A Christian Warlord in Lebanon.
The new parliament in Lebanon has voted to acquit the former anti-Syrian warlord Samir Geagea from the five life sentences that he has been serving in solitary confinement for the last eleven years. Geagea was jailed in 1994 for several alleged murders including the 1987 murder of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rashid Karami.
It is generally acknowledged that Geagea’s trial was unlawful, and Amnesty International has been calling for his immediate release. The resistance leader claims that he was a political prisoner being punished for dissent and wartime actions rather than crimes against society.
Like so many political chasms, this one has been cut distinctly along religious lines. Geagea was an instrumental leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces militia which carried out anti-Syrian resistance from 1975 to 1990. He is a powerful symbol of past resistance in the current Cedar Revolution.
Several news sources have labeled Geagea as a “Christian Warlord.” That is a difficult concept for me. His political interests do ally themselves with the largely-Christian, anti-Syrian population in Lebanon. I am sure that he would call himself a person of faith. But in Lebanon the word “Christian” seems to now best represent political ideas instead of a metaphysical view of the world (hmm… sounds familiar). Geagea is a military warlord, a political revolutionist, an activist leader, but these things must be held in an acknowledged tension with his faith. There is a necessary conflict of values when taken in the context of the call of Christianity.
I struggle to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the violence of humankind. Can I really be a person of irrational peace? Is it really a higher calling to wash feet than it is to ascend political stardom?
I’ll freely admit that some revolutions absolutely fit with my faith- the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and civil rights to name a few from right here in the U.S., and some of the steps to progress involved violence. But can I connect the terms ‘Christian’ and ‘Warlord’? I don’t think that I can. While it may not be impossible to be both within one human being, it is not a natural connection when held in light of the life of Christ.
Like so many political chasms, this one has been cut distinctly along religious lines. Geagea was an instrumental leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces militia which carried out anti-Syrian resistance from 1975 to 1990. He is a powerful symbol of past resistance in the current Cedar Revolution.
Several news sources have labeled Geagea as a “Christian Warlord.” That is a difficult concept for me. His political interests do ally themselves with the largely-Christian, anti-Syrian population in Lebanon. I am sure that he would call himself a person of faith. But in Lebanon the word “Christian” seems to now best represent political ideas instead of a metaphysical view of the world (hmm… sounds familiar). Geagea is a military warlord, a political revolutionist, an activist leader, but these things must be held in an acknowledged tension with his faith. There is a necessary conflict of values when taken in the context of the call of Christianity.
I struggle to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the violence of humankind. Can I really be a person of irrational peace? Is it really a higher calling to wash feet than it is to ascend political stardom?
I’ll freely admit that some revolutions absolutely fit with my faith- the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and civil rights to name a few from right here in the U.S., and some of the steps to progress involved violence. But can I connect the terms ‘Christian’ and ‘Warlord’? I don’t think that I can. While it may not be impossible to be both within one human being, it is not a natural connection when held in light of the life of Christ.
posted by Erin 12:05 AM
7 Comments:
I should clarify that I am not opposed to the release of Geagea. Amnesty International has a strong case against his imprisonment. I am just trying to grapple with the concept of a Christian Warlord.
In most cases (including this one)the term "Warlord" is more than a protector- it is a political/military aggressor. I just have trouble with the identification of that type of action as Christian. It doesn't seem to really reflect anything distinctly Christ-like.
When the early believers were persecuted in Rome, they did not seek to overthrow the government. The Church grew leaps and bounds because Christians were more loyal to their faith than their life. They were living the teachings of Jesus that commanded turning the other cheek.
Geagea was/is much more than any sort of protector. He is an aggressor. Whether his cause is morally justified or not, his actions seem to reflect more political interest than spiritual.
Erin, I am with you on this one. I don't know that I can connect "Christian" and "Warlord" either. I come from a Pacifist background, but despite that, and despite the many references in the Bible where God helped Christians in various attacks on various other groups of people... I don't think that he intended that to continue after his Resurrection. I'm sure a scholar would have a more educated answer to that idea. One might also argue that God would expect us to trust entirely in HIM to battle for us - that we would not have to pick up the sword ourselves, so to speak, therefore, eliminating the need for a "Warlord". Perhaps we might consider being prayer warriors instead.
Heather- Good thoughts. The Resurrection did flip tradition on its head.
I am interested in your pacifist background- was it just your family, or was your faith community pacifist also?
Was not Constantine the Great (the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire) a "Christian Warlord"? He would be one of many examples of "Christan Warlords" from the history books. All in the name of Jesus.
You are correct, in my opinion, that it is hard to "reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the violence of humankind".
But, I find it equally hard to reconcile the teachings of Mohammed with the violence that we are seeing almost everyday.
Yet, both the Christan and Muslim faithful wage battles and have warlords despite the teachings of their respective prophets. All under the belief in the same God.
Erin, both my family and faith community are, as a general rule, practicing Pacifists. I think that some of those beliefs and ideas are evolving however. A Pacifist's view is not to be involved in the front line fighting, but rather to be involved in non-violent activities - a military nurse for example. I personally feel that it is slightly hypocritical to think that way. "They can do the killing for me (because it's sin to kill), I'll just sit back here and tend to the wounded (but not be involved directly)". I grew up both culturally and religiously Mennonite... and not the ones that make the news as being drug dealers from Mexico! Now, I still think of myself as culturally Mennonite, but Christian by religion - I don't really like to tie myself to one particular religious group. The town I live in is a tiny prairie town, and in it are five churches - all Mennonite churches! So my options are limited, but we attend one that I feel is open-minded, and willing to evolve their ideas. Thanks for asking. I've looked at the Vibrant website, and I really like the concept. It would be nice to have a church like that closer by.
ER- Constantine may have been the first to merit that title. I just don't like the concepts to be combined.
Heather- A town of five Mennonite churches! Wow. What was the crime rate like? (Just kidding.)
Thanks for sharing some of your background with me. While I am only looking in from the outside, I think a Pacifist upbringing is probably much more healthy than the diehard connection between militant patriotism and faith like we have seen in the States during the last ten years.
And I do love Vibrant. It has been a very important piece of my life since I've been in Portland.
Erin, I don't think we have a crime rate! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Post a Comment
<< Home