Spiritual Combat, Moral Combat, and Physical Combat: Culture Wars
Two prolife activists Two people, one of them a prolife activist, were gunned down in Michigan yesterday. God rest their souls. I can’t help wondering — is this in some sense a crazed retaliation for the killing of Tiller? What kind of a society are we? Those who recognize the Constitution protects abortion ought to recognize that the Constitution protects the right of free speech — including free speech that protests current constitutional interpretations.
But it was this story — more senseless murders — that made me realize that I myself am not as sanguine as some on this blog are about the possibility of neatly separating spiritual warfare from moral warfare from culture warfare from physical warfare. At the very least, I think prudence suggests dialing down that language in favor of other metaphors. But for a contrasting view, which recognizes the undeniable role of spiritual combat in the Christian tradition, see Bob Imbelli’s post below.
I’m sure that it did not escape anyone’s notice that yesterday was September 11. Some Muslim scholars, as I understand it, argue that “jihad” was centrally meant to mean spiritual “jihad” — its use in the form of warfare was a misunderstanding. My question, I suppose is, whether martial imagery in general is too susceptible (by Christians too) to a distorted migration from interior to exterior warfare.
The stories of the desert fathers are famous for their redirection of spirirtual warfare from the outward to the interior. Here are a couple that might be useful in discerning answers to these questions, which require discernment but are not, I believe, impossible:
***
Moses had a rather difficult time adjusting to regular monastic discipline. His flair for adventure remained with him. Attacked by a group of robbers in his desert cell, Moses fought back, overpowered the intruders, and dragged them to the chapel where the other monks were at prayer. He told the brothers that he didn’t think it Christian to hurt the robbers and asked what he should do with them. The overwhelmed robbers repented, were converted, and themselves joined the community.
***
When a brother committed a fault and Moses was invited to a meeting to discuss an appropriate penance, Moses refused to attend. When he was again called to the meeting, Moses took a leaking jug filled with water and carried it on his shoulder. Another version of the story has him carrying a basket filled with sand. When he arrived at the meeting place, the others asked why he was carrying the jug. He replied, “My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another.” On hearing this, the assembled brothers forgave the erring monk.
***
The old men used to say, “there is nothing worse than passing judgement.”
They said of abba Macarius that he became as it is written a god upon earth, because just as God protects the world, so abba Macarius would cover the faults that he saw as though he did not see them, and those which he heard as though he did not hear them.
Abba Pastor said, “Judge not him who is guilty of fornication, if you are chaste, or you will break the law like him. For He who said “do not commit fornication” said also “Do not judge”.”
A brother asked abba Poemen, “If I see my brother sin, is it right to say nothing about it?” The old man replied, “whenever we cover our brother’s sin, God will cover ours; whenever we tell people about our brother’s guilt, God will do the same about ours.”
***
Two old men had lived together for many years and they had never fought with one another. The first said to the other, “Let us also have a fight like other men.” The other replied, “I do not know how to fight.” The first said to him, “Look, I will put a brick between us and I will say: it is mine; and you will reply: no, it is mine; and so the fight will begin.” So they put a brick between them and the first said, “No, it is mine”, and the other said, “No, it is mine.” And the first replied, “If it is yours, take it and go.” So they gave it up without being able to find a cause for an argument.
***
A brother asked abba Poemen, “How should I behave in my cell in the place where I am living?” He replied, “Behave as if you were a stranger, and wherever you are, do not expect your words to have an influence and you will be at peace.”
Were both of the victims in fact pro-life activists? Neither the news story cited above nor the NYT story (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/us/12slay.html?ref=todayspaper) says that Mr. Fuoss had any connection with the pro-life movement.
Not that that makes the story of these killings any better or more comprehensible.
Thanks, Nicholas. Only one of the victims was involved with prolife activism (at least that’s what is known so far) — I edited above.
Evelyn Waugh had his shortcomings but somewhere he wrote that we are all potential recruits for anarchy. I think that’s true, for me, for you, for everyone. Certain media figures seem devoted to spreading the not so good new that anger and hatred can make you feel good about yourself. Blogs encourage the idea that everyone has a right to have an opinion. Reasoning not required.
Last night on the Lehrer news hour, Mark Shields was talking about the general coarsening of American life, in the context of Representative what’s his name who called Obama a liar during his speech, and in the broader context of what used to be the impermissible, now become the permissible (and indeed even the celebrated, tho Shields didn’t say that). Certainly the polarization of American politics and cultural life has made it less necessary than ever to resort to reason before coming forth with an opinion. All too often, it seems, any attempt at reason is only a sign that you’ve defected to the other side — left, right, religious, atheist, whatever it might be).
Despite their diminished congregations, I think the churches could play a significant role in encouraging a return to civility and serious thought, but I don’t see them often doing it (but perhaps that’s only because the press doesn’t consider it newsworthy — another part of the problem).
I’m tempted to quote: “Abusus non tollit usum”–that people can abuse the language doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the language. I suspect that the vast majority of people, in various religions, who have used the language of spiritual combat to speak about the inner struggle for authentic life have not engaged in physical combat. As any metaphor, it has its limits; as any metaphor, it says some distinct things, which need saying.
The inner rush, emotional/physical/adrenal, of physical combat [winning or losing!] is not soon forgotten.
I often wondered if and how Francis and Ignatius successfuly transfered their own memories of battle passion toward Christ.. The better-read here than me, might comment.
Related to Joseph Komonchak’s observation about the limits and uses of metaphor: each symbol or concept derives its meaning from the context in which it appears. It’s clear that the normative context for the Christian use of “spiritual combat” language is provided by the New Testament. Hence Archbishop Williams goes on to say:
“Yet the New Testament shows us how, when death and life encounter each other when the Kingdom of God, with its justice and peacefulness, appears in the midst of our everyday world what results is a real struggle, in which the forces of destruction are powerful and resourceful. We should not shrink from borrowing this paradoxical language of battle and warfare, while recognizing that the conflict is one taking place not in the world of human power politics but in the heart, and that the victory is won when we, with our selfish desires and habits, surrender fully to Our Lord, not when we acquire power over others.”
Nicholas Clifford talking about the polariztion of our society (citing Mark Shields on PBS) is quite relevant.
The awfulness of that polarization was noted by Dan Schorr on Mornin gedition thoday.
We are becoming people who just scream at each other.
So language has indeed coarsened, made real debate more difficult and, in the Church opened the divide:
John Allen has a piece on the attacks of several god people. like Sr. Keenan , by the one issue extremists of right to life – to the detriment of right to life.
I think that problem is wider in the Church where good people who don’t fit into the pigeonholes of leadership for questioninf and criticizing are thrust aside.
I’ve seen it nationally (e.g the ouster of Pamela Hayes from the Review Board) to a number of instances locally.
Many nuns today see themselves as “persecuted” by their leaders(se the reflection of Srt. Schneiders at NCR this week) but soldier on under the attack of “visitation – though I’d posit they are struggling mightily to live Christlike lives.
So I think that the Church, in its “smaller,purer” quest has done little to not only strengthen civility bu tto to build up the Body of Christ.
IN the Christian tradition mystical or spiritual imagery is drawn from two major cultural streams – Greek and Hebrew or Semitic.
Warfare God imagining and spiritual understanding rooted in battle and struggle is clearly connected to the Hebrew and Semitic culture (e.g. jihad). Even the great women Hebrew prophets were also warriors.
In the Native tradition, warrior imagery is very powerful for both men and women.
Greek imagery is much more contemplatively disposed,
In the end it isn’t so much about the imagery but how it is taught, the cultural context, and the appropriation of the individual to the lessons taught.
As for the issue of civility and politics. Maybe the parliamentary question period has some merit. Look at British or Canadian parliament. Hardly examples of civility but the population remains fairly calm. Maybe this is because there is an institutional place for venting free of artificial displays of propriety. (The House of Lords should be proper) but certainly not the House of Commons because well it is the House of Commons!!! LOL
George D. Pierre Hadot has argued that spiritual combat aiming at a total transformation was an important part of ancient philosophy, even in Stoicism and Epicureanism. Spiritual exercises, analogous to an athlete’s physical exercises in preparation for a contest, were necessary in order to pursue philosophy as a way of life.
Cathy: During this afternoon’s football game, UND had a puff-piece that began: “There is a place where people fight for what they believe in,” and ended with several people saying, “We are the Fighting Irish.” If in the green wood….
James Pouillon’s murder took place about seven miles from my house. We’d seen him for years standing at high traffic intersections around Owosso, a one-man anti-abortion demonstration.
The signs were about 4 x 6 feet. One sign (or perhaps it was one sign with two sides) showed a newborn with the words “Life,” the other showed a dismembered fetus, victim of a late-term abortion.
Local pro-life advocates were divided about Pouillon’s tactics.
But, bottom line, except for the graphic nature of one of his signs and the fact that it created a distraction at rush hour (or what passes for rush hour in Owosso), I never saw him doing anything other than exercising his freedom of speech, being careful not to block public egress, make noise, or even gesture.
The murder seems to have been motivated less by Pouillon’s pro-life stance and more by the fact that he was showing his dismembered fetus sign directly outside the high school at a time when kids were on their way to school. (Guess it didn’t occur to him that witnessing a real cold-blooded murder might be worse for students than looking at a grisly protest sign …)
Within a couple of hours of the murder, a pro-life group was demanding angrily at a news conference that the White House and Justice Department show the same concern for Poillon’s murder as it did for that of Dr. Tiller.
It was a neat bit of public relations theater–implying the administration had a double standard on hate murders–before the White House or Justice had probably even had a chance to hear about the incident, and certainly before the motivation for the killing had even been determined.
Cops said the murder suspect apparently killed a gravel pit owner over a business fracas, and intended to kill another local business man who had angered him. Neither of those men had any connection with Pouillon’s pro-life demonstrations.
The murders seem to have been motivated by some personal rather than ideological animus. They were certainly tragic. Nobody deserves to be gunned down in the street.
But dialing down the rhetoric seems to be what’s happening in the community. I attended an academic symposium–scheduled long before the shootings–in Owosso today, and at the opening breakfast, we were asked to exercise sensitivity in our discussion of the matter, since many of those in attendance had some personal connection with the incident.
Sorry, ambiguous sentence: Should be, “Guess it didn’t occur to him [the murderer] that witnessing a real cold-blooded murder might be worse for students than looking at a grisly protest sign …”
Since so few Western women have any direct experience of warfare I suspect the metaphor has little meaning for most of us. Did Teresa of Avila or Catherine of Siena or Therese of Lisieux use the metaphor? (Hmmm. How many great female Christian spiritual writers have there been who weren’t nuns?)
I can perhaps accept a place for “warfare/combat” language as part of an individual’s interior spiritual formation. I don’t see any place for it, however, in public rhetoric.
Robert Imbelli wrote:
“Each symbol or concept derives its meaning from the context in which it appears. It’s clear that the normative context for the Christian use of ‘spiritual combat’ language is provided by the New Testament. ”
I agree both that context is vital and that the proper context for such language OUGHT to be the New Testament. Unfortunately the context in which I most often hear of Christian spiritual warfare these days is in heated public rhetoric related to the American culture wars. One of many examples would be the regular mass emails I receive from Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life screaming, “We are at war!” or “President Obama has declared war on the unborn!” Given the violence-saturated media culture of the United States, and given our widespread acceptance of the idea that violence is often the best way to solve problems (here I cite as evidence the general support in our country for war, the death penalty, and abortion), and given the way patriotic fervor and American exceptionalism are taught as core Biblical values in large swaths of American Christianity, I see the use of martial language as an extremely dangerous part of our public discourse. I think it would be best to avoid it altogether.
Joe, the mean little leprechaun was never my favorite symbol for Our Lady’s University.
David, I agree-my point is that contexts may be fluid.
High school students in the 1940′s sang the Catholic Action Hymn by Father Daniel Lord S.J. :
“An Army of youth, flying the standard of truth.
We’re fighting for Christ the Lord………..
“On earth’s battlefield never a vantage we’ll yield….”
We loved it and singing the rousing tune, felt inspired !
Here are the verses for Fr. Lord’s “For Christ the King”. It was sung to a very martial beat. I tell my students it was the Catholic equivalent of “Onward Christian Soldiers,” but they’ve never heard of that one either. Its verses are also below. By the way, I learned “Onward Chrsitian Soldiers” in public grammar school, along with a number of other Christian hymns. My older sisters remember beginning every school day by reciting the Twenty-third Psalm.
An Army of Youth flying the standard of truth.
We are fighting for Christ the Lord.
Heads lifted high, Catholic Action our cry,
And the cross our only sword.
On earth’s battlefield, never advantage we’ll yield,
As dauntlessly on we sing,
Comrades true, dare and do,
‘Neath the Queen’s White and Blue.
For our flag, for our faith, for Christ the King.
Christ lifts his hand, the King commands,
His challenge, “Come and follow me”
From every side, with eager stride,
We form in the lines of victory.
Let foemen lurk, and laggards shirk
We throw our fortunes with the Lord.
Mary’s Son, til the world is won,
We have pledged You our loyal word.
An Army of Youth flying the standard of truth,
We are fighting for Christ the Lord. . . .
1. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
2. At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
(Refrain)
3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
(Refrain)
4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.
(Refrain)
5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King,
this through countless ages men and angels sing.
(Refrain)
My point is about the migration of the metaphor:
Deal Hudson’s recent book is entitled “Onward Christian Soldiers” (political culture wars).
A bit of googling will show the prevalence of this imagery after 9.11–Christian soldiers after the Muslim invaders.
Culture wars, clash of civilizations.
In 4th grade, when I was preparing for confirmation, back in the days when pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II were sort of mixing and seeping into one another much more than is the case today, we were all afraid that the bishop was going to really smack us across the kisser during the ceremony. Someone (could have been one of my praents) explained that by being confirmed we becoming were soldiers of Christ, and the slap symbolized the blows we’d receive for wearing his standard. In those days, the phrase “Church Militant” was taken a lot more literally, I guess.
Christianity has an inherent ‘combat’ imagery, since Christus is a pre-Christian term for a battle leader. This was used in the confirmation rite since the fifth century, probably because anointing was a way an athlete (or a soldier?) prepared for a contest. Sublimating the combat into an interior struggle, where the assistance is from the Holy Spirit, is probably the intent of that usage.
But the language easily drifts away from inner conflicts into interpersonal combats. There is probably no solution beyond a greater attention to the inner struggles we all share, and the grace of God that helps us win any battle.
Jim McK: I would be interested in knowing the source for your claim that “Christus is a pre-Christian term for a battle leader.” I just checked my big dictionary of classical Latin, and it provides no such definition or examples of this meaning.