Should we hate those who hate us?

This weekend I was at a conference (I will blog about this later) and I saw a magnet with the following saying by the Dalai Lama:
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive."


Later I started to reflect on how hard it is for us to have love and compassion for those who hate us; it is one thing to have compassion for those who ask for compassion and quite another to have compassion for those who hate us, those who want to harm us, or those who want to kill us.

I thought for example about the people that gave their testomonies to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in the mid 1990's after Apartheid. The stories of discrimination, brutality, human rights violations, etc, given by people from all parts of South African society were heartbreaking. The legacy of abuses, hate, and suffering contained in the stories told during those hearings left many to wonder: would the country be able to move forward from this? Could people forgive those who did these things to them?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (one of the major figures against Apartheid) and who was named chair of the the Truth and Reconciliaiton Comission once said:
"Don't look for somebody else to be the one who is going to do the reconciliation," he urged his fellow South Africans. "Each South African is going to have to say, 'What is the contribution I am going to be making to what will be a national project?"


Tutu understood this and so does his friend the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama could tell people to hate the Chinese for opressing Tibet, but he never has. And this brings me back to the quote I saw this weekend:
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive."
I truly believe that this is something that not only Christians like Desmond Tutu and Buddhists like the Dalai Lama can understand, but also every human being in this planet.

Once in regards to the situation of Tibet, the Dalai Lama was asked the following question:
How can you not feel hatred against those who seek to annihilate you?
Notice the question...it is not about those who hated him, or who wanted to harm him but those who wanted to annihilate him.

He responded by saying that the question not only applies to him but also to the 'other'; he said that we need to think of the connection between the one that is causing harm and his victims. Then he added the following:
"I am going to give you a concrete example. In India I recently met up with a man I had known a long ago, the abbot of a monastery who spent twenty years of his life in prison and in labor camps in Tibet. While we were speaking together he declared to me that during the entire time of his imprisonment in Chinese jails the greatest danger he had encountered was that of losing his compassion for the Chinese."


I can only hope and pray that if I ever find myself in a similar situation, that I may touch the source of strength and love that would allow me to never loose compassion for those who would do the same to me...that would  allow me not to hate, but to feel compassion.

-Mario

100 politicians walk into a bar...

"But what is more divine, I will not say in man only, but in all heaven and earth, than reason? And reason, when it is full grown and perfected, is rightly called wisdom."
(Cicero)

"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."
(Gospel according to Matthew)

As I look at the last couple of weeks and I see our political leaders dealing with the current financial situation, including how to resolve the issue of the "debt ceiling", one reaction from a friend of mine was this: "this is a joke!" I can't blame him for feeling this way.

To me it is truly shocking how in politics the lives of human beings take a back seat to "being right" and defending the "truth". It is equally shocking how being inflexible is praised as being strong, but compromise or the idea of compromise is attacked (by politicians and political groups) as a sign of weakness, of not "sticking to your principles" or not "standing your ground".

Yes, sometimes to "stand our ground" is very important. But there is a difference between that and being inflexible. And while it is true that sometimes compromise can lead to negative consequences, it is also true that compromise can be a sign of strength, lead to great things and even more: sometimes it is the only thing to do. Sometimes compromise can also be part of the "truth" and of "being right". In moments like these in order to reach a compromise we need: reason, wisdom, and compassion.

It is my hope, that while in public our political leaders engage in threats, personal attacks and ultimatums, in private there will be a few voices of reason, wisdom and compassion to lead the way and come to a solution. When the numbers, financial analyses, studies, and predictions are done (along with the political threats, personal attacks and ultimatums) it still goes back to what this is all about: the choices made will affect the lives of human beings.

In the meantime, humor can be a way to remind ourselves that sometimes we have to step back, think, smile, and try again. And you know what, sometimes our political leaders can be the source of that humor. Two people in particular (former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld) gave us many "wonderful" moments of humor in our political history. It does not have to follow the model of '100 politicians walk into a bar' (of course feel free to share a few of those). Politicians like them are masters of language and the how to use language to their advantage, specially when it comes to answering questions. And whey they do we are left thinking "I cannot believe he said that!" or just a plain "What???" Then, I have two of many possible choices: throwing my remote control against the television, or to laugh...and I think is better to laugh instead of buying a new television.

Here for now is one moment from years ago by Senator Joe McCarthy (when he was claiming that one government official was a Communist) and as you read it may I also ask all of you philosophy and logic enthusiasts (including Monty Python fans), what do you think of this:

"I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections."

The tragedy of the "Crusades", and what can we learn from it....

Out of thought that we Christians would have been the last people who could gloatingly accuse another faith of nurturing violence, given our often so gory history. We should be hanging our heads in shame and contrition when we think of the Crusades, of so-called heretics being burned at the stake, or more recently Christians giving the world the Nazi Holocaust. Christians who supported Apartheid in South Africa, as being justified biblically. Or who were at each others throats in Northern Ireland, who committed horrendous atrocities in Rwanda and in Bosnia. No, we certainly should not gloat or think we are morally superior to those of other faiths.

(Archbishop Desmond Tutu)

As I was reading online reactions to "Campus Crusade for Christ" (an Evangelical campus ministry in many colleges) officially changing their name to "Cru", it reminded me of one of many 'elephants in the room' that Christians like myself have to deal with, including certain parts in our history and the words associated with it. In this particular case: the "Crusades".

This is from an article in the Washington Post, as Steve Sellers (VP for Campus Crusade for Christ) talked about the change:

“It’s become a flash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people across the world, especially in the Middle East,” said Steve Sellers, vice president for the U.S. for Campus Crusade for Christ, as reported by Christianity Today “In the ‘50s, crusade was the evangelistic term in the United States. Over time, different words take on different meanings to different groups.”

Indeed, "Crusade" in 2011 is a word that for many people (Christian and non-Christian) has a lot of negative connotation. I remember reading the excellent "Fear and Trembling" by Kierkegaard and feeling very uneasy with a term that he uses in the book. The term (again, to me) reminded me of the "Crusades": the 'knight of faith'.  (I should note that I do not believe that Kierkegaard was thinking of the "Crusades" when he talks about the 'knight of faith'; that connection was entirely of my own doing.)

In a very interesting article on the website Patheos, Dr. Timothy Dalrymple (philosopher/scholar of religious thought that I read regularly to get a serious, honest and intellectually solid Evangelical perspective) was interviewing Dr. Rodney Stark. Stark is a a sociologist and historian of religion and he was answering some questions about his latest book God's Battalions: the Case for the Crusades.

While I agree and disagree with some parts and responses given in the interview, I found it (on the whole) to be an honest discussion about the Crusades. However I got the feeling (and I know I could be mistaken) that in the end the "case for the Crusades" failed. Of course, that judgment is only based on reading the article and I would hate to fully judge the book without reading it.

Before I say anything else, I must give credit where credit is due: Dr. Stark was very clear that:

"What is overlooked about the Crusaders, and the knights and nobility of the 10th century and thereabouts, is that they were very bloody-minded. They had been raised since infancy to devote themselves to fighting." There was also an analysis of the historical background before the Crusades and other points, including the expansion of the Muslim empire and the effects of that expansion.

But then came this question regarding the sack of Constantinople that in the words of Dr. Dalrymple is taken as a classic example of the irrationality and ultra-violence of the Crusaders... In this I believe he is correct and then states the following question: 

"What of the sacking of Constantinople, when western Christians who had set out to reclaim the Holy Land decided instead to attack eastern Christians?" 

This was an excellent question and one I asked myself many times. If the Crusades were supposed to be about Christians reclaming the "Holy Land" from Muslims, then why did they sack the Christian city of Constantinople? Yes, they were Eastern Christians instead of Western Christians but they were Christians, and not Muslims.

Here is the full response:

"It seems to be pretty clear that, through about four crusades, the Byzantines had betrayed the westerners. In the First Crusade, they were supposed to send their army along, and they did not. They were supposed to supply the knights, and they did not. They tried to make separate peace agreements, which was virtually treasonous. This went on and on and on.

Eventually, the knights from the west, having backed a faction of the Byzantines, found themselves having been betrayed again and starving outside of Constantinople. So they sacked the city. It's a wonder they didn't do it sooner."

As we look at our past, it is important to try to understand why as human beings we did this or that. I applaud that Dr. Stark wants to give an honest take on the Crusades. But this explanation....well, it made me very sad since it made me recall a conversation I had a couple of years ago with an Eastern Orthodox priest.

The priest (who from other conversations with him makes me think that he would agree with a lot of what Dr Stark said in the interview) has heard similar explanations to the sack of Constantinople before and, every time he hears them it makes him sad, mad and furious, specially when those explanations come from other Christians. And more to the point, the talks between us happened in the comfort of his parish in 21st century America, far removed from the events of the Crusades. I believe that if an Eastern Orthodox priest back in Constantinople after the city was sacked and, as he was seeing the bodies, the crying, the suffering and the destruction caused by the Crusaders would have heard a response like that...well, I think he would be sad, mad and furious to say the least if he was sitting here with us reading the article. Then I also think "what of the people of the city?" Would they accept this 21st century explanation?

When I look at events from the past, I try my best (sometimes I fail) to remember that history goes beyond words in a book. Real people of flesh and bones have, are, and will, be part of history. When it comes to events in history that involves Christians and/or Christianity, we as Christians have to be extra careful. When Archbishop Tutu tells us that as Christians we should be hanging our heads in shame and contrition when we think of the Crusades is not I believe to say that all Christians are evil or that Christianity itself is evil; that is a discussion that I have many times with Christians and non-Christians. No, I do not believe that. I believe what he (and I agree with him) understands is that when people that call themselves Christians commit horrible acts then, before we say anything the first thing we should say is: "that was a horrible act, and that horrible act caused suffering." Then I believe, we can continue to talk about it.

So what can we learn from the tragedy of the "Crusades" (and we must include everyone involved) as we move from one day to the next day? In the 21st century, we are less likely to repeat acts like the sack of Constantinople. Yet history has taught us that just like human beings are capable of doing wonderful and great acts in the name of Christianity and religion (fighting slavery for example) the same human beings are also capable of doing horrible and terrible acts in the name of the same Christianity and religion (supporting slavery as another tragic example). The legacy of Christianity (and I am part of it as a Christian) is full of both wonderful and terrible acts.

I hope that I misunderstood the answer given by Dr. Stark. But the following is clear:

Yes, it was war.

Yes, both sides (Christians and Muslims) did horrible acts.

Yes, there was animosity between Eastern and Western Christians and there were many reasons for this.

Yes, the Crusaders outside of Constantinople were starving.

But, in the end it was not these things that sacked Constantinople but human beings...human beings wearing the sign of the cross and acting with their freewill did. 

The same can be said for human beings who considered themselves Christians and caused the Holocaust, and this included the Christian theologians and Christian ministers that provided reasons to support the Nazi regime. (Note: I should also point out that other Christian theologians and Christian ministers, for example Dietrich Bonhoeffer, fought against the Nazi regime and paid with their lives for doing so.)

I wonder how many Crusaders had to go back home later and struggle with the memory of that act, how it changed them...I wonder how that same act changed the lives of the people that were left...