Such horrendous provocations make it entirely possible for ISIS leaders to echo the words solemnly intoned by President Obama last week in response to their movement's brutal beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff. ISIS leaders might well have said:
"We will not be intimidated. Those who make the mistake of harming Muslims will learn that we will not forget and that our reach is long and that justice will be served . . . such horrific acts only unite us as movement. . . ISIS will continue to lead the battle against the kind of barbaric and empty vision that the United States represents. We will degrade their forces and destroy them completely."
In fact, the whole ISIS phenomenon and the response it has evoked only illustrate the senselessness of any strategy of revenge and fatuous, doomed attempts to solve conflict by the unapologetic use of military first response to violence perpetrated against "Americans" or Muslims.
A different way of responding is outlined for followers of Jesus' Way in today's liturgy of the word. It might seem idealistic and perhaps even unrealistic in the face of ISIS. But give it a chance.
In today's gospel reading, Matthew the Evangelist addresses the problem of conflict resolution. He emphasizes dialog not revenge and violence. In fact, he outlines four alternatives towards resolving disputes. He has Jesus say that if step one doesn't work, move on to the subsequent strategies. The four alternatives include (1) healing conversation with one's adversary, (2) arbitration with a mediator or two, (3) consultation with the entire community, and (4) shunning the offending party.
More specifically, Matthew has Jesus say, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone . . . If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
Obviously, these words did not come from Jesus himself. To begin with, there was no "church" at Jesus' time. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish and a reformer of Judaism rather than the founder of some new religion or "church."
It was different for Matthew who was writing for a community of specifically Jewish Christians some fifty years after Jesus' death. By then, questions of community order within the emerging church had become prominent. So Matthew invents this saying of Jesus to deal with them.
Another reason for reaching this conclusion is the reference to treating a recalcitrant individual "as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." This phrase reflects traditional Jewish avoidance of Gentiles and hatred of Roman collaborators. It runs counter to the practice of Jesus who time and again in the Gospels causes scandal by practicing table fellowship and community with the very people Matthew's instruction indicates are outsiders to be shunned by believers.
Were Matthew following the Spirit of Jesus, the evangelist's instructions for addressing conflict resolution might involve the following process: (1) private dialog with one's adversary, (2) arbitration with a mediator or two, (3) consultation with the entire community, and (4) moving in with the offending party -- or at least taking them out for dinner regularly.
In any case, the emphasis in Jesus' own approach is communion, not shunning or refusal to talk. Nowhere does Jesus' approach say that one should refuse meeting until the offending party stops offending. Much less does the process outlined include "if he refuses to listen, shoot him, cut his head off, or kill his family."
"But," you object, "The words attributed to Jesus in today's gospel selection are about church order, not about international politics, much less the barbarity of a movement like ISIS. Jesus' instruction, you might say, is about private disputes among Christians and are laughably impractical in the political sphere.
And that's just my point. To repeat: Matthew's account does not reflect the teaching or practice of Jesus. Jesus' actual teaching was not confined to the private realm. His practice was highly political.
Eating with tax collectors, street walkers, lepers, Pharisees, Gentiles (including members of the Roman army) represented doing the unthinkable, the unexpected, the forbidden. . . . It meant crossing boundaries, breaking taboos, acting counter-culturally, and offending people on all sides of sizzling debates.
This is what the example of Jesus calls us to do even in the case of ISIS. Its emergence calls for departure from business as usual. It requires admission of guilt and responsibility on the part of the United States. It demands a complete reversal of "American" policy.
Today's second reading from Paul's letter to the Christian community at Rome puts a finer point on the reasons for such response on the part of those pretending to follow the teachings of Jesus.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
