I just attended a meeting with Arun Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi and founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-Violence, who came to Oklahoma City to speak about non-violence. Gandhi, the past Chairman of The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) national Executive Board, met briefly with members of the Executive Board and Advisory Board of the Oklahoma Chapter of TIA (-- I'm on the Advisory Board).
After a brief speech, Gandhi received questions. I asked him to comment on Russell Moore's essay about his teaching his children to be violent from his "blessedly violent" Bible. His remarks were prefaced by a statement that too often he thought TIA was simply reacting to what the Religious Right was doing and had thereby let them set our agenda. He hoped that TIA would become more pro-active and positive in what it did.
Gandhi answered my question by citing his grandfather as an example. He noted that the Hindu scriptures are filled with stories of battles and wars and he admitted that fundamentalists in his own faith have used these stories to justify and perpetuate violence. He said Mahatma Gandhi applied a psychological hermeneutic. He interpreted the stories of war to be about inner struggles against the desire for revenge and the impulse toward violence.
6 comments:
Go back and read Moore's article again and then read Anonymous' comment in your last post. Moore was doing just as Ghandi was in comparing the violence of the Bible to how we should struggle with the spiritual forces. When are you going to admit you are wrong a lot Bruce? You are quick to speak, but slow to listen.
D.R.
I'm certain that Moore does not equate the "cosmic battle between an evil dragon and the child of the woman" with a psyhological struggle.
You are free to express opinions here, but if you persist in making personal attacks your comments are going to be deleted.
adios anonymous
Anon,
This may be your last post here and I did not want you to leave completely before I say farewell and God's speed. But I also want to mention that I was taken back also by Moore's essay. I'm sure this comes as no surprise to you. His use of the word "violent" was very uncomfortable for me. I have immediate family members who have been victims of violence and I have seen the devasation of lives first hand. We all come to this blog from a unique and individual perspective, each having experience hurts in one way or another. To me Moore's essay was a bit insensitive. It came across a bit sarcastic in his use of the word violent. Violence is a very sensitive issue for those who have been violated whether it be domestic violence,violence in the workplace, racism, sexism, structural economic violence, violence against the earth, and international armed conflict. Violence can also be motivated by a desire for justice in the face of injustice, a longing to put things right, to end victimization or oppression. We are only human, struggling to make sense of things.
Why do we allow some people to use controversial wording and irony and yet cannot stand it when others do the exact same thing. As for your comment on the psychological usage v. spiritual usage, either way both were not literally calling for violence but seeing it as internal, which was my point.
As for personal attacks, how do you get away with it and yet not allow others to personally call out others for their character flaws. The fact that you completely misrepresented Moore's article is worth you apologizing for and the fact that I stated that is not a personal attack. You call folks out every day. But I may be wasting my time because you might say this is a personal attack and delete this.
d.r.
Bruce has every right to delete comments. It's his blog.
Post a Comment