What if Bonhoeffer had been Quaker?

I have long been an admirer of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: because of his clear-sighted theology in prewar books such as The Cost of Discipleship, because he championed the "Confessing Church" and resisted the Nazification of Christian churches in Germany, and not least because of the courage with which he endured imprisonment and met his death by execution at the hands of the German state.

As he himself recognized, however, there is a contradiction between his early radical pacifism, which is very evident in "The Cost of Discipleship" and his later participation in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Unlike the Austrian Catholic peasant Franz Jaegerstatter, Bonhoeffer believed that the unique challenge presented by the Nazis forced him to abandon absolute pacifism, precisely in order to be faithful. (Jaegerstatter, who was also executed by the Nazis, was punished because he remained a pacifist and refused to serve in the army).

I'd like to propose an unlikely scenario for the consideration of my readers and invite them to consider some questions it would raise:

Imagine that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had been a Quaker instead of a Lutheran. Imagine that as he considered the possibility of trying to assassinate Hitler he had asked for a Clearness Committee from his Meeting. What do we think would have been the result? What do we think should have been the result? I ask this without having thought through my own answers. The ways we look at these questions might illumine more fundamental questions about discipleship, activism, faithfulness, testimony, and "effectiveness" as Quakers.

I invite people to respond either in comments on this blog or on their own blogs with links back to this one. I'm creating a "Bonhoeffer Question" label for this post.
- - Rich Accetta-Evans

Read full article here...

It Needs A Little Salt

What contribution can Friends really make to the world?

We can proclaim our principles (We're for Peace! We're for Justice! We're for Simplicity! We're for the Earth!, etc.)

We can denounce the evils we see (or think we see) around us. (Abolish the Death Penalty! Stop the War! End Racism! Don't wear bright colors!).

But the question can be asked - is all this stand-taking a form of faithful witness, or just self-indulgence? Do we really promote peace by being "for" it? Can we really stop wars by protesting them? Is more required of us? And if so, what? Do Friends have a moral obligation to work "effectively" on these issues? If so, what would be "effective"? Civil disobedience? Electoral politics? Acts of service?

One could say (I, myself, often say) that we are not called to be effective but to be faithful. But if I knew how to really have an effect on the war in Iraq and to shorten the suffering by one day or save a single life, then the argument could be made that it would not be faithful to neglect than one effective action and turn my back on that one life or that one day of suffering. So "effectiveness" and "faithfulness" may not be antonyms.

But neither are they synonyms. We can't be faithful just by trying to be "effective". Perhaps one can't even be effective just by trying to be effective. Jesus told his Friends/Disciples in Matthew 5:13 (NIV)

13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men...

I hear this as a warning against (among other things) false realism.

Some of my "realistic" Friends occasionally become quite taken with the urgency of some particular action: flooding Congress with letters, flooding the streets with protesters, getting out the vote for some good candidate or (more often, sadly) against some bad candidate. Often these things are very reasonable to do. I have been on many peace marches in my time and expect to be on many more. I always feel that it is a good thing when I find my way to the monthly peace vigil other Friends of my meeting hold at Washington Square Arch in New York City. I also almost always vote. When elections seem close and the difference between candidates seems relatively large I tend to vote for liberal Democrats against less-liberal Democrats in primaries, and I tend to vote for Democrats against Republicans in general elections. On other occasions, I cast "symbolic" votes for candidates who have little chance of winning but seem to point the way toward much better policies than anything served up by Democrats or Republicans. (I admit it; I voted for Nader in 2000, but I did it in New York State, not a swing state).

But, quite frankly, I don't put as much energy into such things as I might have once. And - - especially in the area of electoral politics - - I would be very much opposed to the Religious Society of Friends taking a corporate stand equivalent to my individual stand. I wouldn't want my Meeting as a Meeting to be campaigning for the good guys, even if I really thought they were good guys. The issue here isn't our tax exemption; that's a practical matter and I don't think we should let it interfere with political activity if the Lord were leading us toward political activity. I admire the stance of the Catholic Worker, which refuses tax exempt status in order to be free of any government restrictions on their witness. But I don't think the Lord is (usually, anyway) leading us as a people to take partisan political stands that are advanced through traditional political activism.

To some folks, this might seem "unrealistic", "utopian", "idealistic", and even "self-indulgent". I could be (I have been) accused of seeking only my own vain purity rather than real change that would benefit real people. But I think these arguments are themselves unrealistic, that they vastly overestimate what can be accomplished by a tiny group like ours through political action, and that they vastly underestimate the one power we do have going for us: the power of faithful obedience to God's leadings and faithful witness to God's Kingdom.

There are no "pacifist" political parties of any real influence in America. We sometimes caricature the Republicans as warmongers and the Democrats as peacelovers. But a lot depends on what wars and what causes we're talking about. It may even depend on what Democrats and what Republicans we're talking about. So whoever I vote for in the next election, if that person wins there's a good chance that he or she will be leading the nation into a war, or even fail to extricate us from the current one. I can still make my judgements as to who is going to try the hardest to find other ways and vote for that person. And I will. And so will lots of other people who are not pacifists, not Quakers, not Christians. More power to them. This kind of voting has its place; but it's not the kind of peacemaking or peace witness to which we are particularly called as disciples and Friends of Jesus. In fact, if we get too enthusiastic about supporting candidates and about doing-what-it-takes to get them elected, we risk forfeiting our credibility as consistently principled advocates of peace, humanity and justice.

As a Christian pacifist, as I understand the term, I am not so much committed to some particular "pacifist" foreign policy as I am to thorough nonviolence in my own life, and consistent opennes to all my neighbors in this world who others may want to define as "enemies". Because we have renounced war for ourselves, and because we try to treated all people, however hated, despised, or feared, with respect and love, we Friends will often be in a position to give service where others have not, and to know people who others do not, and to understand the struggles of people who are generally not understood. We will be friends of the friendless, and even be friends of people who are enemies to each other. This makes us potential bridge builders and reconcilers. If we feed hungry people before the wars, tend to the wounded during wars, and consistently refuse to fight in the wars, then we may have a role in helping the growth of international and inter-group cooperation and understanding. We may also have a role in picking up the pieces once wars have burned themselves out. Once the combatants get sick of killing each other, they have often, historically, turned to principled non-combatants to pave the way for peace. But if - - in a misguidedly "realistic" campaign for certain candidates, we end up becoming just one more group of partisans with its own axe to grind, then we may undermine that more basic mission. Wouldn't it be great if I could talk to my Conservative Republican Congressman about victims of torture, without him suspecting that I am just trying to advance the fortunes of his Democratic opponent in the next election?

Why did I call this post "It needs a little salt"? Because that's what the world needs and that's what we - - as His disciples - - ought to be.

Read full article here...

Thinking of Zacharias Moussaoui

A few months ago Zacharias Moussaoui was convicted of having some part in the attacks of September 11, 2001, and was sentenced to life in prison. That he wasn't executed is a victory of sorts for opponents of capital punishment, but not really a victory for the principle of humane and just treatment for offenders
Consider the statement at this website. Note that the writer feels life imprisonment was a more appropriate sentence than death, but note also the reasons:.

Second, by sentencing Moussaoui to life in prison at the federal Supermax facility in Colorado, we have done far worse than put him to death. He will be in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. He will have no visitors. He will have no contact with other inmates. He will be locked in his cell 23 hours a day. The only persons he will see will be the guards who will deliver his meals three times a day or escort him to a room for his daily 60 minute exercise period. That is it. He may, on occasion, be visited by some law enforcement or governmental official, but that's all. No friends. No relatives. No imams. Nobody.

To reiterate, we have done far worse than kill him. We have made him a non-entity, a living ghost who will quickly fade out of the the public's memory. And then he will die, as the presiding judge said, quoting T.S.Eliot, “with a whimper.” I can think of no better fate for him.

I am not an expert on the facts of Moussaoui's case. I don't know whether he actually had a role in 9/11, or whether he actually knew when and where it would take place. The jury heard the evidence and concluded that he did, so I tentatively assume that they are correct. I also don't know whether Moussaoui was mentally ill - though some of his actions and statements suggest that to a non-medical person like me. I certainly acknowledge, based on things he said in court, that he was a person filled with rage and that he directed that rage at all Americans (among others) - presumably including (not to be personal about it) ... me. So I have no problem seeing that innocent people should be protected from him, even if this means confining him for life.

BUT

If the above description of conditions for his confinement are accurate, I find them absolutely horrifying and absolutely unjustified. What could motivate such treatment except society's rage at his crime? How does this cruelty in any way redeem the suffering of the victims of 9/11? How does it advance justice? Or peace?

Jesus urged his followers to 'love your enemies and do good to those who hate you' (Luke 6:27-28). I have not taken this to mean that we necessarily have to feel warm and tender emotions toward specific people, but that we should intend (and act for) their good rather than their harm. Jesus modelled this attitude himself, even on the cross. Millions of people who think of themselves as followers of Jesus do not seem to want to apply this teaching in cases like Moussaoui's, but it seems to me that if we really become His Friends we will become able to do so: not only in the case of big and public and 'political' cases like Moussaoui's but in our daily interactions with "enemies" whose actions are merely inconvenient or annoying rather than evil.

I claim no great acheivement on this score, but I at least feel clear about what the direction should be.

I also wonder whether in fact Moussaoui is permitted visitors and whether he gets any? Is there anyone anywhere still looking out for his welfare, able to communicate with him and listen to him? Are Friends or others concerned for his rights and willing to believe that he is capable of growth?

These are sobering questions. I have been pondering them from some time and feel no clearness at all about what can be done.

- - Rich

Read full article here...

About time they discussed this!

I saw this paragraph on the Washington Post website today.

As the Pentagon announced the 2,500th death of a U.S. service member in the conflict, the House embarked on its first extended discussion of the war since Congress authorized force nearly four years ago. More than 140 lawmakers took the floor to applaud or attack President Bush's prosecution of the war in an 11-hour debate scheduled to last until nearly midnight.

(emphasis added)

The most important public issue of the decade (so far,anyway) and the politicians are just getting around to dealing with it. I am reinforced in believing that the real seeds of change are planted outside the political process in social and spiritual movements; they only bear fruit in public policy, legislation, or even mainstream debate after hearts and minds have already been changed by the witness of "impractical", "radical", "unrealistic" visionaries.

Read full article here...

Let's Be Careful About Casting Blame (and about who we quote as a source of news)

I've been following the (discouragingly few) developments in the situation of the Christian Peacemaker Team members who were abudcted in Iraq by looking every day at the relevant portion of the Quaker Blog Watch There is a link there right now that troubles me in a different way than I expected.

The link says If the State Took our Brothers, Then
We Must be Having a Powerful Effect. Clicking this link brings one to a blog called "Cytations" whose ownership and point of view I can't quite place. I at first took it to be something sponsored by the Christian Peacemaker Teams, but I have started to strongly doubt that it is. Maybe someone can enlighten me about that.

Anyway, what first troubled me about this blogpost was the reference to "If the State Took our Brothers" coupled with some pictures of the Christian Peacemaker Team captives. As far as I know, there has been no evidence that "the state" had anything to do with the capture of these four peacemakers. At first, I considered that the title might refer to the more recent and very brief arrest of some other Christian Peacemaker Team members in Israel, but there is no mention of that arrest in the post.

The body of the post is a statement by Peggy Gish which actually is a very good statement. Whether she had anything to do with putting it on the Cytations blog is another question. One of her points is that "One of the effects of kidnappings, killings, and bombings, whether they are done by the resistance or the state, is to instill fear in the people. This fear leads to feelings of helplessness and paralysis." Her purpose seems to be to counteract this helplessness and paralysis by asserting that the work CPT is doing is having an effect. I have no quarrel with this statement, only with the title it is given in the post, and with the link that appears just below it.

The link that appears just below it is to another post called Who is Holding the Christian Peacemakers? and the internal title of that is "Israelis Still Holding Christian Peacemakers in Iraq". It states that "Israelis have practically confessed to the kidnapping by smearing Rachel [Cory] at the old discussion." This old discussion, meanwhile, turns out to be yet another post accusing the Israelis of being behind the kidnapping of the Christian Peacemaker Team members. There are some hateful, violent, and obscene comments on that post directed against Rachel Cory by someone who is alleged to be an Israeli, but nothing remotely constituting either a "confession" or "evidence" that Israel had anything to do with the kidnapping of four Christian Peacemakers in Iraq.

The other evidence "Cytation" cites in this latter post consists mostly of the fact that the Christian Peacemaker Teams have never harmed Moslems and have sometimes offended Israelis. The argument is that it would therefore make no sense for Moslems to kidnap them. The thing is, though, that lots of things that really happen "make no sense". The attack on the World Trade Center "made no sense" from one point of view, and it too has sometimes been blamed by conspiracy theorists on Israel, notwithstanding that Osama Bin Laden seems pretty proud of taking the credit for himself.

No reasonable person thinks that serious and devout well-informed Moslems deliberately kidnapped the Christian Peacemakers. I have been very moved by and grateful to many people in the Islamic world who have appealed for release of the captives. Israelis, however, are not very likely alternative candidates for the villain-role in this story.

Who are the kidnappers? The so-called Swords of Righteousness Brigade may be misguided would-be Moslems (either Sunni or Shiite or other), or Moslems ill-informed about their own faith, or Moslems ill-informed about the Christian Peacemakers and their work. Or they may not be Moslems at all. They may simply be common criminals who took advantage of the breakdown of law and order in Iraq (created by the invasion and occupation) to kidnap some people who looked like they might be useable in collecting ransom monehy from their fellow Westerners. The fact that the CPTers, as pacifists, refused military protection probably made them fairly easy targets.

As long as we don't really know, it would seem the better part of wisdom to not assume. And in view of the long history of "blood libels" (not to mention pogroms and genocide) directed against Jews and crusades directed against Moslems, I think it is particularly important for the friends of these peacemaking Christians not to start throwing reckless accusations at either of those other traditions.

I also want to state (though I wish I could assume that it's a given) that I don't think Israel should be any more immune to critiques and denunciations for specific actions than any other state. I do not equate opposition to particular Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. I do feel, however, that unsupported inflammatory accusations are a different matter.

Read full article here...

Jesus Christ Forbids War - A Tract by John Edminster

I have been meaning for some time to add the following link to the sidebar of my blog. I think it deserves wide notice and comment. The author, John Edminster, is a Friend in my Meeting and in many ways I feel him to be a soul-mate. I hope that Friends profit from reading his tract.

The Tract is: Jesus Christ Forbids War

- - Rich Accetta-Evans

P.S. The above post has been updated with a different URL for the text of John Edminster's tract than the one I originally provided. From this "new" URL it is possible not only to view the tract but to download it as a PDF or WORD document. John tells me that the email address given on the site is outdated and will be corrected. He can now be reached at john.edminster@gmail.com instead of the yahoo address formerly given.

Read full article here...

Sign Petition for the Captive Peacemakers

At the risk of duplicating messages posted elsewhere, I draw your attention to a website where you can sign a petition for the freedom of four peacemakers abducted in Iraq and also read other suggestions on how you might help.

The website is Free The Captives Now

Read full article here...

hmmmm!

A New York Times Article by Damien Cave today said, in part:

Responding to reports about widespread abuses of the rules for recruitment, Army officials said yesterday that they would suspend all recruiting on May 20 and use the day to retrain its personnel in military ethics and the laws that govern what can and cannot be done to enlist an applicant. ...
Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the recruiting command at its headquarters in Fort Knox, Ky, ... said the Army would re-introduce recruiters to legal recruiting practices and the rules that prohibit them from lying to applicants or hiding information from the military that could make them ineligible to serve. He said the focus of the day would also be on reminding recruiters to take advantage of counseling services that might alleviate stress brought on by long workdays and the repeated rejection of their appeals by prospects.

Read full article here...