Common Enemies Can Cause Fatal Attractions

It has happened in the past. The Church has signed an agreement with a group because of a common enemy only to find that its new friend is a cause for the Church's demise. This happened in 1933 when the Roman Church signed a Konkordat with Hitler's government. Their main reason for doing so was that the Pope supported the Nazi opposition to Communism. In addition, the Roman Church as a whole, not including every member, was not a big fan of the Jews. In that Konkordat, the Nazi government promised the Roman Church freedom and protection while the Roman Church promised not to interfere. History tells us that it didn't work out that well for the Roman Church.

Of course, that is not the only example of the Church making questionable alliances because of some common foe. But we have two new potential examples in the Middle East and Africa. Since the beginning of the uprising in Syria, Syrian Christians have, for the most part, thrown their support behind its brutal dictator, President Assad. Why? It is because his government has been giving them protection from its enemies. But it's not just protection, it is jobs (click here). Though not calling for outright support for Assad's government today, Christians just met with President Obama where he reminded them of who was their guardian 'angel' and they asked Obama to be careful in which rebel groups he supported. They were particularly opposed to any American support for foreign groups (click here and there).

Egyptian Christians have faced a similar dilemma. They either see themselves go unprotected or they choose to align themselves with power that both protects them and oppresses others. And their support for Egypt's President didn't start with its current one. This kind of alliance goes back to the days of Egypt's first President to be recently overthrown, Hosni Mubarak (click here). Just as in Syria, the history of church support for the government in Egypt sheds a different light on the persecution faced by Christians in the region. For it may not be due to just hatred of another religion, it could also partially be because those who are persecuting Christians believe that the friend of their enemy is their enemy. Out of taking care of themselves first, Christians in both countries might have been too scared to realize that they were compromising their values for their security. And this is tough to say because choosing one's own security over principles is our natural inclination, though not a Biblical one.

This story of the Church aligning itself with power is like the 2nd verse of Herman Hermits' song, I'm Henry VIII I Am. Take the French Revolution for example. Though not for the same reasons as what we are seeing in Syria and Egypt, the Church aligned itself with power and prospered because of it. Thus, when the French Revolution broke out, the Church was targeted because of its active support for the Nobility. And this is where history is a little different from the present. The targeting of the Church in Syria and Egypt is more less because of guilt by association. Yes, there is political support for oppressive governments. But in these examples, the Church was merely trying to buy protection for itself even though their protection continues to lead to the oppression of others. Because both the Church and the government have some common predators/enemies, the Churches in these two countries have thrown their faith and support for those with power.

And it's not like the Christian Church here in America doesn't have its own dilemma to face. Only instead of needing protection, the Church here faces a prosperity issue. Either support, silently or vigorously, an exploitive Capitalist economic system so that it will win friends and prosper itself, or preach against the sins of the system and suffer the popular and economic consequences (click here). There seems to be no middle ground. However, there are trends. Those Churches that follow more orthodox theologies tend to align themselves with the status quo. Those Churches with more accommodating and liberal theologies have a greater tendency than their more conservative counterparts to challenge the status quo especially in behalf of the marginalized. But the liberal Church's tendencies here are nothing to write home about.

In all of these cases, what we are talking about is the Church's tendency to proclaim itself as a guardian of truth while compromising what should be its values to gain something from the current system. In the case of the French Revolution, the Church gained power. In America, the Church gained respect and prosperity. In Nazi Germany, the Church avoided state persecution.  

But the return is not only a sacrificing of at least a part of its soul, it meant temporal losses too. In the French Revolution, the Church faced scorn, rejection, and a seat at the table because of its association with the Nobility. With America, the Church's fate because of its partnership with an exploitive Capitalism is too early to tell. With Nazi Germany, the Church's new beau was a monstrous beast that brought down everyone with it. 

What will be the fate of the Syrian and Egyptian Church? We do not know. What is obvious is that their situations, so far, most resemble the Roman Church's situation with Nazi Germany. But whatever happens, the greater tragedy is that the Church will be too interested in its own short-term outcomes to care about the compromises it is making. And if we Christians wonder why people don't believe the Gospel we preach, we need to go look into a mirror to see if our credibility is down. For while claiming to preach values and faith, we have all too often shown that our only interest is self-interest despite how others around us suffer.

'Never Again' Was Never Learned

The movie The Book Thief brings back thoughts of WW II whether they come from personal experience or from reading. All sane people who have even a minimal knowledge of WWII react to that time in history by muttering the phrase, 'Never Again.' But the problem here is that the phrase is ambiguous. Is a person who says, 'Never Again,' referring only to the suffering of the Jews or are they only referring to the suffering of all victims of the Holocaust? Are they referring to the suffering of all of the war's victims or are they just referring to the dehumanization of  groups of people (a.k.a., calling people from specific nationalities, 'untermenschen') in the name of nationalism? Are they referring only to the domination of other people or do they include the wars of aggression, emerging empires, or to something else?

For example, when the Israeli government treats Palestinians the way it does, does the phrase, 'Never Again,' enter the consciousness of those in the government? Or perhaps we should ask what our fellow Americans or government is referring to when they say, 'Never Again'? Are we only referring to the victims of the Holocaust as we spread our economic and political empires? And what about Europe? When its people and governments say, 'Never Again,' are they referring to the persecution of specific groups of people while it seeks joint control over resources and as they experience a rejuvenation of nationalism? The list of countries or groups who should be asked what they mean by 'Never Again' can go on and on.

It's important to be precise here because what we don't mean is just as important. For if we only are referring to preventing the Jews from suffering from atrocities when we say, 'Never Again,' does that mean we don't care if other groups suffer greatly? Does it mean that we don't care whether there are continued attempts to dominate different people or countries or that we don't care if there are empires or wars of aggression?

All of this brings us to where we are today. We currently have a global, economic class war that is being fought on some fronts in a blitzkrieg manner. The victims of the war, whether they be foreign or fellow Americans receive little sympathy by the guardians of our economic system. Such victims are said to be responsible for their own individual fate because of their past decisions and a failure to be responsible. Little do these guardians know that they are guarding a machine, just as the Germans once defended the Nazi machine, by trying to assert that people only have extrinsic value. Those who have learned how to contribute to the machine are the ones who are doing well while the rest eventually become relegated to the rank of untermenschen. 

So do we care what will happen to those who have lost their jobs and/or homes because of the financial shenanigans of our financial institutions and to those live lives of financial hopelessness? And do we care about those who are being forced into the slavery of sweatshop, migrant labor, or are being trafficked as long as we are doing well? Aren't all these people regarded as untermenschen by the powers that be and, perhaps, by us too?

When we say 'Never Again,' we could be referring to actions that produced the most immediate and telling results, the unspeakable atrocities of the holocaust. And certainly we can say that we are not conducting another holocaust against the Jews. But what about the millions of Vietnamese who were killed in the Vietnam War? And what about the tens of thousands we had killed in our interventions in Latin America? And how many Iraqis died from the combination of our sanctions and invasion of Iraq? And how much suffering have Afghanis experienced beginning with our proxy war against the Russians there during the 1980s? Have we really learned the meaning of the phrase, 'Never Again.' 

Do we understand what the striving for empire and dominance brings to those who are on the wrong side of the struggle? For such endeavors may not be the resulting actions associated with the Holocaust but they were actions that contributed to the Holocaust. So even if we were to say 'Never Again,' it just cannot be to the Holocaust itself, we must say it to those actions that made the Holocaust a realistic possibility. For we cannot excuse ourselves from violating 'Never Again' if we continue to look to conquer, whether economically or militarily, and we look to dominate to build our own empires and living spaces. Not only have we caused enough suffering already, we have made the worst atrocities more possible and even acceptable by what we become more willing to do or by inciting others to seek revenge.

But before closing, we should note that besides contributing actions to the Holocaust, we also have supporting actions the atrocities of Nazi Germany. The supporting actions were performed by everyday people and society's institutions, especially the Church. Those citizens who did not resist the Nazis in some way were complicit with what they did. For the citizens had the resources available to them to learn what was happening. But instead, they preferred being a kept people when times were good and obedient citizens the whole time. As for institutions like the Church, they had given up their prophetic role in order to be protected from scrutiny and persecution.

Certainly we are not as bad as the Nazis and whatever faults we can find with ourselves pale in comparison with that of the Nazis. So some will claim that, at least in part, we have learned 'Never Again.' But we have already caused a great deal of suffering since WWII and our most important crises of environmental destruction, possible war with WMDs, and a growing poverty from wealth disparity do threaten the lives of more people than we care to admit. And our past sins and current crises are the result of some of the same factors that contributed to the Holocaust: holding to a sense of entitlement based on the belief in one's superiority and the relegation of others to being less than ourselves. Can we claim that we have learned 'Never Again' simply because, so far, we have produced fewer victims? 

In addition, it isn't just America that hasn't learned 'Never Again,' it is every group and nation that looks to expand its dominance and shuts its eyes to the suffering of others. Here, Russia and China, just like America, in the name of nationalism,  have clearly demonstrated that they have failed to learn 'Never Again.' 

At some time, the dam containing our crises and dangers will break and who knows the number of future victims. But regardless of that number, we will know who will be responsible for the suffering. We who were quiet and compliant will be. For in our passivity we have demonstrated that we have failed to learn 'Never Again.'