21
2009
Friendship as Defence
An article by 
The following is taken from an op-ed piece in the New York Times written by Bono. I was made aware of it by Rich Johnson, through Twitter. You can follow Rich here.
A few weeks ago I was in Washington when news arrived of proposed cuts to the president’s aid budget. People said that it was going to be hard to fulfill promises to those who live in dire circumstances such a long way away when there is so much hardship in the United States. And there is.
But I read recently that Americans are taking up public service in greater numbers because they are short on money to give. And, following a successful bipartisan Senate vote, word is that Congress will restore the money that had been cut from the aid budget — a refusal to abandon those who would pay such a high price for a crisis not of their making. In the roughest of times, people show who they are.
Your soul.
So much of the discussion today is about value, not values. Aid well spent can be an example of both, values and value for money. Providing AIDS medication to just under four million people, putting in place modest measures to improve maternal health, eradicating killer pests like malaria and rotoviruses — all these provide a leg up on the climb to self-sufficiency, all these can help us make friends in a world quick to enmity. It’s not alms, it’s investment. It’s not charity, it’s justice.
The whole article is stunning and well worth the read – bringing forth the depth of Easter and Lent and relating it current circumstances.
I especially loved this line when talking about aid and development:
all these can help us make friends in a world quick to enmity.
It doesn’t take long to look around and see that the predominant view of dealing with hostilities in the political world is through power and might rather than humility and an extended hand of friendship.
I wrote this after Obama was elected to the presidency of the United States:
Obama’s talk has offered the hope that the U.S might finally have a leader that possibly understands that the best form of defense is not having the biggest weapons and the ability to wipe out anyone who acts in a hostile way, though the readiness to defend ones nation should exist, but lies in fostering positive relations. It is a commonsense awareness that says that those who respect each other and work to foster positive relations even though they may disagree on some things, don’t attack each other. This principle not only works on an individual level but at a state level.
There is an interesting example in the Bible where this form of defence is employed against a group of raiders. 2 Kings chapter 6 tells the story of a group of raiders from Aram harassing Israel. Some extraordinary circumstances take place that leads to the raiders being brought into the presence of the king who asks the prophet if he should kill them all. The response from the prophet is that they should not be killed, but instead a feast should be put on for them. They feasted and then returned to Aram. Verse 23 states that following this event, the raiders didn’t bother Israel again.
This event affirms the encouragement of Proverbs 25:21 and Romans 12:20-21.
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat. And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you. (Proverbs 25:21-22)
But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil. But overcome evil with good. (Romans 12: 20, 21)
The story of the Aramean raiders pushes this beyond simply being a personal and individual encouragement and shows it enacted at a state level.
By extending the hand of friendship, engaging in good foreign aid and development and in some instances, absorbing violence and refusing to continue a violent cycle, the breading grounds for violent action can be reduced.
This is one of the reasons I work for TEAR Fund. I support what it can achieve in this area. We engage in specific peace and reconciliation initiatives but as a minor example of how development can help, think about child sponsorship. Good support and input into a child in the developing world not only reduces and pretty much eliminates the chances that they will end up in a trafficking situation, it also destroys the circumstances that often lead such children to grow up with a developed anger and hostility that makes them ripe for recruitment into organisations that would use violence to avenge whatever grievance they hold.
At an individual level we can live this out amongst those in our immediate sphere – repaying evil with good. We can also live it out as individuals by supporting initiatives that do that around the globe (and there are many to choose from – some better than others). At a state level, governments can play it out by pursuing a different approach with their enemies. What would it look like if a government, rather than employing powerful bravado to intimidate its enemies, sought to do good for them?
Food for thought.
Related Posts
About the Author: Frank Ritchie
Frank is the Education and Advocacy Manager for TEAR Fund NZ. Frank is a licensed Minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand and has a keen interest in biblical perspectives of Justice and how this connects to service to, with and for the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized people of the world.
7 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
TEAR Fund New Zealand
Get Blog Updates Via Email
Recent Comments
- BuffCrIsoff on World’s Poorest Prove to be a Good Credit Risk
- hébergement de site internet on NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee: Report
- hoagsardell on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- Twin Bed Frame on The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
- Kelvin on Rebellious Media Conference
Blogroll
- Aid Watch
- Change.org
- Empire Remixed
- From Poverty to Power
- God's Politics
- Good Intentions are not Enough
- Just Comment
- Just.
- New Internationalist
- Restorative Justice
- Tax Justice Network
- The Distributist Review
- The Green New Deal Group
- The Thoughtful Campaigner
- Truth Dealer
- Wronging Rights
- ZNet – the spirit of resistance lives
They were not killed because Elisha knew the LAW:
2 Kings 6:22 But he answered, “You shall not kill them. Would you kill those whom you have taken captive with your sword and your bow?
Which is probably from something like:
Deuteronomy 20
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.
Using the bible as a source for promoting pacifism is a pretty silly idea…
what a different world we would live in if men lived out this scripture. Christ was radical and has called us to love radically too.
” You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
And if a man comes in with an axe and kills one of your friends are you to hand him the next friend as well?
And if an army invades your lands and pillages one city .. just let them pillage the rest as well?
I say, “No, sir!”.
Jesus spoke to the individual, teaching how to live under proper authority. He did not strip proper authority of it’s right and (and obligation) to act in proper defence.
People have the right (and obligation) to defend and protect their neighbour.
Governments have the right (and obligation) to defend and protect their people.
Or is that too radical a concept for you?
“having the biggest weapons and the ability to wipe out anyone who acts in a hostile way, though the readiness to defend ones nation should exist, but lies in fostering positive relations.”
I think Jesus wouldn’t want us to lie down and take whatever comes as an act of ‘turning the other cheek’. That would be naive. Defence is crucial but I think what he means is, when it comes to our turn for revenge, we don’t have to get up and bomb another country simply to show we are strong. But like Frank says “refusing to continue a violent cycle”. God will vindicate.
Nations do not bomb each other to simply show who is stronger.
Jesus did not prepare a people to lie down and take injustice. He also shared the promise of certain victory in the not too distant future. Jesus was speaking to people under proper authority who could live at peace in spite of a few inconveniences and insults because they might share in the promise of eventual victory.
Bringing up “Turn the other cheek” to define foreign policy is completely useless (though it should not be beyond a government to do so in certain situations).
I disagree that Jesus was speaking to people under proper authority – the Jew at that time were under Roman occupation and certainly did not see them as the ‘proper authority’.
According to law people could be forced to carry soldiers pack for one mile – Jesus telling his listeners that they should go another, even though they did not have to, shows the radial attitude and actions we are called to have even towards those who oppress us. While not denying the right to self defence (personal and national), surely these attitudes can’t be divorced from national policy.
You’re just confused, Christian. Jesus said to obey the authorities. He established that there would be such things and He directed that we follow their rules. You can’t use a story about Jesus instructing people to heed Roman law and then claim that Jesus did not instruct people to follow Roman law.
Of course one can easily understand that Jesus instructing individuals will entail very different things from what Jesus considers good governmental leadership.
Jesus also taught about what His kingdom is going to look like. And, let me tell you, there will not be any “turn the other cheek” to those hostile towards God.
So, yes, Jesus’ words from the mountain can and should be distinguished properly from His words on how a government should act.