Garrett South Miroslav Volf October 2, 2011 Dr.

David Holt Exclusion or Embrace "Men never do evil so completely and joyfully as when they do it from religious conviction (Pascal). Miroslav Volf affirms this idea through Nietzsche who said, The harm the good to is the most harmful harm (pg. 61). All too often individuals or groups of people justify acts of violence and hatred under the banner of doing it for God, or Allah, or any other deity. If that is the case (which in many cases it seems to be) then there is not very much that any religion can say to constructively negate the ill effects of conflict without sounding hypocritical and self-serving. Christianity especially so, in light of the many atrocities humans have executed in the name of God throughout its history. Christianity only seems

hypocritical when it says in the Gospels to love your enemies when within the very same book God smites entire civilizations and when Christians killed thousands of people during the crusades. Is it possible that anything good, anything worth listening to, or any wisdom come from a religion that speaks of love yet has, self professed, Christian individuals who behave hatefully towards people of African descent or those who are of a different sexual orientation and incite hate in the people around them and the people who they are acting out against? One could venture to argue, however, that these hateful Christians are not necessarily Christians as God intends. Two verses immediately spring to mind when reflecting

on the cruel history of Christianity juxtaposed with the ideal and the truth of biblical conviction, both of which come from the Gospel of Matthew; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22.37-40). And; do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7.12). All too often, it seems, Christians take the teachings of Jesus and pick and choose which ones suit them best. In the Gospel of Luke these words are uttered from Jesus own lips, But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me (19.27). This picking and choosing of lessons to apply can cause great problems in representing the Gospel of Christ, it strips the ability of these verses to speak truth when taken out of context. In the fifth chapter of Matthew Jesus says, You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (43-44). If one were to accept the first half of this statement and dismiss the rest, things would be very problematic, and if you were to dismiss the first part and only accept the second, things would be all right but there would be no context, it might seem purposeless. Not only that but seemingly impossible.

In situations of conflict, as with everything else in life, people have choices to make. These decisions are no easy task and can determine the course of events indefinitely. Despite conflict being in its nature a complexity of emotions and agendas it seems as though there are two camps to choose from, at least according to Miroslav Volf, and those would be the camp of exclusion and the camp of embrace. Conflict can be in any form for this to apply, ranging from mass conflict such as war to conflict on a smaller scale such as a friendship. Most would agree that embrace is the place that is more favorable to camp in. Unfortunately, as with presidents Abbas and Netanyahu, this is easier to talk about than to do. Talking about peace and challenging each other to peace is all well and good until immovable demands are set on the table of diplomacy. In Exclusion and Embrace, Miroslav Volf describes working towards peace as creating space for the other (pg. 125) within the self whether the other is considered the victim or the victimizer. The desire for peace on behalf of both the Palestinians and the Israelis seems to be half-hearted at best. In fact it would seem that exclusion is the easiest (and seems to be the most logical) choice to make. If someone or something is effectuating harm against party or parties dear to you the first reaction (and most natural it could be ventured) it to push it away, get it out of proximity so that it cannot harm any longer and this pushing away is often done through violence. This results in the

perpetuation of conflict, much of the time more harm is caused than good. It makes logical sense for the army to go in and kill enemy insurgents who would otherwise shoot missiles into your village or set off a bomb in a populated market. It is selfdefense in a way. The question remains however, why do they need to be your

enemies? The Arab Israeli conflict is no different than any other conflict in that the two sides must make some big decisions, whether to exclude the other or to embrace the other. The two people groups are, at times, at violent odds with one another and can never seem to see eye to eye. It has been said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity and the Israelis dont really want peace they just say that they do. In times of conflict it is much easier to fall in to the camp of exclusion than embrace. Exclusion is self-serving and is exercised out of a place of fear. The Palestinian and Israeli Jews seem to be unbending in

demands, both claiming ownership of the land and therefore delegitimizing any ownership whatsoever. An attack from either side breeds the desire for revenge and then revenge again and again and again, it is a vicious cycle. In instances of conflict, when all that people want to do is fight fire with fire, they can turn to the Christian faith to help them realize embrace. In order to confirm and affirm what Christianity does have to offer to those in conflict, one must first point out everything that it does not or cannot pertain to. First of all, on a political level, Christianity has nothing constructive to say in regards to earning peace. The reason for this is that Christianity is not a political religion, it never has been. There are Christians in politics but Christianity is not meant to be political. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for

they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them (1 Samuel 8.6-7). Because Christianity is to be a theocracy not a democracy or any other political system there is not much that it can speak to on that level and in those regards. When speaking to masses of people or to culture, Christianity has nothing to say in regards to the acquisition of peace as opposed to violence. Churches, the presumed agents of reconciliation, are at best impotent and at worst accomplices in the strife (Volf, pg. 36). All too often the church promotes the culture surrounding it instead of true reconciliatory strides towards peace. And when they do give that proper encouragement it sounds superficial and insincere. There is nothing to say about economics either. Most economists would probably disagree with giving away ten percent of your earnings unless the rate of return is at least fifteen percent. Why would someone spend money to make nothing? To get no material benefit? It just doesnt make sense. And in situations of conflict does it really make sense to help out the enemy? Sending even humanitarian aid would only help their side and end up biting us in the butt. Really there is nothing that Christianity has to offer that is a viable option in any situation that reason cannot offer as well, but for one group. What Christianity has to offer, an offer that is feasible and constructive to people in conflict, is only to the individual. Liberation [comes] through confession when we have made this first difficult step of repentance we have travelled a good distance on the road to reconciliation. The next step is forgiveness (Volf, 120). Confession is not a group thing. It can be done in a group but it is not something that groups of people can do.

Confession is an individuals journey. No one can confess something for another individual or a group. That person or persons could tell about the things someone else has done but at that point it is just a story that may or may not be true. Confession is something deeply personal. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed (James 5.16). If the Israelis truly want to work towards peace it is going to require the people of Israel to come to grips with their own prejudices and confess them, then move on. The same is true of the Palestinians, all of the pent up anger and frustration needs to turn into remorseful confession. This would be a very productive step in the right direction. Forgiveness is the same; people cannot forgive others for others. It is not true forgiveness then. Forgiveness is a choice for the individual to decide on and it is not an easy one. Just as it is the individual who chooses to exclude or engage in conflict (though it can be encouraged by others) so also is it the individual who chooses embrace, who chooses confession and forgiveness. This is the person who shines the light on the darkness and is an encouragement to everyone around him to follow suit. The hope in Christianity really is an individual hope. It was the individual work of Christ on the cross and his ascension thereafter that freed humanity from the bondage to their sins. During His life Jesus worked in the livers of individuals to effect change first in them and then they were to go out and change individuals themselves. Christianity is a relational religion; it is meant to be practiced in community, in fellowship with the rest of Gods creation, not just other Christians. Showing love to everyone is the most important thing that a Christian can do (that

anyone can do), love with patience and kindness. Make it not envious or boastful, it should not be arrogant or rude. Love is not self-fulfilling, nor does it get irritated or become resenting (1 Corinthians 13.4-6). Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Corinthians 13.7). True reconciliation comes out of a place of love, where you create space for the other. Interestingly Jesus make a point of expressing the importance of loving you enemies in Luke, If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them (verse 32). This verse is very humbling it humanizes the enemy. The enemy has a family too, the enemy has people who love him and would not want harm to come to him, just as you dont want harm to befall your loved ones. That is not to say that we should not be angry about the immorality and evil of violence and conflict but we must be careful as, Rightful moral outrage [can] mutate[] into selfdeceiving moral smugness (Volf, pg. 58). One must not view themselves as

superior to anyone else, therefore justifying to themselves whatever course of action they so choose, but instead should live out humility and grace for everyone. Justice for wrongs committed is often just revenge. Volf speaks on this issue the struggle against oppression must be guided by a vision of reconciliation between oppressed and oppressors, otherwise it will end in justice-with-role-reversal (pg. 109). Reversing roles of victim and victimizer seems great to whoever isnt being oppressed but it doesnt actually solve anything, it perpetuates a cycle of retaliation and feelings of animosity on all sides of the situation. Christianity does have important things to say giving answers to the question of embrace, of reconciliation, of love, of peace. The principles of the Christian faith

do not need to only be applied by Christians; their inherent value applies to all of humanity regardless of age, color, culture, or creed. It is very hard to put embrace, creating space for others (especially our enemies), into practice even as a Christian. It is the continuous effort and practice of turning the cheek (Matthew 5.39) that gains the beautiful reward of peace between neighbors, peace between what once may have been enemies. If everyone is a friend what enemies could you have? Jesus Christ was the only perfect example of self-giving love and embrace of the other. Looking to others or to human wisdom and understanding is fruitless and gains no real results. Christianity, specifically Jesus Christ, is the only answer to the question of peace. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (Matthew 5.9).

References Des Hommes Et Des Dieux. Dir. Xavier Beauvois. Perf. Lambert Wilson, Michael Lonsdale and Olivier Rabourdin. Why Not Productions, Armada Films, France 3 Cinma, 2010. MP4. English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001. Print. Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: a Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Print.