If Obama's right, MLK was wrong

Reader Comments

• Posted by Terry Smith at Monday, January 18, 2010 at 03:45 PM

  Unfortunately, the response to Obama's speech does not respond to his statements about Hitler or the Taliban. By not doing so, the article illustrates the limitations of what it proposes. The "war on terror" is a problem and so is the military-industrial complex, but calling Obama's speech dismissive and then not responding to his two basic illustrations, isn't that dismissive also? If peacemakers, both those who would use force and those who would eschew it, do not talk effectively to each other, how can they expect to be heard?

• Posted by Scott Hutchinson at Monday, January 18, 2010 at 05:06 PM

  I'd like to respond to President Obama's statements about Hitler and Al Quaeda. The President said," A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies." I must disagree. A nonviolent movement among the millions of professed Christians in Germany clearly could have halted Hitler's armies; if Christians, embracing the life of Jesus, had not served in Hitler's armies,or followed orders quite obviously at odds with gospel, it is doubtful that those armies would have been populated enough to overrun nations and operate death-mills. Additionally, history tells us that unarmed Christians in places like Denmark and Le Chambon in France were quite successful in thwarting Nazi intent. The President said,"Negotiations cannot convince Al Quaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." But this statement actually directs our attention away from history. Nineteen men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt hijacked planes using boxcutters and crashed the planes into buildings. Nations from all over the world, including those we have had antagonistic relationships with, offered the U.S. solidarity in pursuing the criminals who perpetrated the attacks. Instead, the response to 9/11 was a military campaign launched in Afghanistan that in a matter of weeks had killed more Afghan civilians--not Al Quaeda members--than the number of people killed on 9/11. Dr. King taught, in the manner of Jesus, that evil cannot drive out evil. Responding to violence in kind can only convert a victim into a perpetrator--not the kind of "converting" the Christian gospel proclaims. The "theology" of Mr. Obama's speech demonstrated a belief that peace is not originary, and that when you really get down to it, we cannot be set free from the bondage of human sin. This would be at odds with a gospel that proclaims, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God " and gives testimony to that Word entering human history, giving us all "power to bedcome children of God." Thus, I believe that it is a perspective like Preident Obama's that illustrates the limitations of what it proposes. Dr. King and Gandhi embodied a moral imagination that transcended such limitations and pointed us toward the worldly "naive" Jesus of Nazareth.

• Posted by crna_mike at Monday, January 18, 2010 at 05:15 PM

  To address the fallacy of Obama's statements about Hitler and al-Quaida (not Taliban, as Terry Smith erroneously states) would go beyond the scope of H.A.Penner's article. It might not be a bad thing to do an article showing why Obama's sentiments are incorrect, but that's for another time. I disagree that Penner is dismissive of them. If we learn anything from history, it is that violence only begets violence.

• Posted by ddyck at Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM

  Thanks to Harold Penner for this thought provoking article. Penner's observations resonate strongly with me even as I first read Obama's speech online some weeks ago now. As a Canadian, I held out much hope for Obama's leadership as I watched his campaign unfold and conclude with his inauguration speech. Sadly, Obama has undone much of the hope I initially had with his Nobel speech. As to Terry Smith's assertions, I respectfully acknowledge his very good points - points and hard questions; these are often made by challengers regarding peace theology vs. just war theology: pacifism would not have stopped Hitler, how can you not defend your country, etc. There was a time in my life when these and related questions troubled me as well. Thankfully, there are some excellent resources online that speak to often asked, but difficult questions challengers pose. I am proud to have been part of, and to promote, the online resource here: http://www.liveforpeace.org/node/11 Answers to difficult questions do not make a non-violent response easy, but neither are violent or military solutions easy.

• Posted by ebodnaruk at Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 01:04 PM

  See also Leo Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" for an excellent treatise on the importance, truth, and practicality of nonviolence. This is a great book.

• Posted by twocyldoc at Saturday, January 23, 2010 at 06:37 PM

  I find it interesting, Mr. Penner refers more often to King and Gandhi than to Jesus. No reference to Jesus. God has ordained the use of government force to maintain law and order. This was confirmed in Romans 13. What God has ordained can not be called sin. I would remind Mr. Penner and other readers of The Mennonite that Jesus was not a pacifist during his brief appearance on earth. Jesus came here for one reason only, and that was to die and shed his blood for our sins. Otherwise he would have stayed longer and ministered longer than his 3+ years. It was the preincarnate Christ who was with Abraham when He pronounced destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah. He could have ordained Abraham to go there and preach repentance as Jonah, but He didn’t. Then the preincarnate Christ, with his sword drawn, speaks with Joshua in 5:13-15, just prior to Joshua receiving instruction for the destruction of Jericho. No where in the Bible is Jesus portrayed as a pacifist. Jesus stated clearly “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” Matt 10:34-36. Jesus stated, I and the Father are one. In his booklet Nonresistance and Pacifism, John R. Mumaw (Mennonite Publishing House 1952) outlines vital differences between pacifism and nonresistance. In that booklet he states “Pacifism and Nonresistance are Incompatible”. Peace is not the absence of trouble, but rather the presence of God. Pacifism is not rooted in God. It was God who instructed Saul to destroy all Amalekites, including women and children. Remember, Jesus said I and the Father are one. Mr. Penner would have us believe Hitler could have been stopped if all Christians had united in nonviolent peaceful protests. We must then ask if Stalin and Mao could have been stopped from their killing of an estimated 100 million people by utilizing nonviolent peaceful protests? Can the killing and persecution of Christians in Islam dominated countries be stopped by nonviolent peaceful demonstrations?

• Posted by bbert at Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 01:00 AM

  To twocyldoc: You make the same two mistakes that "christians" have been making since Constantine. First, we do not know why God did the things he did in the OT, but we do know that Jesus, at his(Gods)point in time came with a different way of approaching human interactions. Perhaps "God" felt we had come far enough along as a civilization to "grow up" and understand Jesus teachings. Jesus said, "it has been said, BUT I SAY"...all examples of OT "incarnations" are null and void..Jesus gives us the new and better way to deal with things. Passages like those in Matthew about bringing" a sword" and father against son etc. have been taken out of context and used to justify violence since Constantine...all while ignoring the much greater and many times more Jesus, and Paul for that fact, talk about loving enemies, turning other cheek, not living by the sword etc,etc,etc. The writing of the earliest Christians for at least the first 2-300 years after christ also acknowledge the "pacifistic" understanding of Christs teachings. Two, Romans 13 is not the standard for Christians...it clearly states their role in Romans 12...again talking about love of enemies. Paul gives warning that God uses "unChristian" government to control the majority "unchristian" world and that we need to follow those basic laws to the extent we can without breaking Christs "laws". In other words, pagan governments are needed to control pagan civilizations so as not to have complete annarchy. Those early Chrisians of the first 3 centuries NEVER had any allussions that "governments" could EVER be or opperate truely by "christian" standards. Is is the same 2 kingdom approach the anabaptists reinistiated with their "new" understanding of Jesus teachings. As far as Hitler goes...his example could be pulled up throughout history. It all comes down to the same story. Jesus teachings are for a Proactive solution NOT a reactive one likie WW2 became. What if their was a Marshal Plan after WW1 in which Germany was not despised and instead built up with love and hope. It is likely Hitler would never had come to power. Hitler was not challenged by Germans largely because he helped make Germany Powerful and profitable..why wouldnt people follow him. How about before that. What if the stupid reasons WW1 came about had been averted peacably. What if Europe hadnt fought the previous 4 hundred years over....religion? If Jesus teachings had been followed from the beginning how much of the worlds conflict could have been averted? The Christians of the first 3 centuries went through MANY tortures and edicts trying to wipe them out. Yet, going through all this with MOST sects adhereing to non-violence, they changed the hearts of Romans by FOLLOWING jesus teachings on non-resistence and helped so many "enemies" that even with massive persecutions they totaled between 10-40% of the empire in a miraculous 3 centuries. A fsct a young emperor did not let go without notice and came up with a way to "harvest" that sentimant. Within a matter of a half a generation "Christians" were kiling "Christians" over "theology' and political power! The rest is a sad history of Church-state violence and conquest. To this I think Jesus weeps!!! Jesus said at least THREE times in John alone that the Father loves those who follow HIS (Jesus) commands....NOT the 10 commandments but HIS commandments. If you know of others than those of the sermon on the mount, etc...please enlighten us. Jesus "commands' are all of non-violence and 'hard" love. The OT was meant to look TOWARDS Christ...while it is of value to that respect.....Christs, "BUT I SAY" should be our guide...even when it seems difficult!!!!

• Posted by bbert at Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 01:14 AM

  P.S. Stalin and Mao might have not had their power if the "christian" Czarist oligarchs had 'spread more of the wealth" and ruled with less "violence'......a fact which helped spur the Bulshevic revolution. COmmunism is not of itself evil(read Acts 4&5 if you dont belive me) but it was the anti-God version of it that was ultimately the problem.....this spurred by the disdain for the "Christian" Czars!!!