![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
C.S. Lewis and current events-
I’m very troubled by what’s happening in the world generally, and in the Middle East in particular, and I’m struggling to understand it. I am posting this now because it is Holy Week, and I think that’s relevant to my understanding.
Amidst all the trouble and bloodshed, a few facts do stand out:
1. ISIL did not exist a few years ago, before we bombed Libya and invaded Iraq.
2. Al Qaida was not present in those countries either.
3. Also, it’s quite true, as far as I know, that Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Bashar Al Assad are or were tyrants. Still, this much can be said for them. Before the invasions and bombings and (in Syria) civil war, their countries were secular states in which all the “peoples of the book” lived in relative safety. Christians and Jews were not persecuted; in fact, as I remember, some Christians had positions in Saddam Hussein’s government. Nor did various Muslim sects carry out attacks against each other.
So why are these countries being destroyed? Why are republicans in the U.S. now also trying to start a war with Iran? Don’t we all have troubles enough?
There have been various theories as to why these things are happening. For one thing, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya have all supported the Palestinian struggle. The Neoconservatives in our country, with their project for the new American century, certainly seem to align with the right wing in Israel against the moderates, the peace camp, and the Palestinian people. But can that be reason enough?
I remember, way back at the time of the gulf war, Viggo Mortensen appeared on “Charlie Rose” wearing a T- shirt that read “no blood for oil”. I think a lot of blood has been spilled for oil and other natural resources. That may well be the main reason for all the bloodshed happening in the Middle East right now.
And oil, natural gas, and the money that can be made from them don’t just fuel our cars and our homes. They fuel empire. I’ve been rereading C.S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength”, and one passage in it struck me. Mark, an ambitious young man, has stumbled into a company of very wicked men. They are now trying to convert him to their way of thinking by subjecting him to various tests. The final one is to stamp on and insult a crucifix. Though he is not at all religious, Mark balks at this. He thinks, “Christianity was nonsense, but one did not doubt that the man had lived, and had been executed thus by the Belbury of his day” (Collier paperback edition, page 330). The last thing his teachers expect – the last thing Mark himself expects – is this fellow feeling with the crucified Christ. It is at this point that Mark definitely decides to leave Belbury, though he fully expects his former teachers to kill him.
But what is Belbury, exactly? In the book, it is a think tank that is carrying out a coup against the English government. In the real world, “Belbury” might well stand for empire. Our Lord Jesus Christ was, in fact, killed by the empire of his day – the Roman Empire. However the New Testament may condemn the scribes and the Pharisees, it was Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, who actually had the power of life and death over prisoners, and who condemned Jesus.
Now, I am not saying Jesus was merely a revolutionary. He was much more than that. But I do believe that Christianity, rightly understood, is profoundly individualistic, and profoundly liberating. It liberates us from the bonds of sin and death, and also from the worship of false idols. Empire is a false idol. As Christians, I believe we are bound to oppose it, and its wars, and its cruelties. For empire and its evils are opposed to Christ, whom we are bound to follow.
What do you think?
Amidst all the trouble and bloodshed, a few facts do stand out:
1. ISIL did not exist a few years ago, before we bombed Libya and invaded Iraq.
2. Al Qaida was not present in those countries either.
3. Also, it’s quite true, as far as I know, that Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Bashar Al Assad are or were tyrants. Still, this much can be said for them. Before the invasions and bombings and (in Syria) civil war, their countries were secular states in which all the “peoples of the book” lived in relative safety. Christians and Jews were not persecuted; in fact, as I remember, some Christians had positions in Saddam Hussein’s government. Nor did various Muslim sects carry out attacks against each other.
So why are these countries being destroyed? Why are republicans in the U.S. now also trying to start a war with Iran? Don’t we all have troubles enough?
There have been various theories as to why these things are happening. For one thing, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya have all supported the Palestinian struggle. The Neoconservatives in our country, with their project for the new American century, certainly seem to align with the right wing in Israel against the moderates, the peace camp, and the Palestinian people. But can that be reason enough?
I remember, way back at the time of the gulf war, Viggo Mortensen appeared on “Charlie Rose” wearing a T- shirt that read “no blood for oil”. I think a lot of blood has been spilled for oil and other natural resources. That may well be the main reason for all the bloodshed happening in the Middle East right now.
And oil, natural gas, and the money that can be made from them don’t just fuel our cars and our homes. They fuel empire. I’ve been rereading C.S. Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength”, and one passage in it struck me. Mark, an ambitious young man, has stumbled into a company of very wicked men. They are now trying to convert him to their way of thinking by subjecting him to various tests. The final one is to stamp on and insult a crucifix. Though he is not at all religious, Mark balks at this. He thinks, “Christianity was nonsense, but one did not doubt that the man had lived, and had been executed thus by the Belbury of his day” (Collier paperback edition, page 330). The last thing his teachers expect – the last thing Mark himself expects – is this fellow feeling with the crucified Christ. It is at this point that Mark definitely decides to leave Belbury, though he fully expects his former teachers to kill him.
But what is Belbury, exactly? In the book, it is a think tank that is carrying out a coup against the English government. In the real world, “Belbury” might well stand for empire. Our Lord Jesus Christ was, in fact, killed by the empire of his day – the Roman Empire. However the New Testament may condemn the scribes and the Pharisees, it was Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, who actually had the power of life and death over prisoners, and who condemned Jesus.
Now, I am not saying Jesus was merely a revolutionary. He was much more than that. But I do believe that Christianity, rightly understood, is profoundly individualistic, and profoundly liberating. It liberates us from the bonds of sin and death, and also from the worship of false idols. Empire is a false idol. As Christians, I believe we are bound to oppose it, and its wars, and its cruelties. For empire and its evils are opposed to Christ, whom we are bound to follow.
What do you think?
no subject
no subject
I am not as knowledgeable as you are about the 4th century, but, as a Catholic, I am aware of at least some of the history of the Church militant. And I tend to think it is a corruption of Christ's message. This doesn't make me less a devout Catholic, any more than my opposition to our foreign policy makes me less a loyal American. I guess that's really all I have to say on the subject.
no subject
And while we're speaking of context, we have to remember that Lewis was no pacifist. Not that he particularly liked war (who does?). But he fought in one war, and contributed unhesitatingly to the national war effort during a second war.
Forgive me if this isn't quite coherent. My coffee hasn't fully kicked in yet. :-)
no subject
And yes, I'm a pacifist (for the most part - exception below!) and a vegetarian (though not a teetotaler!) and Lewis mocked people like me. I love him, anyway. I think he was basically a wise and good man, and his books are sometimes wiser than he was.
So - the exception. I'm also well aware of the Catholic just war theory. If we take it seriously, there are very few just wars. We were, and are, obliged to fight Hitler, I believe, in order to save innocent lives. But here's the thing. We don't always recognize the Hilters of our own times. A regime that causes the deaths of millions - not thousands, but millions - of innocent civilians is to be questioned. We are the empire of our own day.
There's a wonderful book I'd like to recommend. It was a challenge to get through it, but I'd hardly call it simplistic. It's called "Come out, My People: God's call out of empire in the Bible and beyond." It's by Wes Howard Brook. I wouldn't say I accepted every word of it, but it made the Bible make sense in a way nothing ever has before.
And I continue to recommend Alison Weir and If Americans Knew. Her reporting is factual; it is often eyewitness accounts. You may not like her interpretations, or agree with everything she says, but she's still worth reading.
As I said before, I know we have many differences, especially in politics. I also believe we are united in Christ, and the love of Christ. And that, in the end, will triumph over all. Happy Easter!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Thanks for such a thought-provoking post, Mary. I've read many things by C. S. Lewis but not that one - I'll have to add it to my list, as well as the others you mentioned. I've read several historical fictions by Weir and have enjoyed them. But I wasn't aware she'd written anything beyond British history.
no subject
And Alsion Weir (the American journalist) actually put out a post that she was not Alison Weir (the British historian and author). The two women get confused all the time, and Alison Weir (American) did not want Alison Weir (British) to suffer simply for having the same name. The American journalist has gotten death threats from the right-wing Zionist camp because of her work.
no subject
no subject
But I will look up that article before saying more!
no subject
Interesting article, though! It would be great if the U.S. did stop following the "witless Bush doctrine".
no subject
Rereading the article I realize that it indeed doesn't correlate exactly with your own points and questions. :P
Sun Tzu's strategies aren't purely for war and conquest, though, it also applies to politics and other aspects of life. "The highest achievement can be making the other side retreat without battle" and all that.
The Brotherhood and Hamas is indeed legitimate governments, but I still think it doesn't fall into "secular moderates, middle class democrats", the western definition of that is a bit too narrow.
So to some of your actual numbered points, you might know that my country's foreign policies adhere to the "5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence", which was miraculously held up even during the years of ultra-left craziness when both America and the USSR were out to get us. xD One of those principles was to not interfere in others' internal affairs, which is pretty much anathema to what the US has been doing in quite a while. That extends to not marching in a country just because they have human rights issues or something else. We kinda sorta skirted the line in 1979 when we attacked Vietnam to settle some border disputes, and to this day lots of the people over there hate our guts. And the PLA completely retreated back to our side after. I cannot even begin to imagine what the people who had been bombed and shot at by the US would think about American troops and their continued existence on their lands. I don't think American occupation and reform really worked that well on a nationwide scale since (West) Germany and Japan. The local governments may be harsh to the people, but they still know the ins and outs of the country and society, hence the stability despite the brutality. Saddam threw poison gas at the Kurdish minorities, but still had enough brains to not destroy the invaluable Assyrian cities within Iraq. And he had enough support from the people, with the help of coercion they didn't overthrow him. Speaking of which, I think the oil reason for the war is pretty accurate, since American didn't attack Iraq for the poison gas killings in the 80s (cuz it was valuable that Iran was to be contained) but after 9/11 it was suddenly dangerous that post-sanction Iraq has WMDs.