Engaging the Enemy

Since September 11, 2001, the concept of security has assumed a new and preeminent role in America. We've come to tolerate searches and investigations and expenditures on Homeland Security projects we never had before -- all ostensibly in the interest of keeping us secure from enemies that are perceived to be threatening us.

Indeed there is plenty to worry about, if we're so inclined. What with potential dangers from suicide bombers and new chemical and biological weapons we can't even imagine, to say nothing of threats like global warming, Social Security deficits, random violence on our streets and now even in our schools, yes, our lives are far from being totally secure from all the possible enemies out there.

Seeking security is a natural concern. But many Americans are convinced that steps taken in response to the September 11 attacks have made us less secure, not more. So how shall we engage our enemies most effectively? What means will best assure our real security?

The Bible has a good bit to say about dealing with enemies, and the three passages we've had in our service this morning offer a variety of approaches. In the familiar words of the 23rd Psalm, which was our Responsive Reading, the Psalmist testifies that his security is assured by God's presence with him -- even to the extent that God provides a dinner-table for him to enjoy safely in the presence of his enemies (Psalm 23:4-5). Most of us, though, may not share the same confidence today. Our 21st century enemies appear somehow more menacing.     

In today's Gospel lesson Jesus' approach to enemies is to seize the initiative: "Love your enemies," he says, "do good to those who hate you, ... pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:27-28). We may have some reservations about that notion too. That message is not at all easy to accept and certainly not easy to put into practice.

Then we heard Apostle Paul's words about dealing with enemies, perhaps even more disturbing. If Jesus' injunction to "Love your enemies" seems a bit vague, Paul comes with a more specific strategy.  In his letter to the Romans he writes: "If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink" (Romans 12:20). More specific, yes -- but at first hearing this strikes us as the wildest of irrelevant fantasies.

"Be serious," we would reply to Paul. In our real world, when people of an enemy nation face starvation, of course, no way would we respond by sending them food and drink -- instead our way is to impose economic sanctions against them -- we want to force them into submission.

1.
But Paul also offers some other instructions in this passage that may seem a little more useful. One simple step: Paul writes, "If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18). That is, have as few enemies as possible. Don't make adversaries unnecessarily.

Now there's a more practical piece of advice. Fewer enemies -- fewer problems. Not everyone with whom you have some difference of opinion needs to become an adversary. And this applies not only to national enemies, but to personal opponents as well.  

This church congregation prides itself on its welcoming spirit -- its "Way of Hospitality" --  its diversity. If really anyone is welcome here, it means that the person next to you in the pew may be very different from you in many ways: in economic status or background or political views or whatever. Those differences, though, are not cause to have a hostile relationship. In no way do they need to prevent us from cooperating with one another on our common concerns. We may have differences, but those differences need not make us adversaries.

"So far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." By this standard, if you have a difference with your neighbor, the first impulse is always to live in peace -- to find some way to live together harmoniously. The same factors that promote positive personal relationships apply also to nations.   

Countries with diverse views and goals can learn to co-exist peaceably despite disagreements. But when the leader of one great nation identifies certain countries in the world as an "axis of evil" and then launches an invasion against one of them, it is hardly surprising if the other so-called evil nations feel hostility. They naturally consider the one who issued that threat an adversary, and so they go on to develop their own threatening strategies.   

"So far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." Labeling anyone an enemy is the very last resort for achieving real security.

2.
A corollary that follows from that simple principle: If you have problems, disagreements with a potential adversary, talk to the adversary, see if somehow you can work things out.

One college which prides itself on the diversity of its student body offers incoming freshmen guidance about living together in the college dormitories. Students are told that if anyone has a complaint against a fellow dorm resident, he or she is to speak to the offender along the lines of, "John, I have a problem with the way you do this or that. Could we meet to talk about it?" -- you play the radio too loud, you complain too much, you take too long in the shower, whatever it may be. "Could we meet to talk about it?" That's an interesting approach to a potential adversary. It's much different from what happens more often: we turn minor problems into deep and hostile divisions -- by trying to retaliate in some way or simply ignoring and avoiding the offender.

Discussing problems with a potential adversary -- understanding the opponent's position -- lays the groundwork for more positive relationships.

3.
So making fewer enemies is one step toward avoiding tension and conflict. And a second step is to enter conversation with a potential adversary to find common ground that we both can live with. But still we have this most annoying instruction from Paul, "If your enemies are hungry, feed them."

In 1980 the "real world" was enmeshed in the so-called "Cold War" -- with the threat of nuclear confrontation between the two super-powers. The arms race was accelerating -- the process of negotiating arms limitations was dead.  New nuclear weapons were being developed in ways that seemed to suggest that the nuclear powers would actually consider using them. The policy for achieving security was called Mutual Assured Destruction -- each side had the capacity to annihilate the other and was prepared to do so if attacked. The policy was popularly known by its acronym MAD, or "mad" -- which is essentially what it was.

In this situation an international group of 17 distinguished political figures was convened called the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. The commission's mandate was to identify new and achievable directions for disarmament -- to find a more positive way to ensure security and to get the world out of its dangerous reliance on Mutual Assured Destruction. The Commission's members represented all parts of the world, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Sweden, Olof Palme.

After a year and a half of intensive work the report of what became known as the Palme Commission was published under the title Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival. The commission's proposal was to replace the doctrine of mutual deterrence with the alternative of what it called common security. They said that security cannot be achieved by any one nation for itself -- by one nation's domination over others; it can be secured only by assuring the security of all. In short, common security means that I am secure only if my adversary is also secure.

Nothing demonstrates the truth of this principle better than the feelings of insecurity Americans have today. Despite controlling an overwhelming array of power, we are unable to make ourselves totally secure. We can be secure only if those who we feel may threaten us also feel secure.

When Apostle Paul says, "If your enemies are hungry, feed them," he is getting at the same truth. The way to eliminate an adversary is to overcome the problem that makes the relationship adversarial. What is the enemy's greatest need? What makes him choose to be our enemy? If he is hungry while we enjoy a bountiful supply of food, it is not surprising that he is resentful. The easiest means of overcoming that resentment then is, exactly as Paul says, to share the food.     

Likewise, as in the Palme Commission's Common Security, if our actions have helped to create a situation in which the adversary feels insecure, then the best solution is for us to help the adversary feel secure. We can never achieve our own security by ourselves.

The Israel-Palestine conflict offers an excellent illustration of this inescapable truth. The Palestinian Christian group Sabeel in its proposed "Principles for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel" states: "Only the Palestinians can provide Israel with the security it needs." That seeming paradox is entirely accurate. Israel cannot assure security for itself by superior military power or by building a so-called separation barrier. It may seem perfectly natural that Israelis want to respond with superior power when they are faced daily by violent attacks and threats of annihilation, But in reality Israel can become secure only if the Palestinians make it secure and that can happen only when Palestinians' needs for security are met.

And the reverse, of course, is also true. Palestinians cannot achieve security for themselves by any number of suicide bombers or rocket attacks on Israeli villages. Palestinians can make themselves secure only by making certain that Israelis' needs for security are met.

Closer to home: It's always tempting, when violence comes close to our own community, to want to respond with harsher enforcement measures and longer prison terms for convicts. But we know that at least a part of the solution is to change the unequal life opportunities which make some members of our society feel they have no chance to get ahead.

And on the issue of illegal immigration, it's tempting to respond by building stronger fences and imposing more severe punishment on those who are caught.  But illegal immigrants keep coming -- and we know that in reality at least a part of the solution is for reasonable opportunities for employment and prosperity to be created in their home countries.

And so it goes on and on that Paul's advice, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them," far from being hopelessly unrealistic, contains a profound truth for dealing with adversaries: A hostile relationship -- whether personal, communal, or national -- is not resolved by seeking to dominate the adversary, but by eliminating the cause of the adversarial relationship -- that is, by replacing hostility with cooperation. And doing that requires understanding and dealing with the real needs of the adversary.

4.
In a tragic incident that grabbed our country's attention last October, a gun-carrying truck driver one morning walked into the West Nickel Mines Amish School in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and killed six Amish girls before taking his own life. Within hours after the shootings an Amish neighbor visited the family of the shooter, conveyed condolences to his grief-stricken survivors, expressed forgiveness for the evil deed which had brought such suffering to all concerned, and invited the gunman's family to attend the Amish girls' funerals, if they would like.

Instead of responding by seeking some form of the retribution that might well have been expected, the victims responded with actions to rescue a bad situation and transform it to have a good result. The gunman's family members were suffering their own form of anguish and loss, combined with shame and isolation. The Amish neighbors in reaching out to them were considering the needs of those who might have been regarded as adversaries, not just their own needs. Only in this way could they achieve some kind of a positive result out of this tragic situation.

"If your enemies are hungry, feed them." Responding generously to the needs of a potential enemy has as its final aim more than simply seeking to make ourselves more secure. The final aim is to become reconciled with the adversary. Nothing could have brought the Amish community and their more mainstream neighbors closer together than the gesture of reconciliation by the Amish victims in the face of shared grief.

After the September 11 attacks on the United States it took only a few days before steps were set in motion to prepare for war against the apparent planners of the attacks. A keen observer of the American scene has proposed an alternate scenario and asked "What if" America had taken a totally different kind of response. In the circumstances then prevailing it is inconceivable that his alternative would ever have been used, but could it have offered a better result? What if the president had addressed the American people, not with a call to war, but in terms like these?

"My fellow Americans, we have been attacked. We are stunned by the callous hatred revealed in these attackers. But we need to ask what are the causes that made such hatred grow. Is there such oppression and injustice in the world that some people feel driven to this extremist reaction? Do we have some share in the world's injustices that are causing so much suffering? Today we have seen the evil out there; is it also with us and within us? This is a bitter day. Let us turn it into a day of truth and honesty. Let us find a way to liberate ourselves and others from the vicious cycle of violence and counterviolence. God bless America!"   

Indeed, practically speaking, it is out of the question that such an address could ever have been given -- or that its message would have been accepted by the American people at that time. But "What if?" -- and how could the consequences have been different? any worse or any better than what resulted from the response which was made? 

Paul's injunction "If your enemies are hungry, feed them" summons us to ask the "What if?" questions in life -- to look for alternatives. What are the adversarial situations in your life, your community, where you could ask the "What if" question? -- where identifying and then meeting the real needs of a potential adversary might transform tension and animosity into reconciliation? Begin with one neighbor, one acquaintance -- what if others in our community or in the wider society might be stimulated to look for similar approaches? What if?  What if, indeed?


Let us pray:
God, we ask that you will guide us to be ready and willing to see opportunities to turn potential adversaries into friends, to replace conflict with reconciliation, to overcome evil with good. In Jesus' name. Amen. 

• Home
• Worship
• Night Song
• About First Church
• Sunday Calendar
• Upcoming Events
• Getting Involved
• Contribute
• Sermons
• EVENT Newsletter
• 375th Anniversary