« photo: hollyhock |
Main
| A comment on the Virginia Tech tragedy »
Starving for Darfur
Ben Witherington relays the story of Jay McGinley, a 55-year-old former businessman who is on a hunger strike of sorts. McGinley, who goes by “Start Loving,” has camped outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. for over 53 days now, in protest of the horror in Darfur. He has left his family behind. On a semi-starvation diet, McGinley is quite weakened, though he continues to attempt to stand with his orange sign when someone comes by the embassy. At night he rests there, semi-upright, in a green sleeping bag. (Washington Post article on McGinley here, his blog is here.)
Witherington applauds McGinley’s efforts and defends his abandonment of his family by pointing to the apostles, and referring to Jesus’ words about leaving family in order to follow Him. However, Jesus’ detainment was and is about sacrifice of possessions, for His sake. I don't think he meant that everyone should abandon their family, nor leave it for an external cause. Nor did His requirements include voluntary starvation. Though I may be wrong, I can’t imagine that Jesus would require someone to voluntarily abandon those who depend upon him or her for their livelihood. (Not that McGinley’s family necessarily does; his children are grown and his wife probably either does or can support herself.) It’s about upholding Jesus’ name (Matthew 19:27-30).
What was it that Jesus said-- "Greater love has no man, than he lay down his life for his friends." Well Jay doesn't even know these folks in Darfur, but he knows they are his brothers and sisters.
A commenter, Bill in Boston, says this:
I admire Jay's devotion and willingness to sacrifice himself for this terribly important and just cause. It is long past time that our leadership, beginning with President Bush, take action to stop the slaughter in Sudan.
However, I am disturbed about Jay's methodology. It is clear that his fast has morphed into a hunger strike. I do not believe it is morally right to choose to destroy the temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus chose to allow the human authorities of his day to carry out perverted justice against him, but this is not equivalent to committing suicide. Jesus did not take his own life, others directly took it.
Again, I do not write this to criticize Jay, who I am convinced is acting out of pure motives, but rather to point out that his approach isn't quite right.
According to the Post article, McGinley left a letter for Sudanese Ambassador John Ukec Lueth Ukec, asking him to soften his heart in exchange for McGinley’s life. Ukec’s response:
Loving is on public property and breaking no laws, and...[Ukec] has no official comment. "That doesn't mean we don't sympathize with his feelings," he said. "He is a human being and he has a right to protest. I'm sorry that he is very much misinformed. Otherwise several Darfuris would be with him.
"There are so many other ways to reduce the pain of others without inflicting pain on himself," the ambassador said, adding that he would be willing to give Loving a visa so that he could visit Darfur as a social worker. Loving could also witness the complexity of the situation in a place where, he said, securing a lasting peace has been complicated by infighting among rebel factions.
Told of the offer, Loving smiles and turns away. He reiterates that if others were to join him, they could fan out first to the Chinese Embassy, then to the Indian, and finally back to the White House, the better to cause enough commotion to plant the seed of action in President Bush's heart.
McGinley seems to be pinning a lot on the notion that Bush has great power to effect positive action in Darfur, which seems a bit naive. Not due to any fault of Bush’s.
And yes, Jesus asks us to lay down our lives, in a multitude of ways, but certainly not in situations where it is not clearly buying the life of others. I question where the attention McGinley commands is actually going – to those suffering in the Sudan, or the man suffering on the sidewalk by the embassy?
The dynamics of the situation are actually rather manipulative. I’ll try to illustrate: Let’s say there is an atrocity going on at some organization my friends are involved with. Certainly it wouldn’t be on the level of the situation in Darfur, but, let’s say it’s pretty bad. No one is doing, or able to do, anything about it in an effectual way. So let’s say I write a letter of protest to the leadership, and even picket outside, perhaps along with others. But still nothing gets done. So I commence a hunger strike. See what I mean? Should I really expect such action to move, in a healthy way, (or even reach), those who could remedy the situation?
What do you think?
update: Bill in Boston has left an excellent comment at Ben Witherington's post (#20, the last one as I type this) on suicide. He articulates the problems with Loving's reasoning far better than I could. Especially the paragraph that begins:
We cannot create an abstraction and call it reality. A hunger striker cannot deprive himself of food to the point of starvation and claim that others caused his death.
Hi all - sorry I haven't been around much lately. I hope to start posting again soon!
Anyway, I really have to agree with Bill in Boston. A hunger strike is a threat to commit suicide (slowly) unless a political demand is met. We are not permitted to murder ourselves, so such a threat (and even more so acting on it) is immoral.
Laying down one's life for another - heroic virtue, but it needs to be interpreted in the light of teachings on suicide. From a Catholic POV, the usual rules on indirect results / double effect applied - one's death could be foreseeable, but must be an unavoidable, proportional consequence of the good effect, and the good effect cannot be directly dependent on one's death.
Ben Withington says he is a "normal guy, not a kook" but frankly I would worry about this guy. It took my about one minute on his website to discover that he believes that Jesus is not God, and that the Apostles "didn't really get it....they made up all the crap about miracles, resurection, ties to prophacy in the Old Testament to be able to better 'sel'" new converts. In the pricess they fatally diluted the saving psychology and social engineering that was Jesus saving gift of Life to us."
Saving psychology and social engineering was Jesus's saving gift to us?
I'm going to pray for this man.
I just looked at his website for a few more minutes and it only gets worse.
Oh, you poor pitiful souls.
God forgive you your blindness. What for goodness sake separates you from the Scribes and Pharasese? Nothing my brothers and sisters.
Judge not lest ye be judged. You know NOTHING about my relationship or actions toward my biological family, and yet you act and talk like Gods.
You miss the entire central teaching of Jesus. Did he come to tell us that our biological family was our "family?" Oh you hypocrites.
I grieve for you.
But I said Lord Lord! I do not know you.
Start Loving
ps: Say and write to your flesh's content. God forgive you. God save you. The blind leading the blind.
My brothers and sisters,
Of course you are doing the best you can, as am I. This is an inescapable part of the human condition - we can't do worse than our best moment to moment. This is one of the reason our Father has so much compassion for us.
Obviously none of us know for certain who, what, where... for God, or we would be God ourselves. We can only imagine, ponder, guess, read, study... with great Humility and yearning for the Truth and for Discipleship.
What I read on this site last night in the few moments I had horrified me. Not to say that it is unusual to see such attitudes and beliefs, but it always grieves me deeply to see such utter lack of humility, Love, Compassion, Brotherhood - not for me, but for Darfur and for any honest seeker like me.
Out of love for you I'll leave you with this because after a day of replacing the posters I hold at the Embassy 24/7 I have just a few moments before returning to the Embassy indefinitely.
What do you think Jesus, our Brother, or God our Father will examine us regarding when they are deciding whether for us it is Heaven or Hell?
From your site in my reading last night it seems you believe They will focus on what we believed - whether we ascribed to the right dogmatic beliefs. Do you think God and Jesus are gamers? Are they so narrow, bored, twisted, sadistic... that you think they have set up some sort of Beliefs Obstacle Course and if you obey the right few rules, have the right few "beliefs" you win; otherwise hell forever. Come on folks, that is Satin! Satin would do that.
God is our Father/Mother. Jesus is our Master and Brother. They love us. They don't need anything from us. Like all good Family they only want for us.
They want us to LOVE OUR BROTHERS AS OUR SELF. This, THIS is the only thing they will discuss with us, examine us regarding as to our destination of Heaven or Hell. Did you love your brother as yourself? Did you do unto the least of these All that you would have them do unto you.
To decide anything else from Jesus words is to decide again that He is a trickster, with an enormous ego that wants to be amused and flattered by watching us writhe around trying to guess what He wants to please / pleasure Him. If that is what they are, God and Jesus, I'll take their Hell any day.
But that is not them. The are pure love for us as Father / Brother / Master. Like all such, they want Heaven on Earth for us that as they promised is guaranteed: THY KINGDOM COMES AS THY WILL IS DONE. Doing their will as best we can imagine it for the least of these their family:
1. Gives the doer complete Joy, Peace, Love, Life exactly as Jesus promised;
2. Moves the material world in the direction of what our Father's Kingdom here should be - Perfect Brotherhood.
Your always Loving brother, Start
ps: If my reading of your site was correct, you are the folks that crucified Jesus the first time, you did it again about 17-1800 years ago, and you've been doing it ever since, despite your belief to the contrary. "They will kill you, and think that they are doing the Father's will."
pps: I wouldn't judge my parenting role regarding the two of my three billion children that I brought into this world. If you are therefore judged as you judge me, one of us will make it to Heaven. I'll miss you. Bring lots of cool drinks.
Mr. Loving,
The Pharisees did not preach that all must have right belief; they preached right action. They “taught as doctrine the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:9) and justified themselves in the sight of men, not of God (Luke 16:15). Their gospel was one of law, not belief. Their own actions were empty. Done for show.
Jesus showed the way of love and that this way comes through right belief – belief that God sent Jesus as the true Savior. (John 10)
Romans 9:31 – 10:11:
...but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works...
Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes...the righteousness based on faith speaks thus: ‘Do not say in your heart, who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.) But what does it say?...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;” for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.’ (NASB)
I Corinthians 13:
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails... (NASB)
I wish you grace and peace.
Dear Start Loving,
From your blogs, it is clear that you greatly admire Teresa of Calcutta.
I would very, very strongly urge you to consider her example.
When she saw great suffering, she did her best to love and serve those who were suffering. She founded a religious order to love and serve the poor and suffering, and encouraged others to take on these works of love and mercy. She spoke out about all these things.
She did not go on a hunger strike to attempt to coerce governments solve the problems.
Among other things, she said that the “greatest destroyer of love and peace today” is abortion. Abolishing legal abortion is a much simpler task than abolishing hunger and poverty (in fact, Jesus tells us that the poor will always be with us), and a much simpler task than stopping the tragedy of Darfur.
Yet even on this simple issue, which merely requires the legislative will of governments (unlike hunger, poverty and Darfur), she did not go on a hunger strike demanding the outlawing of abortion.
And remember, she was already world famous, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and considered by many to be a living saint. She would have garnered far more media attention through a hunger strike than you can.
Please consider following the example of Teresa, whom you say you admire so much.
If you truly feel called by God to lay down your life for Darfur, and you do not have any dependents or other obligations which it would be immoral to abandon, then perhaps you should indeed go to Sudan and risk martyrdom in the course of some great good work of love. But for the love of Christ and the sake of your soul, do not murder yourself.
Please read some of Teresa of Calcutta’s own words – not only on helping the poor, but on her love for Jesus, and on Christianity. Remember, she was a devout, orthodox Catholic who condemned of self-killing as much as any other sort of killing. Please follow her example and do not add any more violence and killing to this world.
Yours in Christ,
Atlantic
Dear brothers and sisters.
I am not ignoring you. I have only moments of access per week to internet. I've not read your recent comments but I will soon with eagerness and I expect to respond.
Your brother, Start
Bonnie,
Regarding your post that starts "Pharisees," the last par is what we agree on, that I give my life for. "They will know you by how you love one another." In fact, I am certain the Love, and "faith" in Love is virtually the entirety of Jesus teaching. He really couldn't care less if we have "faith" in the resurection, that He was the "Son of God" literally. He died to teach us to Love one another, and to place our entire faith in Love." "God is Love," Paul correctly said in one of his letters. Righly, Paul did not go on to say, "God is Love [AND]...." I can no longer look at the totality of Jesus words to us and believe anything less or more. "Love as I have Loved," is what he died for. This is my entire attempt. I think He finally is becomig pleased with me. I am sure.
Loving, Start
Dear Atlantic, cc: Bonnie
Thank you for your thoughtful words.
It is a surprise to me that both you and Bonnie assume that my intent is coerce. This never occurred to me largely because what will save Darfur, our Hearts embracing Darfur, cannot be coerced; would be delayed through coercion. Shame on me for not understanding that you and others could see it as coercion. Shame on you for assuming that coercion is / was my intent - your Hearts, if like Jesus Heart, should have alerted you to this possibility.
Please for your interest at least look at these two extremely authoritative and brief posts regarding this subject:
peaceandnonviolence [dot] blogspot [dot] com/2007/03/love-in-action-thich-nhat-hanh [dot] html
peaceandnonviolence [dot] blogspot [dot] com/2007/03/peace-and-revolution-thomas-merton [dot] html
----------
"The poor will always be among us...." The interpretation of this that I ascribe to is that Jesus was telling what truly WERE Christians (we stopped being within several hundred years) that the poor literally would be "among us" as intimate neighbors in our communities (not as homeless that we warehouse, throw crumbs to, or ignore as we "Christians" (Hypocrites) do today.
----------
I've read and studied much of what Teresa wrote out of greed to learn from her. I do not find her infallible, of course. "I think a Christian should actually live like Jesus [lived]," she said. Also, "The greatest obstacle to people becoming Christian is those who preach the Gospel but do not practice it." Finally, "Love cannot remain passive in the face of suffering."
Had she studied Hanh's article and thinking she MIGHT have well found a hunger-strike-as-an-expression-of-Love to be a wonderful tool for stopping Abortion. Abortion is indeed a dreadful scourge.
Of course abortion is infinitely more difficult to stop than you imagine, much more difficult than stopping the Genocide in Darfur because Abortion is the symptom of the root problem - the ultimate Sin - the Sin I too am battling - "divorce from our Global Family (including the unborn)." We in the west have taken this black "art" way beyond any culture in history. You will not get or sustain the legislation until you reunite us as a Global Family - entirely what Jesus died to wake us up to - that we are all Family.
I am glad for our dialog.
With gratitude and Lovingn
Start
