One of my favorite priests irritated me a bit at Sunday mass. Full of the love of God, as he should be and we should be, and as he expresses so well, he led off with a comment that concerned me. He (in this Easter season) suggested that, should we imagine the most evil acts by the worst people, the reaction we might likely have would not be Christ's reaction. Perhaps, verbal craftsman that he is, he made sure that he created a true statement that would cause a reaction (perhaps an angry one) yet be hard to challenge.
Verbal craftsman that I am, I will accept his challenge and challenge it. He knows his audience. This is a conservative place after all.
The Christ we have been taught and know is the Christ of mercy, and we would n't have it anyother way. He sacrificed fro us, ALL OF US, which was the priest's point. And I do not doubt any of that.
What I will do is to imagine a different narrative, which I do not believe changes the Christ we know but allows us to speculate on his reaction were he with us at this moment or his reaction in Heaven now. [Yes, I know he is always with us.] Thus, I believe the Christ in Heaven with the Father would possibly . . . perhaps probably agree with what follows here.
Don't bet your life (or soul) on this. I don't have my theology degree yet . . . and never will.
I believe the good Irish priest was referencing the atrocities against Christians in the Middle East. And, I believe that, Irishman that he is and a bit on in years, he has some memory of the 'Troubles ' in Ireland over the decades. He's a priest; he abhors such things. But 'atrocity' is such a sterile word . . . so generic. I have been researching and writing about the worst of times in the Old West that involved the worst atrocities perpetrated by some of the roughest native cultures at that particular time. The behavior is characteristic of some segments of Native American society from the less developed socioethnic groups within the larger people. Many native groups in this great land were less vicious in their defense of their families and societies.
My ultimate point is that some things are unacceptable, and I believe that the Christ that took a whip to the people who would defile the Father's temple, would have a hard time telling people today (or in 1874 Texas) that they should not defend themselves and others with the use of violence. I find it hard to believe as well that attacking a very evil enemy in his hideouts or villages would be immoral in the eyes of God or the Son.
I won't get into a debate in Luke about selling one's garment and buying a sword. This relates to the pending arrest of Christ, and he was not planning on the disciples saving him with their swords. He had no intention of avoiding his fate. I suppose he could be suggesting that the apostles could protect themselves with weapons in the days following. The issue here is more about standing against evil. Does turning the cheek mean capitulation to evil. I cannot believe we are expected to allow evil to be perpetrated on ourselves and/or others when we have the means to prevent it. I believe that the concepts of (on the smaller level) turning the other cheek and (on the larger level) suffering martyrdom are meant for scenarios where there are no other choices. This was seen in the Coliseum in Rome and similar arenas elsewhere as the early Christians face their fate during the reigns of certain emperors. They too had choices, but those were usually unacceptable, such as renouncing their beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment