the future of faith: Globalization vs. fundamentalism, Yoda vs. al Qaida

“Give us this day our daily faith, but deliver us from beliefs.”

-Aldous Huxley, Island

Opening his last chapter of The Future of Faith, Harvey Cox offers this eccentric quote from Huxley’s sketch on the future of religion in a science world.  It is overstated to be sure, but the quote captures something that, like it or not, we are seeing in the world of religions today.  The growing emphases on Spirit and Justice are disrupting the preeminence which dogmatic belief has held on the religious landscape, especially in the last century.

—-

Part 1: Creeds crafting orthodoxy and the Gospel of Thomas

Part 2: 20th Century American Fundamentalism

Globalization: Humility, or pluralism and fundamentalism

Globalization breeds crisis of faith as contact with the Other suggests we may not understand as much as we previously thought.  A mature reaction is humility and a desire to dialogue and learn.  But more commonly a reaction of ambiguous syncretism or reactionary dogmatic fundamentalism is taken instead.  This is the history of the late 20^th century, as earlier 20^th century trends of theological liberalism and fundamentalism reached a crux to the point that people took sides without realizing they were even doing so..

To explain this, Cox highlights the remarkable resurgence in Islam over the last century.  There are a variety of explanations for this trend: the rise of education and low job market in the middle east, the world’s oil addiction, the failure of either socialism or free market capitalism to satisfy needs.  But the most likely reason, Cox argues, is the way in which change (i.e. globalization) breeds in people a need for stability (i.e. tradition, religion).  To take it a step further, Islam has always had a care for the poor as a central pillar, and so the growing humanitarian obsession merged well with a religio-political system that required the poor to to be taken care of in order to reach paradise.

The rise of lay leadership, to the hierarchy’s chagrin

On top of this, we see a phenomenon in Islam that has congruent strains in every major religion: the rise of the lay semi-clergy.  Notably, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are showing trends toward less ordination, less officiation, and more work outside the bounds of the dominant system.  In American Christianity, we see this in para-church ministries such as Young Life, the Passion conferences, the Salvation Army, or churches planted without denominational support or seminary-schooled clergy.  There is no longer an assumed need for official sanction.  The reaction from the religious systems of the world loosing control is violent.  A brand new Buddhist temple, beautifully constructed into the side of Mt. Fugi is destroyed because it houses a lay sect.  Christian priests are excommunicated.  Muslim’s have been killed for stepping outside the watch of the imams.

Education breeds doubt and atheism

Cox goes on to describe a far more hidden fact, a truth that philosophers and theologians have known since Plato but that few choose to articulate: people want a solid, unquestionable narrative with which to frame life and ethics.  Faith does not do well if its subscribers do not feel absolutely sure of their fundamentals.  Even in the highly functional societies of northern Europe need a common, almost religious, framing ethic regardless of the success of atheism.  In the Bible churches of the US south, we see an example of this in the way that pastors are reluctant to teach their congregations of the contradictions and problems with Biblical inerrancy that they learned in seminary.  People hate that sense of not being sure.

History inarguably shows that a society’s rise of education corresponds to a rise in atheism.  Even when atheism does not dominate, a rise in intellect still threatens the clergy-class because the lay become aware of problems in the faith.  People learn, and then they doubt.  There doubts can no longer be assuaged with pompous assurances from a cleric, because the doubter can google the question on his mind and know more about it in a short 10 minutes than the cleric learned in 5 years of grad school.  So at best, education threatens the religious establishment, if not religion itself.

Crisis point: liberalism leads to fundamentalism leads to emergence

The last trend Cox sees in the future of faith is the sharpening and marginalization of fundamentalism.  To look at this, Cox highlights al Qaida, a group that emerged in response to what it saw as the secularization of governments founded in Islam.  Intelligence analysts tell us that al Qaida’s goal is not first and foremost to hurt America and non-Muslim states.  Al Qaida wants Islamic renewal, and after witnessing the trend of impassioned young Muslims rising whenever a foreign state intervenes in domestic affairs, al Qaida saw an opportunity to coax America to attack.  Hence 9/11; we each needed the other to attack.  For a few years, their desire for the US to attack worked well and surged their ranks.  Fundamentalist movements are well equipped to draw true believers.  But the plan backfired, as fundamentalist tactics warped by a good guys vs. bad guys worldview tend to do, and by 2005, we saw al Qaida’s plummeting esteem in the Muslim world.  The became the laughable sideliners, angrily fighting a loosing battle.  An American national intelligence agency reported in 2008 that al Qaida was being alienated from the broader Muslim world due to its “indiscriminate killing and inattention to the practical problems of poverty, unemployment, and education.”

Cox makes a startling comparison to Islam’s extremist wing to what he says is the American Christian version: the Religious Right’s desire for a “Christian nation.”  In Africa, it comes in the form of bishops splitting communions over women and gay clergy.  In Israel, it is the formation of a religious “Torah State.”  In India, the Barata Janata party wants to “Hinduize” India.  It is a consistent fundamentalist reaction we see in every major religion to discomfort with globalization.  At some point, globalization and growing literacy/education forces a community to a crisis point at which they will choose either mechanistic and reactionary fundamentalism, or a rupture into faith beyond the traditional bounds of beliefs they have known.  My fear for the Church is that so many choose fundamentalism because they mistakenly feel doing so is loyal to Jesus and the Bible.  It is a very deceptive myth that shrouds fear and misinformation as loyalty.

Jedi Prophet Yoda

The great sage Yoda once said, “Fear is the path to the Dark Side.  Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate… leads to suffering. “

There is much fear disguising itself as loyalty in all the fundamentalist movements.  It thrives on misinformation and an unwillingness to learn from anyone outside its own camp.  And it is a losing battle.  Fundamentalism will never die, but it will continue to be marginalized, screaming from the sidelines that somebody else stole their things and they want them back.

The Future of Faith

In the end Cox is very hopeful for the future of faith, as am I.  A growing emphasis on Spirit and Justice is on the rise, and fundamentalism is on the decline.  Faith, with its loyal prophets of education and atheism, are growing strong.  Just as creeds emerged from the spheres of authority over a vast body that could have cared less, we see less emphasis on lists of beliefs for inclusion (and theologians like myself are far more interested in a wider sphere of learning).  There is less hierarchy, patriarchy, and dogmatism.  Faiths are rediscovering their founder’s philosophies.  The Church is rediscovering “Gospel” as Jesus defined it (“the Kingdom of God is at hand”) rather than the way 20^th century fundamentalism defined it (“believe these things and you will get to heaven”).  As Rabbi Gamaliel once urged the Sanhedrin to cease oppressing an emerging Jewish sect called “the Way of Jesus” because if it was from God it could not be stopped, I am convinced this new turn of the Spirit and Justice will not be stopped.  It will be excommunicated, slandered, oppressed, and martyred, but it will not be stopped.

blessed are the peacemakers

Jon Stewart interviews an Israeli and a Palestinian on their efforts to bring more peace to the region.  Anna Balzer and Mustafa Barghouti discuss their efforts modeled on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s doctrine of non-violent revolution.  They discuss occupation, homeland insecurity, and the political and religious resistance to dialogue.   And Joe Wilson interrupts…

Part 2 here

Advocating for the Homeless in Little Rock

Libby has been working with the SOAR Network to reduce homelessness and extreme poverty in Little Rock. As a part of this, she’s putting together the Warm Spaces project, with the goal of providing mass shelter for the homeless during the ninety cold nights from December through February. We hope to see churches volunteer their space and resources, as well as drive volunteerism to help with the project. If you are interested in getting involved, you should contact her at libby@soarnetwork.org . We need space for the families to rest, but we also need volunteers to spend the nights on location.

There is also an informational meeting tonight at 5:30pm at Main Library.

I am convicted that homelessness and our response is a key barometer of the ethical veracity of our theology. We hope to see churches involved, as we believe God-of-the-poor is on a mission to restore shalom and justice to the world, and cares little for the logistical and legal concerns that may stand in the way and make acts of mercy inconvenient. But so often, we favor an other-worldly salvation that skews the prophetic calls for mercy and justice. We find small ways to justify non-mercy. I find myself guilty of this every time I look at a homeless person with contempt, assuming he is suffering under his own stupid choices; or when I feel he needs correct religious beliefs more than food; or when I become indignant at an opportunity to help. The Hebrew prophet Micah sang that worship without concrete acts of justice is detestable. Poets, sages, prophets, rabbis, and preachers throughout history have recognized God’s preferential option for the poor and the oppressed, and who usurps systems that create imbalance. James Forbes once cleverly summarized Matthew 25 with the suggestion that “no one will get to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor.”

Estimates put Little Rock’s homeless population at 3,000 men, women, and children. That’s right around 1.5% of Little Rock, Arkansas. I grew up in the more affluent west Little Rock, where everyone seemed to know to whom you referred when you spoke about “the homeless man that lives under the bridge.” We were a bit removed from reality, and it allowed us to see this man as a kindly, drunkenly bumbling grampa-ish figure who choose his lifestyle (which always seemed to reinforce the legitimacy of non-concern). We were removed from a reality in which some of that 1.5% will perish this winter for lack of shelter, food, or health care.

I don’t think the human soul is capable of baring the sadness of poverty on a global (or even city) level. But we do have our hands and feet and resources, and we can join with the God-of-the-poor in small, concrete ways. We may give up a bit of our world, but we may gain a bit of our soul back from the hell of indifference and piety.

While my wife and I will be the first to admit that homelessness is not our primary passion or calling, it has been enlightening to immerse ourselves in this active culture struggling with the powers-that-be for mercy. I hope I can become more and more involved in social justice over the course of my life (and please point out my hypocrisy if my words carry no action, so long as I present myself as a follower of God-of-the-poor).

a brief survey of American Fundamentalism (“the Future of Faith” by Harvey Cox, part 2)

Fundamentalists can be scary. If you spook them, they will lash out at you and then tell you god told them to do it. You have to be nice to then and not show interest in science while they convert you. And nothing spooks them more than finding out they aren’t quite the original faith that they fashion themselves to be. They are every bit legit, as sure as Evolution is a lie of Satan, and they will tell you so.

In The Future of Faith, Harvey Cox is not afraid to take on Christianity’s chief revisionists: American Fundamentalists.

Seriously, by “Fundamentalists,” I don’t just mean someone who is ultra-conservative, anti-thinking, and pro-blowing-stuff-up. We all know that’s true for some of them, but really, I use the term “Fundamentalist” here in the technical sense that its own members in the past defined themselves as, referring to a list of non-negotiable beliefs as well as a mindset that is often implied by such an outlook. I don’t mean it in a pejorative sense. I’ve attended and served in several Evangelical churches, and while Fundamentalism may be something I no longer identify with personally, it is the mother of my faith; and in that sense I owe Fundamentalism my very faith. So it is a part of my faith’s past that I hold lovingly.

The History of Fundamentalists… who seldom know they are Fundamentalists

The Christian Fundamentalist movement can trace its roots to late 19^th and early 20^th century counter-reformations that emerged in response to theological liberalism at the time. Scholarship, as well as trendy notions that Christianity would dissolve into a single command (Love) and no more, upset the religious commons and they began to respond with a high dependence on safe beliefs. In 1910, a movement indignant at what they saw as the syncretism of accommodation began to publish a pamphlet called The Fundamentals, and widely circulated this pamphlet. They gallantly took the name Fundamentalists for themselves, using it not as a negative term, but instead with intent to show fidelity to the Faith. The Five Fundamentals chosen were 1) the divine inspiration and total inerrancy of the Bible, 2) the Virgin Birth of Christ, 3) the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, 4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and 5) the imminent second coming of Christ in glory. Each was picked do to particular battle being waged at the time with the academy. So inherent to the birth of Fundamentalism, as inflammatory as this may seem, is a sort of anti-intellectualism which the movement was birthed in response as. History, science, textual criticism, and the academy that pushed these things, all became suspect to the fundamentalist. And Cox notes significantly, not one of those imperative Fundamentals had anything at all to do with the life and teaching of Christ.

A mere fifty years before (mid 19^th century) had seen the rise of language such as “accept Christ as your personal Savior” in popular terminology. And now with the paramount importance of (these 5) beliefs over actions, Fundamentalism was a functional and coherent converting machine, though dooming itself to have little to say on the life and teaching of Christ.

They sought to “get back to the teachings of the early church,” all the while loathing the scholarship trying to shed light on the variant and amorphous teachings of the early church. But a revisionist history will serve a group quite well so long as the collective operates by the narrative. Each fundamental was a response to liberalism: inerrancy countered growing application of historical research and literary methods; virgin birth and resurrection countered Christ being painted as a mere moral exemplar; immanent second coming was meant to cease ideas that man was coming closer to bringing the Kingdom of God to earth. The second coming fundamental inaugurated the 20^th century American church’s obsession with novel and localized (both in time and history) interpretation of isolated texts in Daniel and Ezekiel, combined with Revelation, into a belief that we are on the precipice of the Apocalypse. It’s a popular misunderstanding of prophecy and eschatology. This belief in a Rapture and coming 7 year Tribulation represents well the way in which a revisionist history (and worldview resistant to others) can permeate a subculture to the point that believers presume this is only the conservative, orthodox belief and that anything contrary is new. But this was just as fundamental as the rest.

Harvey Cox makes a compelling case that while non-fundamentalist sects of religions have made great strides in interfaith dialogue (always a good thing), this has often come at the expense of intrafaith dialogue. As it is suspect of syncretism at any inter/intrafaith dialogue which does not aim at conversion, Fundamentalism has been similarly cut off from conversation with the broader church, to the detriment of all. This dichotomy has created on one side an elitist Christianity unwilling to take Fundamentalists seriously, and on the other a Fundamentalist Christianity which sees itself as a victim struggling against the forces of evil (though evil may come under the façade of a more liberal Christian) in its endless battle to get back to the good ole’ days of pure belief (which are themselves a myth).

In his chapter entitled “Get Them into the Lifeboat,” Cox walks us through his own phase as a fundamentalist. It was a moment of nostalgia for me. I grew up Southern Baptist until my family moved to a non-denominational church when I was 13. And though I was vaguely aware that there were specific dates at which the Baptist or Non-Denom movements started, we tacitly just knew that we had the “real” faith, the one that had been around since the very beginning. Cox had a similar stint with Fundamentalism, exposed through a college campus ministry, doing door-to-door evangelism, and getting people saved. It began to loose sway for him, much as it did for me, as he grew in awareness of textual criticism, the problematic history of Christianity and the text, and the general threat that questioning seemed to pose. The threat taken at honest, seeking questions was the greatest single destabilize in my own fundamentalism.

With these fundamentals nailed down for the true believer, Cox quotes the great evangelist Dwight Moody who said, “the Lord told me, ‘Moody, just get as many into the lifeboat as you can.’” American Fundamentalism was persuasive and argumentative from its birth, and has continued so on, especially given its preeminence placed on particular items of beliefs to be decided on. But the problems with the Bible, over which it separated with Mainline Christianity over, still arose. If the bible was inerrant, which version? Was it the very words, the thoughts, or just the overall concept? And which Bible? Though the Bible has never gone more than a few hundred years without being added or subtracted from, this did not concern an entirely Protestant sect until the findings at Nag Hammadi, the growing awareness of other ancient gospels and apocalypses, or the simple fact that the old manuscripts we have don’t match. What do you do with Mark if it ends 20 different ways depending on which manuscript you grabbed today? And are we then making ourselves a “Paper Pope,” which, although inconsistent to everyone around us, we see as inerrant?

Many more problems were to come, not the least of which was Fundamentalism’s, along with its close cousin Evangelicalism, growing estrangement from the culture at large. The gap was wide enough that this was considered a good thing.

Though the particular fundamentals have changed focus somewhat, they are still remarkably similar a century later. The worldview has not changed much, and so powerful is the idea that we are the norm and just getting back to original Christianity that most fundamentalists seem to be unaware that they are, in fact, fundamentalists. Again, I don’t mean this term to be taken in any derogatory sense, but I do think it would be better for dialogue inside the church if fundamentalists could recognize themselves as every bit as new as the liberals on the other side. Fundamentalists are not recovering the early church, nor are they recovering orthodoxy. It is not there to be recovered. Instead, they are a later movement that appeals to a certain mindset. The unquestioning, unceasing faithfulness of the fundamentalist is admirable. But it is still a 20^th century North American theological movement.

In combating theological liberalism, there is a sense in which Fundamentalists accidentally and unwittingly created *wince* … a newer liberalism. But don’t point that out to them.

Cox closes with this bit:

“Having once experienced at least a hint of the vigor that drives Christian fundamentalists, I am always fascinated by their movements and still feel a touch of empathy with them. I cannot help but admire their commitment and dive. I still find myself at times humming the soaring hymns I learned with them. Still, I also know how much effort it requires to be a fundamentalist. It can get tiring. You must constantly fight not only the skepticism of those around you, but the doubts that arise within yourself. Mainly fundamentalists evoke from me a sense of sadness. Their pathos is that they expend such energy on such a losing cause.”

Thoughts on violence from the WWII priest who blessed the atomic bombs

This i shameless plagiarize from a like-minded brother.  Provocative thoughts on war and hell and violence and non-violence, from a Catholic priest on Tinian who blessed epic violence and now offers his thoughts.  I wish i had seen this in time to post on the recent Hiroshima anniversary, as this man has much more to contribute than i did.   Read before commenting…

—-

This is from Father George Zabelka who in 1945 blessed the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Before you begin reading, read this: If you do not read every word of this note- Do. Not. Comment. No skimmers deciding what I need to know before hearing me out. Period.

“These are good words by the way. If the length of this troubles you, I feel sorry for you. Hopefully you’re not the kind that reads John 3:16 once a week instead of reading through entire sections of scripture. You should learn to read. Take the time to look over this and let a brother in Christ (Zabelka) convict you.”- Cody Sandidge

The destruction of civilians in war was always forbidden by the Church, and if a soldier came to me and asked if he could put a bullet through a child’s head, I would have told him, absolutely not. That would be mortally sinful. But in 1945 Tinian Island was the largest airfield in the world. Three planes a minute could take off from it around the clock. Many of these planes went to Japan with the express purpose of killing not one child or one civilian but of slaughtering hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of children and civilians – and I said nothing. As a Catholic chaplain I watched as the Boxcar, piloted by a good Irish Catholic pilot, dropped the bomb on Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan.

I never preached a single sermon against killing civilians to the men who were doing it. I was brainwashed! It never entered my mind to protest publicly the consequences of these massive air raids. I was told it was necessary – told openly by the military and told implicitly by my Church’s leadership. (To the best of my knowledge no American cardinals or bishops were opposing these mass air raids. Silence in such matters is a stamp of approval.) I worked with Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights struggle in Flint, Michigan. His example and his words of nonviolent action, choosing love instead of hate, truth instead of lies, and nonviolence instead of violence stirred me deeply. This brought me face to face with pacifism – active nonviolent resistance to evil. I recall his words after he was jailed in Montgomery, and this blew my mind. He said, “Blood may flow in the streets of Montgomery before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood that flows, and not that of the white man. We must not harm a single hair on the head of our white brothers.” I struggled. I argued. But yes, there it was in the Sermon on the Mount, very clear: “Love your enemies. Return good for evil.” I went through a crisis of faith. Either accept what Christ said, as unpassable and silly as it may seem, or deny him completely.

For the last 1700 years the Church has not only been making war respectable: it has been inducing people to believe it is an honorable profession, an honorable Christian profession. This is not true. We have been brainwashed. This is a lie. War is now, always has been, and always will be bad, bad news. I was there. I saw real war. Those who have seen real war will bear me out. I assure you, it is not of Christ. It is not Christ’s way. There is no way to conduct real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. There is no way to train people for real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. The morality of the balance of terrorism is a morality that Christ never taught. The ethics of mass butchery cannot be found in the teachings of Jesus. In Just War ethics, Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be all in the Christian life, is irrelevant. He might as well never have existed. In Just War ethics, no appeal is made to him or his teaching, because no appeal can be made to him or his teaching, for neither he nor his teaching gives standards for Christians to follow in order to determine what level of slaughter is acceptable.

So the world is watching today. Ethical hairsplitting over the morality of various types of instruments and structures of mass slaughter is not what the world needs from the Church, although it is what the world has come to expect from the followers of Christ. What the world needs is a grouping of Christians that will stand up and pay up with Jesus Christ. What the world needs is Christians who, in language that the simplest soul could understand, will proclaim: the follower of Christ cannot participate in mass slaughter. He or she must love as Christ loved, live as Christ lived, and, if necessary, die as Christ died, loving ones enemies.

For the 300 years immediately following Jesus’ resurrection, the Church universally saw Christ and his teaching as nonviolent. Remember that the Church taught this ethic in the face of at least three serious attempts by the state to liquidate her. It was subject to horrendous and ongoing torture and death. If ever there was an occasion for justified retaliation and defensive slaughter, whether in form of a just war or a just revolution, this was it. The economic and political elite of the Roman state and their military had turned the citizens of the state against Christians and were embarked on a murderous public policy of exterminating the Christian community. Yet the Church, in the face of the heinous crimes committed against her members, insisted without reservation that when Christ disarmed Peter he disarmed all Christians.

Christians continued to believe that Christ was, to use the words of an ancient liturgy, their fortress, their refuge, and their strength, and that if Christ was all they needed for security and defense, then Christ was all they should have. Indeed, this was a new security ethic. Christians understood that if they would only follow Christ and his teaching, they couldn’t fail. When opportunities were given for Christians to appease the state by joining the fighting Roman army, these opportunities were rejected, because the early Church saw a complete and an obvious incompatibility between loving as Christ loved and killing. It was Christ, not Mars, who gave security and peace.

Today the world is on the brink of ruin because the Church refuses to be the Church, because we Christians have been deceiving ourselves and the non-Christian world about the truth of Christ. There is no way to follow Christ, to love as Christ loved, and simultaneously to kill other people. It is a lie to say that the spirit that moves the trigger of a flamethrower is the Holy Spirit. It is a lie to say that learning to kill is learning to be Christ-like. It is a lie to say that learning
to drive a bayonet into the heart of another is motivated from having put on the mind of Christ. Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus.

Now, brothers and sisters, on the anniversary of this terrible atrocity carried out by Christians, I must be the first to say that I made a terrible mistake. I was had by the father of lies. I participated in the big ecumenical lie of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. I wore the uniform. I was part of the system. When I said Mass over there I put on those beautiful vestments over my uniform. (When Father Dave Becker left the Trident submarine base in 1982 and resigned as Catholic chaplain there, he said, “Every time I went to Mass in my uniform and put the vestments on over my uniform, I couldn’t help but think of the words of Christ applying to me: Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.”)

As an Air Force chaplain I painted a machine gun in the loving hands of the nonviolent Jesus, and then handed this perverse picture to the world as truth. I sang “Praise the Lord” and passed the ammunition. As Catholic chaplain for the 509th Composite Group, I was the final channel that communicated this fraudulent image of Christ to the crews of the Enola Gay and the Boxcar.

All I can say today is that I was wrong. Christ would not be the instrument to unleash such horror on his people. Therefore no follower of Christ can legitimately unleash the horror of war on God’s people. Excuses and self-justifying explanations are without merit. All I can say is: I was wrong! But, if this is all I can say, this I must do, feeble as it is. For to do otherwise would be to bypass the first and absolutely essential step in the process of repentance and reconciliation: admission of error, admission of guilt. There is no way to conduct real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. I was there, and I was wrong.

Yes, war is Hell, and Christ did not come to justify the creation of Hell on earth by his disciples. The justification of war may be compatible with some religions and philosophies, but it is not compatible with the nonviolent teaching of Jesus. I was wrong. And to those of whatever nationality or religion who have been hurt because I fell under the influence of the father of lies, I say with my whole heart and soul I am sorry. I beg forgiveness. I asked forgiveness from the Hibakushas (the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings) in Japan last year, in a pilgrimage that I made with a group from Tokyo to Hiroshima. I fell on my face there at the peace shrine after offering flowers, and I prayed for forgiveness – for myself, for my country, for my Church. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This year in Toronto, I again asked forgiveness from the Hibakushas present. I asked forgiveness, and they asked
forgiveness for Pearl Harbor and some of the horrible deeds of the Japanese military, and there were some, and I knew of them. We embraced. We cried. Tears flowed. That is the first step of reconciliation – admission of guilt and forgiveness. Pray to God that others will find this way to peace.

All religions have taught brotherhood. All people want peace. It is only the governments and war departments that promote war and slaughter. So today again I call upon people to make their voices heard. We can no longer just leave this to our leaders, both political and religious. They will move when we make them move. They represent us. Let us tell them that they must think and act for the safety and security of all the people in our world, not just for the safety and security of one country. All countries are interdependent. We all need one another. It is no longer possible for individual countries to think only of themselves. We can all live together as brothers and sisters or we are doomed to die together as fools in a world holocaust.

Each one of us becomes responsible for the crime of war by cooperating in its preparation and in its execution. This includes the military. This includes the making of weapons. And it includes paying for the weapons. There’s no question about that. We’ve got to realize we all become responsible. Silence, doing nothing, can be one of the greatest sins.

The bombing of Nagasaki means even more to me than the bombing of Hiroshima. By August 9, 1945, we knew what that bomb would do, but we still dropped it. We knew that agonies and sufferings would ensue, and we also knew – at least our leaders knew – that it was not necessary. The Japanese were already defeated. They were already suing for peace. But we insisted on unconditional surrender, and this is even against the Just War theory. Once the enemy is defeated, once the enemy is not able to hurt you, you must make peace.

Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus. As a Catholic chaplain I watched as the Boxcar, piloted by a good Irish Catholic pilot, dropped the bomb on Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan. I knew that St. Francis Xavier, centuries before, had brought the Catholic faith to Japan. I knew that schools, churches, and religious orders were annihilated. And yet I said nothing. Thank God that I’m able to stand here today and speak out against war, all war. The prophets of the Old Testament spoke out against all false gods of gold, silver, and metal. Today we are worshiping the gods of metal, the bomb. We are putting our trust in physical power, militarism, and nationalism. The bomb, not God, is our security and our strength. The prophets of the Old Testament said simply: Do not put your trust in chariots and weapons, but put your trust in God. Their message was simple, and so is mine.

We must all become prophets. I really mean that. We must all do something for peace. We must stop this insanity of worshiping the gods of metal. We must take a stand against evil and idolatry. This is our destiny at the most critical time of human history. But it’s also the greatest opportunity ever offered to any group of people in the history of our world – to save our world from complete annihilation.