Newsletter:
Vol. 3. Iss. 1
25 October 2001
Love or Vengeance
The Rev. Peter J. Miano
The imperative to love one’s enemy can hardly be any more challenging than it is today. In light of the shocking and hideous attacks on thousands of innocent people, hatred has never seemed more justified and vengeance never more appealing. America has never had better reasons to do the wrong thing.
From the impulse to single out groups of people for blame based on their physical characteristics, ethnic origins or religious affiliation, to the military campaign against the Taliban, our collective reaction, in my opinion, displays troubling characteristics, not least of which is the abrogation of prominent Gospel mandates. Most certainly, Jesus never said, “Forgive and Forget.” He did not say, “Let bygones be bygones.” He did, however, say “Love your enemies.”
As usual, we inherit biblical mandates without the requisite insights to know how, when or where to apply them. Thus, pastors and parishioners agonize over moral and theological questions. How do we respond to violence? What does God require of us?
First of all, it is important to note that all instances of reconciliation in the Bible, of “loving the enemy” are predicated on accountability. It is true that Nathan did not require David’s life to atone for David’s crime against Uriah. “An eye for an eye” was never applied in capital cases. Nathan did, however, require David to face the truth of his complicity in murder. Victimizers are held accountable for their actions. Another poignant illustration is Jesus’ first meeting with Peter after the crucifixion/resurrection (John 21). Peter is required to face the realities and consequences of his denial of Jesus. One can hardly imagine a more painful moment for Peter. Note also, that in the story, the victim, Jesus, takes the initiative to restore the relationship with Peter.
Another important ingredient in biblical paradigms of loving one’s enemy is that the imperative to love results in the restoration of relationships, not in further deterioration and destruction. Clearly, vengeance has nothing to do with the Gospel imperative to love. Violent retaliation, even when it is committed under the pretense of “self-defense”, usually results in preventing restoration of relationships. It is, thus, incompatible with biblical models of reconciliation or loving one’s enemies.
Gospel love is distinguishable from both vengeance and sentimental love. One difference is that love is visionary. It is neither blind like romantic love, nor self absorbed, like vengeance. The difference between visionary love and romantic love—of which a blindfolded Cupid is the popular symbol—is that love does not close its eyes to the reality of evil. On the other hand, vengeance sees well enough, but it does not look beyond its own narrow interest to extract a pound of flesh irrespective of where that pound is taken. Vengeance almost always requires injustice. It disregards due process under the law and thereby commits the very offense it feigns to abhor, i.e., innocent people are victimized, even put to death.
What vision do our national leaders offer for the aftermath of righteous vengeance? What do we do once we “drain the swamp?” Continue the policies that created the swamp in the first place?
It is natural, even inevitable that the images of death on September 11 will grip the attention of the public as we shudder against the horror. But at some point—soon, I hope—we will need to lift our eyes from the shadows of gloom to the light of heaven and gaze with clear eyes not just at the magnitude of the violence against innocent Americans, but also at American policies that victimize others and breed resentment, anger and hatred. Nothing can excuse the violence of September 11, but neither can further violence redeem suffering—only love can. At this moment, the imperative to love offers more benefit to the victimized than vengeance ever can.
Love will also require much more fortitude than vengeance, because love does not sanction our violence any more than theirs. Rather, love envisions one world and one people, not defined by national boundaries, ethnic identity, religious affiliation or ideological agreement. Love sees the image of God in each of God’s children. Vengeance produces divisions—a first world, a third world, an Arab world, a Western world, a Muslim world—and requires conformity. “You’re either with us or you’re not,” applies now not only to nations, but to the press and dissenters alike. The story of creation, however, tells us God created one world. Love does not require us to create the family of all people. It requires us only to recognize it and to act in such a way that we build it up, rather than break it down. Isn’t time we stop tearing apart what God has put together?
