Loving Your Enemies
Enemies are everywhere
Commandment to love the enemies was one of the radical commandments of Jesus; some of his commandments are difficult to follow, though he practised what he preached. There are many human beings (Christians and others) who were inspired by this teaching and followed it to smaller or greater extent.
Now come to today’s world. Polarization is one of the key words in today’s political context. Followers or opposers of Trump, Modi, Putin; supporters or opposers of Israel/Palestine, Ukraine/Russia and so on. You might say that political opposition was always there; fair enough. But today the opposition is not just an opposition, but an enemy. And the countries and states are divided internally — and the division is so radical and clear cut.
polarization noun (DIVIDING)
the act of dividing something, especially something that contains different people or opinions, into two completely opposing groups:
An anecdote I heard recently (don’t take it literally) is — A businessman can go to republican supporting channels and say that he supports their policies like anti-abortion, anti-immigration etc; and the same man can go to a democratic channel and say that he supports their policies like inclusivity, more healthcare etc. And hard core supporters of both parties (whose feed in social media and TV channels mostly have the programs of their own party) will never understand that businessman was playing a double-game. This anecdote in many ways, reveal the extent of enmity. We may not so easily accept that others as my enemy, but much of our actions or thoughts reveal it so explicitly.
I want nothing to do with you. Though you are my fellow citizen, we are so different. I hate you. You are my enemy.
It is a good question to ask, what is an effective human response in such situations. And probably, an effective Christian response. One of the immediate responses can be — we have to be the followers and defendants of truth and so we do play that prophetic role. Christians and Others on both sides think that they have the truth and they defend that truth and they play a certain prophetic rule. It includes showing the hollowness of the position of the other side. I am not trying to say that both sides are equally good or equally culpable etc. We keep that moral judgements aside (on who is right or more right) for the time being.
I definitely not throw away my convictions, but I can ask the questions — in the midst of my convictions, in the midst of my call to fight for truth and to be a prophet, in the midst of Jesus’ commandment to love the enemy, what is that response?
One historical response over the centuries that has been inspired by Jesus (not only by Jesus) was a non-violent response. It has been effective in many countries. Think of Gandhi, Mandela, King etc. I am not saying that these people are saints. But the responses guided by these people did have an impact and it has produced fruits in many places.
In the midst of the current polarization in the world, what were some of the responses, and especially effective responses. Effectivity is not solely determined by the amount of truth in the response (as followers judge, because opponents won’t agree to the truth component).
One example I was inspired by was the message of Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde during the prayer service in her cathedral. She spoke about her convictions, in a very gentle manner, without accusing Trump directly. The point of her message was never to attack the person, but to speak of the truth she believed, with firmness and kindness. Among all the critical remarks and responses against Trump, her response was one of the simplest and kindest one, and probably the most effective one. Probably it angers Trump supporters, but they can never call her rude. I will say, she gave her message without increasing the gulf. And probably, some of the Trump supporters “heard” it too. Or I would say, Bishop Mariann’s aim was never to attack Trump, but to preach the message and to preach it honestly and gently, and to keep the thin thread of reconciliation still alive.
I need to give an example from the opposite side of the spectrum too. One of the most controversial policies of Joe Biden was connected to the question of abortion. Many convinced Christians and other leaders criticized these policies at various levels of firmness. It will be difficult to say what was the most effective responses; but one wonderful response (based on facts) is given by David French in his article How to be pro-life in Joe Biden’s America. He states the historical fact that abortions have reduced in US from 1980s. And he is confident that one law is not going to drastically change that trend (though a little). And secondly, based on a detailed Notre Dame study, he states some conclusions.
- None of the Americans we interviewed talked about abortion as a desirable good.
- For pro-life Americans, here’s some good news — through personal intervention, support for church ministries, support for crisis pregnancy centres, and support for effective public policy, you can directly impact most of the concerns or causes that leads to abortion.
Now evaluate the responses of Bishop Marianne and David French. They both disagreed with the policies of Trump or Biden. Their responses were not attacking the person, but a response that tries to open a way out. And I feel, even though they strongly responded to the policies they disagreed with, it was not much an attempt of self-righteousness, but an attempt to heal.
Working for Peace in the polarised world is very much an expression of “loving the enemies”. Even when our convictions are different, some common connecting threads are always available. Path to Peace & love always go through truth, but truth is not something that I possess fully; or truth is firm, but it can also be delivered in a kind and gentle way. That kindness is a better witness to truth than having an arrogant and self-righteous style.
