Love your enemies: Beginning a reflection on the Sermon on the Mount
Print Friendly Version| On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. | Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2007 |
| Vol. 1, No. 9 |
The bad news is so overwhelming these days, it's hard to find any good news. But the Gospel provides it in abundance in the life and teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, his great manifesto of revolutionary nonviolence. Every June, we hear excerpts from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, in the daily readings. If I had any say, I would create a "Sermon on the Mount" Sunday and have the entire text read out loud at every Mass. In an effort to promote some good news, I thought I'd offer a kind of summer series on the Sermon on the Mount, as a way to stay focused on the nonviolent Jesus and his vision.
Mahatma Gandhi read from it twice a day for the last 40 years of his life -- and he was not even a Christian. He considered these texts the greatest writings on nonviolence in the history of the world. Since he wanted to become a person of nonviolence, he treated these teachings as a basic primer, as the catechism of nonviolence. I want to do the same.
I've already written about the Beatitudes, and thought I'd jump around and start with the centerpiece, the climactic highpoint, the sixth of six antitheses ("You have heard it said, but I say to you…."), the great commandment: "Love your enemies."
We can never talk about this commandment enough. For me, it sums up Christianity. If we do this, we will obey Jesus fully, because it encompasses everything -- reflecting God's universal love, working for disarmament, seeking justice for the poor, practicing forgiveness, living in hope and trusting in the God of peace. I've long considered it the most radical, political, revolutionary words ever uttered. And by and large, for the last thousand years at least, we've done our best to avoid them and disobey them.
Why? Because they go against everything every nation teaches. Perhaps because we are afraid; we don't believe God will protect us. The whole world is based on the commandment: hate your enemies, punish your enemies, kill your enemies. Jesus reverses the entire nation/state system. He invites us not to hate, punish or kill anyone, especially those targeted by our nation/state. Needless to say, this means, he would want us to love, not kill, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Colombia, Haiti, Russia, and any other people the U.S. military has targeted.
| |||
The text uses the Greek word "agape." Unlike any word in the English language, "agape" calls for deliberate, unconditional, non-retaliatory, sacrificial, all-encompassing, all-inclusive, nonviolent universal love, a love which lays down our lives for others, in this case, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Jesus commands us to practice the unconditional love of God, to show, for example, "agape" to the people of Iraq. He wants us to stop killing one another, stop waging war, stop building and maintaining nuclear weapons, and stop our country from killing people. It is not enough for us not to kill; we have to stop our country from killing others. He wants us to reach beyond our borders to embrace everyone as a sister and brother, to make sure they have the fullness of life and love, to live in peace with everyone.
Jesus was not preaching hopeless idealism. He advocated a wise strategy for living in peace. "Love for enemies is the key to the solution of the problems of our world," Dr. King wrote. "Jesus is not an impractical idealist; he is the practical realist. Our responsibility as Christians is to discover the meaning of this command and seek passionately to live it out." Nelson Mandela put it this way: "I have never yet met an enemy whom I did not try to turn into a friend."
I've never understood why Christians do not take this commandment seriously. We Catholics believe in transubstantiation, and never question that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. We eagerly obey the command, "Do this in memory of me." But love our enemies? When I raise this commandment, the general response I get is: "Are you nuts?" When will we believe in the transformation of enemies into friends?
What's so shocking is that Jesus commands us to love our enemies not just because it's right; not just because it's moral; and not because it's the only practical solution; but because God loves God's enemies. This is the nature of God. Jesus wants us to be "sons and daughters of your God in heaven, for God makes God's sun rise on the bad and on the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and on the unjust.
I don't understand how Jesuit and Catholic colleges maintain ROTC programs, for example, where students pledge to "destroy the enemies of the United States." For that matter, I don't see how anyone can claim to follow Jesus and be a member of the U.S. Army, Navy or Air Force.
But this is an old argument. St. Augustine wrote long ago that sometimes the best way to love your enemies is to kill them. I think St. Augustine was wrong. He dismisses the teachings of Jesus with one sentence, and was widely praised for his insight. His comment gave birth to the just war theory. But I say: You cannot love your enemies by preparing or threatening to kill them, much less actually killing them.
Jesus forbids killing. His universal love outlaws violence. He never justifies war. He oppose every military, every weapon, every intent to kill. So from now on, we oppose Bush's war on Iraq, the Pentagon's imperial military bases, and nuclear weapons at Los Alamos and Livermore Labs because we are sons and daughters of the God of peace. We are people who love our enemies.
This is precisely what my friends in Australia have been doing. The Pine Gap Four were recently found guilty of trespassing at the U.S. military base in the remote northern territories, but thankfully not sentenced to prison (see www.pinegapontrial.blogspot.com). Others, including my friends Carole Powell of Brisbane and Simon Moyle of Melbourne, trespassed last week during the U.S. military exercises off the Northeast coast and face trial in August. (And by the way, my friend Jarrod McKenna of Perth turned me on to a great new book, Living the Sermon on the Mount" by Glen Stassen, that I highly recommend.)
Imagine if every priest and bishop spoke out with love for our enemies, like Daniel Berrigan? Imagine if every Catholic traveled abroad to targeted places like Iraq and Iran to love our enemies, like Kathy Kelly? The question is: Dare we practice such love? How do we love our enemies? How do we stop our government from killing them? If we are to obey Jesus, we need to move this reflection from abstract theory to concrete action.
Once we start loving our enemies, government officials, soldiers and patriotic citizens will persecute us. That's a sign that we've begun to obey Jesus. That's why, I think, Jesus immediately follows this commandment with a second about prayer. We are told to pray, not for ourselves, not even for our enemies, but for our persecutors -- for those people who are mad at us for loving the people of Iraq, for those who harass us, punish us, even arrest us. And so, as Sermon on the Mount people, we try to love the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and pray for those who oppose our universal love.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
John Dear's new book, "Transfiguration," (Doubleday) is available from www.amazon.com. His antiwar trial has been postponed until Sept. 6. Next month, he will be on a speaking tour of England and Scotland. For information, see: www.johndear.org.
This needs clarification:
This needs clarification: "What's so shocking is that Jesus commands us to love our enemies not just because it's right; not just because it's moral; and not because it's the only practical solution; but because God loves God's enemies." God loves our enemies, we know. Who are God's enemies? Satan and his followers? ...or is this an error?
I don't know what to say
I don't know what to say anymore.
Several years ago I lead a Lenten discussion in my parish that was put together by Pax Christi. It was based on the Sermon on the Mount also. I was struck when I read the full passage regarding turning the other cheek. Not only did Jesus seem to say that we must turn the other cheek, but we are not to resist injury. This is a powerful statement.
I don't know if Jesus was God or some very conscientious person. If we believe that Jesus was God and that the Gospels are accurate then we can not make excuses for not following Jesus' teachings. We can not ssy Jesus was Utopian and impractical because he would have known known the "mind" or anima of God. If we say that Jesus died to atone for our sins, how are we any different from any other historical religion that has accounts of their God-son doing the same thing that Jesus did, e.g. being born of a single mother, concieved by a god, and being killed?
I don't know any person who knows if Jesus was the second person of the Trinity. I don't believe that any of the popes know either. This is why we call Christianity faith. We can believe that Jesus was God, but believing, or not doesn't make is so.
It is easier to say that Jesus died to atone for the sins that I will commit than to put the responsibility of living as Jesus calls me to live. Perhaps Jesus forgives me of my sins at confession, Maybe I need to believe that in order to be a Christian I need to take everything that the gospels say without question, or leave the community of the church s that the churh will not need to support me for the times when I think of myself before others, when I put my convenience ahead of those who need my help.
As a follower of Jesus, the Christ, I can't accept that God wanted his Son to be treated the way that he was treated by his brothers and sisters. If Jesus was not God, his actions say more to me than God could have said. If Jesus was any person of the triune God, his accepting death doesn't impress me at all. Jesus would not have been hurt by anything done to him.
Peae to all, no exceptions.
I agree that Christianity
I agree that Christianity does have similarities in the redeemer element to other, earlier traditions, but Christ lived in our relatively recent historical era, in the time of the great Roman historians, including Josephus, the renowned Jewish Roman historian. These writers made multiple references to the arrival of the new belief system as it arrived, just after Christ's crucifixion. Very few people really doubt that Christ was an historical figure, and the names of the figures he dealt with in his life, such as Pontius Pilate, are historically accurate.
Someone remarked to me once how strange it is that some doubt the veracity of the Gospel and other concurrent writings, saying they're just fables from antiquity, but these same people never doubt anything they've ever read about Julius Caesar, who was a near contemporary, and whose life was recorded at the same time.
Jesus made so many references in the Gospel to his imminent, inevitable death that is impossible to list them all. He repeatedly tried to warn his followers of the terrible fate that awaited him... he never let himself waver from his belief in God's plan, although he was fully human as well and knew he would suffer so terribly physically on the cross, just as any of us would.
I agree that knowing Jesus died for all our sins does not absolve us from following his teachings, although many Christians seem to believe it does.
I would never want to toss anyone out of the Church for not believing all that is in the Bible, or certainly in the Magisterium of the Church... but the Gospel is all we have to go on. These are the first-hand accounts of those who were there or lived just after Christ's death, and the Gospels are remarkably similar in their recountings of his life.
As far as Jesus believing he was the Son of God is concerned, he never said so in exactly those words but he did say "I am" in the way Hebrew or Aramaic-speaking peoples referenced God, and he said it multiple times, including at his trial. He clearly knew that He was, and if that's what He believed, I do as well.
Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Tremendous article, John.
Tremendous article, John. I'll be quoting large chunks of it.
Mine is not a new point, but your post reminded me of a remark by a free-floating Christian friend in the mid 1980s. She asked us Catholics, "But since the Pope has consecrated Russia to Mary, how can you threaten to nuke them?"
In the personal sphere even wanting to love one's enemies is a high hurdle, and needs abundant grace, but once God lifts us to that point, the freedom is vast and the view is wonderful! So sorry I cannot be at the Swanwick conference next month.
Englishwoman
Father Dear, I read
Father Dear,
I read your article with great interest. More than two years ago when I had to preach on the text at a Sunday Mass that included "Love your enemies," it struck me as it never had before. Ever since then, I keep challenging myself whenever I find myself developing some strong feelings about a person and realize I can be strong about his or her stance but I must love and respect that person, for God looks upon that one with love. It is a constant challenge. I also tend to preach about "who is my neighbor" whenever the occasion arises, which is frequent. I do it in various ways so that I'm not repetitive but I do it. My neighbor is anyone in need and even my enemy!
I also have reflected on how Jesus lived what he taught, during his Passion and death. He was slapped and scourged and tortured with thorns but did not strike back. He "turned the other cheek." He didn't "come down off that cross" and save himself but rather absorbed the violence directed at him. It was in this obedience that he conquered sin and death. God raised him on high because he loved as God loved. He truly was the Word of God.
I look forward to your following articles on the Sermon on the Mount.
Chris Promis,C.S.Sp.
What's so shocking is that
What's so shocking is that Jesus commands us to love our enemies not just because it's right; not just because it's moral; and not because it's the only practical solution; but because God loves God's enemies.
I think this is exactly right.
And we can see it in Christ's own actions.
In refusing to call down the heavenly fire on those cities which rejected him.
Inviting Judas to the last supper, when Christ knew Judas had already agreed to betray him. And giving Judas his own body and blood.
In refusing to be defended with St Peter's sword and in healing the servant St Peter wounded. In refusing to deploy the 12 legions of angels at his disposal.
In submitting to torture. In carrying his cross. In forgiving his enemies as they were crucifying him.
If we compare the sermon on the mount to Christ's own actions we can see that he observed every one of them himself. Literally.
God Bless
This is such a wonderful
This is such a wonderful articulation of the serntiments I have held for years. My attitude has been anti every nation's military, not just USA's. Poeple often categorize me as unpatriotic when I state that I'm antimilitary, assuming I don't like America. It is however extremly difficult to be patriotic to a country which has gunned down, bombed and destroyed so much of God's precious creation. mimi jay
Reference: "I don't
Reference: "I don't understand how Jesuit and Catholic colleges maintain ROTC programs, for example, where students pledge to "destroy the enemies of the United States." For that matter, I don't see how anyone can claim to follow Jesus and be a member of the U.S. Army, Navy or Air Force."
I think this is a troubling statement that betrays a deeply misguided view of what the US military and the ROTC program are. I have served in both (indeed graduated from an ROTC program at a Jesuit college). ROTC students do not pledge to 'destroy the enemies' of the US. They (and all US military) pledge to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies'. There is a profound difference which I hope Dear can appreciate.
In addition, ROTC has an enormous benefit to society in that it is primarily about training young people to be leaders. The framework of that training in the ROTC program is the military, but the skills it focuses on -- self-discipline, personal, physical and moral courage, self-sacrifice, and above all service -- are completely consonant with the Catholic and, I would think, Jesuit mission, and the program's graduates go on to serve society in many many non-violent, non-military ways.
I agree of course a non-violent world where the military was not necessary would be ideal, but the reality of our fallen state is that evil exists and seeks to destroy good (or corrupt it).
"But this is an old argument. St. Augustine wrote long ago that sometimes the best way to love your enemies is to kill them. I think St. Augustine was wrong. He dismisses the teachings of Jesus with one sentence, and was widely praised for his insight. His comment gave birth to the just war theory. But I say: You cannot love your enemies by preparing or threatening to kill them, much less actually killing them."
Again this is a shortsighted position -- the fact of the successful conclusion of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet imperialism clearly shows that being prepared to defend oneself can indeed be a way of loving your enemy in that it ultimately deters them from action that would condemn them, and provokes them to change. I am not for one minute arguing that everything is great now, nor am I oblivious to the fact that the 'defenders' themselves must guard against the corruption of evil (pace Tolkien and the peril of using the Ring intending to do good), but to rule out completely the value of being prepared to defend oneself as a means of modifying your enemy's behavior for the better is not I think made imperative by the Gospel.
I agree Christ's message is a hard one (as indeed are some many very contradictory messages of the OT, which clearly offer a different aspect of God's perspective on the issue). I devoutly hope and pray for a day when the lion and the lamb lay down together and the swords become plowshares. We all (yes, including the average member of the US military, perhaps them even more so than others) look forward to and work toward that day in our way. But to surrender ourselves to destruction in the interim is not something I think Scripture makes our exclusive option. Being prepared to defend oneself, as a deterrent to one's enemies, is an equally valid form of 'passive resistance' and one I think is completely within Christian and Catholic teaching.
RM