Oppenheimer and the Little Rock Nine

Last week, Lorna and I saw the movie Oppenheimer which is in theaters.  This is the wonderfully told story of the development of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos in the United States led by Robert Oppenheimer.  This marked the beginning of the Nuclear Arms Race which is still being run by the world today.  I also heard an interview with one of the Little Rock Nine who were the children who broke the segregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.  These events both took place in the post WWII United States.  But beyond that I saw some interesting connections I want to explore. 

The development of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos unleashed the unimaginable destructive effect of atomic energy, which unfortunately was not unimaginable for the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were obliterated by the first and second (and hopefully last) atomic bombs used in war.  The Little Rock Nine also set off a different type of explosion in the battle for integration which is still being fought in the United States today.  With the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the nuclear arms beast has been awakened and has raised its monstrous head after slumbering in relative obscurity for many years. 

The specific issue that I want to explore in these two events is non-violence.  The actual and potential for violence in the atomic bomb is unfortunately crystal clear.  This is best demonstrated by the quote by Oppenheimer from The Bhagavad Gita, on observing the explosion of the test bomb at Los Alamos, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”    The development of the atomic bomb by the Oppenheimer team at Los Alamos was justified morally because the Allies and specifically the United States was in a race to develop one before the Nazis.  In effect, Oppenheimer believed that the ultimate effect of having the atomic bomb was uncertain but if the Nazis had it there was no doubt that it would be used in unimaginable ways.  There was, in his mind, no question that the United States had to develop the bomb first.  In this, as in the whole Allied effort in WWII, the use of violence was not an option.  The option was too horrible to imagine.

In the case of the Little Rock Nine and desegregation writ large, the use of non-violence as a strategy was employed by those working to bring about desegregation.  The member of the Nine who was interviewed worked to promote non-violence throughout her life.  On the other hand, those opposed to desegregation did not hesitate to use violence to fight against it and for segregation.  The leader in the non-violence approach was Martin Luther King Jr.  There was no question that this was a powerful moral force in moving the United States to be more desegregated and a more perfect Union that many believe in.  The question that arises from this is, when is it appropriate to use non-violence as a strategy and when isn’t it?

In considering this issue, which I have pondered over the years, I know that as a Christian I am called to uphold non-violence in my approach to others.  However, I believe that it has its limitations.  Gandhi is the example of someone who used non-violence in efforts to free India from the yoke of English colonialism.  This proved that non-violence can achieve its goals.  But I have also pushed back against this.  I, and I am sure many, have posited that Gandhi, and his followers would not have succeeded if they were opposing the Nazis or other totalitarian regimes which would have had no compunction against using every weapon available to them.  Would India ultimately have achieved independence in the long run in such a situation through non-violence means.  I don’t have the answer to that, but I am certain that it Hitler would not have voluntarily given India its independence because of a non-violent opposition.

As a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ who showed the power of non-violence, I can only conclude that we must give priority to non-violence as the moral option.  However, there are times when the violence must be used to resist evil.  The question is, when is it justified?  There is no easy or clear answer to that, that I can see.

May you be blessed to never face that choice on your journey. 

Remembrance Day, Pacifism, and Christianity

Yesterday we marked Remembrance Day at the congregations in Port Franks and Grand Bend and Wednesday is the official Remembrance Day.  Over the years I have grown to appreciate the ceremonies marking November 11^th —the 11^th hour or the 11^th day of the 11^th month when the Great War, the war to end all wars ended.   This day honours all those who have served and especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their countries.  Reciting In Flanders Field yesterday I found that my eyes teared up both times.  The poem and all it represents has become more meaningful to me over the years. 

I was raised in a home that had an ambivalent attitude towards Remembrance Day.  My father, a United Church minister, was a committed pacifist and did not have a positive attitude to military and those who served.  It is somewhat ironic that one of his grandchildren, my son and his wife, had careers in the Canadian army.  In addition I have served as the chaplain to the Parkhill branch of the Legion for some years now and I will be presiding at Remembrance Day services again this year. 

Honouring those who served their country in times of war is not in conflict with ideal of pacifism.  How do we, as Christians today live in the tension of a world in which groups of people like ISIS and other terrorist commit horrendous acts on their own population and threaten us, at least according to the leaders in the Western world?   The West has responded by bombing campaigns which are only, it seems, a temporary measure and is not in any way a solution to this crisis.  We can and should respond to the humanitarian crisis that results from this and other forces at work in Middle East.  However, should we, as Christian be supporting an ongoing bombing campaign and its resulting destruction of property and civilian lives.  The new Canadian government is withdrawing from the bombing campaign and will concentrate on training and other forms of support.  That is well and good but what should the Western countries be doing in response to this crisis?  I certainly don’t know.

Richard Rohr has written on the ideal of the warrior in society which provides a different perspective and may help cut though much of the distortion that develops around it and speaks of the positive as well as the negative aspects of it:

It takes warrior energy to see through and stand against mass illusions of our time, and be willing to pay the price of disobedience. It takes warrior energy to see through the soft rhetoric of "support our troops" which cleverly diverts from the objective evil of war. It takes warrior energy to walk to a different drum, disbelieve the patriotic trivia, and re-believe in the tradition of nonviolence, civil resistance, and martyrdom--the way of the cross.

I don’t believe that pacifism is an answer to the current crisis.  It also seems that non-violence, such as that practiced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King will work against the likes of ISIS.  So we are left with the question of a Christian response to a world in which violence seems to be deeply embedded.  We do need to at least try to see the roots of the current situation in the injustice of the past.  The recent history of response to violence by violence did not work in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It has contributed in part to the rise of ISIS et al.  Richard Rohr also speaks about this:

In the use of force, one simplifies the situation by assuming that the evil to be overcome is clear-cut, definite, and irreversible. Hence there remains but one thing: to eliminate it. Any dialogue with the sinner, any question of the irreversibility of his act, only means faltering and failure.

A military response is, it seems, the natural response to evil in all its perceived forms.  Realistically is can be both necessary and positive as the response to Hitler and Nazi Germany.  However, as Christians we can only pray that there will be other ways to respond to the current situation than all-out war with troops on the ground. 

These thought are rather convoluted and rambling.  However, that is a reflection of my ambivalence in respect to current situations.  As Christian we can respond by supporting those who fight and have fought on our behalf and encourage our Government to properly support those who sacrifice for our country.  We can respond by support for refugees who are innocent victims of the chaos that has developed.  We can also pray for new and different approaches to the terrorist and terrorism.  Thanks be to God.