christ refers to the nature of his tactics, not to some “pie in the sky.”[ii] His kingship and power are of God and therefore work in a way opposite to the prevailing world system: it is through his emptying himself, his humbly taking up the role of servant, and ultimately, the foolishnesss of his death on a cross, that he will triumph. As such his words are a sharp rebuke of the Sadducees’ and Pilate’s worldly exercise of force.

Little wonder that the great heroes and heroines of the faith were men and women of little account, poor, oppressed, and meek. The reward they sought was not in this life, and the kingdom they looked for was in another place. Does that mean Christians should not seek to influence their culture or politics? On the contrary.

St. Francis of Assisi sought no political power; he had no worldly agenda. He never served in office or claimed any titles, other than Il Poverello (the Poor Little Fellow). Yet, by simply selling all his possessions and devoting his life to the poorest of the poor, he sparked a spiritual revolution that revived the church throughout Europe, as well as reforming society and government. Kings and cardinals bowed before him and later coveted his bones. He just had the unmitigated temerity to take Jesus at his word and to follow the example of the Master. Some nerve.

Pope Innocent III was Francis’ contemporary and his reluctant patron. One cannot imagine a more striking contrast. Born into one of Italy’s brutal, power-brokering families, Innocent envisioned a papacy that united both spiritual and temporal power. He dreamed of being both Caesar and Pope. There was not a throne or royal marriage bed in Christendom over which he did not try to establish his jurisdiction; there was not a state that he did not wish to reduce to a papal fief. When he died unexpectedly in Perugia at age fifty-five, his body lay in state temporarily in that city’s Duomo, until thieves broke in during the night, stripped His Holiness’ corpse of vestments, regalia, jewels, everything, and left it on the floor naked and stinking. As one bishop, an eyewitness, later sermonized understatedly, “…I entered the church and understood, through the eyes of faith, how brief and empty is the deceptive glory of this world!”[iii]

Ironically, today, St. Francis, who sought neither titles nor power, is venerated by millions, his mortal remains surrounded by a majestic Gothic basilica built in his honor, while Innocent’s lie over the entrance to the Lateran Basilica souvenir shop, whose patrons rarely look up as they pass beneath with their postcards and snowglobes of the Vatican. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Try as they might, the Puritans in Parliament and in Cromwell’s New Model Army had one liability that proved a veritable hoodoo: they never secured the love of the common people, who did not like them and never would. Cancelling Christmas certainly did not help. In lieu of their current political agenda, conservative Christians would do well to follow our Lord’s example and seek to influence government and society more through unceasing prayer, sacrificial acts of charity, moral example, and fighting against poverty and injustice than through political power-grabbing. The latter only makes us hated.

The great American orator and agnostic Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) once noted prophetically,

Churches are becoming political organizations… It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave. All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy…were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures.[iv]

During the English Revolution, the Puritan poet John Milton (1608-74), used his vast literary and linguistic gifts in the republican cause. In numerous polemical pamphlets he supported not only the revolution but also the execution of the King. For the poet, the ultimate failure of the Commonwealth was a frustrating and heart-breaking conclusion to decades of hard work.

At the end of his epic poem Paradise Lost (1674), published, not coincidentally, after the Parliament had rejected the Good Old Cause and restored the monarchy, Adam surveys a devastated Creation, brought about by his sin:

Henceforth I learne, that to obey is best,

And love with feare the onely God, to walk

As in his presence, ever to observe

His providence, and on him sole depend,

Merciful over all his works, with good

Still overcoming evil, and by small

Accomplishing great things, by things deemd weake

Subverting worldly strong, and worldly wise

By simply meek; that suffering for Truths sake

Is fortitude to highest victorie,

And to the faithful Death the Gate of Life;

Taught this by his example whom I now

Acknowledge my Redeemer ever blest. (XII.561-573)

Milton wrote part of his poem while on the lam from agents of the restored monarchy. One can see in this final epiphany the disillusioned but unrepentant poet, painfully scanning the wreckage of the republic, while also summoning hope that, for humble people of faith, great things can still be accomplished, even without holding the reins of worldly power.

 

Notes
[i] Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005), 43-44.

[ii] N.T. Wright, “The New Testament and the State,” Themelios, 16:1 (1990), 13.

[iii] Baron Jules de Saint-Genois, Sur des Lettres Inédites de Jacques de Vitry, Évêque de Saint-Jean-d’Acre, Cardinal et Légat du Pape, Écrites en 1216, (Académie Royale de Belgique, 1847), 30.

[iv] Robert G. Ingersoll, “Some Mistakes of Moses” (1879), in The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, (New York: Dresden Publishing, 1915), vol 2, 33.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized