Scripture: II Samuel: 12: 1-15a.
India has a celebrated history of, diligent adherence towards peace and propagation of peace. India thus became the mother to several religions, that had strong desires for the search to realise the ultimate peace. The recitation “Threefold refuge” of the Buddhist tradition ends with the utterance of this utmost longing, “Peace.” The champion of Indian freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi is the most revered personality in 20th century, for his persevering quest for peace, freedom and liberation. Yesterday, Jan 30th was the Day of Martyrdom of Mahatma Gandhi. But the day becomes a reminder for me and all of us that the quest for a real peace is still beyond our reach. The discernment Gandhiji had, about the peace instituted by the British Raj and the path that Gandhiji trod for the independence of India, calls us for deeper engagements with the current “manifestations of peace.”
Henry David Thoreau an American philosopher of 19th century had profound influence over Gandhiji and Martin Luther King Jr. in devising their strategies of non violence and civil disobedience. Thoreau points out that, “The essential freedom is the freedom to dissent.” Standing firm on the convictions of these personalities, today we have to question our clichés of freedom, peace and liberty. When multitudes of Indian citizens are detained, ravaged and bruised, when their civil rights does not have the luxury even to chit chat in public, we must enquire where our peacemaking efforts have reached. The struggles of Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, Medha Patkar, Anuradha Koirala, Tasleema Nasreen, Daya Bai and many more to name reminds us to critically view our notions of peace. Today the read passage for reflection calls us to look keenly into the actions of peacemaking under sovereigns and try to find meanings for our current scenario.
The system of Davidic monarchy was a well devised one. There were rules regulating the social life of the people, and the irrevocable laws which were given by Yahweh ensured human rights, and the violation of any kind was punished by the king, in the name of Yahweh. Moreover David was such a king in the history of Israel, who never compromised with the laws and commandments of God. So there was absolutely no chance for a crime to happen, and if so happened, the wrongdoer could not get away from the punishment prescribed by the Mosaic Law. There was no way for anyone to find a serious Human rights violation, under the monarchy of David. At this point Nathan, the man send by God comes up as a witness of a grave crime, before the court of David. This entry of the prophet subverts all kinds of manipulated peacemaking, in order to establish an unprecedented way of peacemaking.
For God and the prophet, the peace making is qualifying peace through disturbing “peace.”
Qualifying peace through disturbing “peace”
Uriah was killed and his wife Beth-Sheba was under the detention of David, and hence there were no one to address the injustice and crime done by David. V.12 says that the violence done by David was in secret. The scheme of David thus went well-off, no one interrogated in to the matter, no riots have broken out and in a sense a sort of peace persisted in his reign, even after the incidence. For the king and the people, the system was put up in peace, but for the deceased Uriah and his wife Beth-Sheba, who was detained and raped by the king, the system was violent and unjust. But the Lord God could not sit back, disregarding the injustice done to the helpless and the voiceless since it was done in secret, or since it was done by the anointed one of God against a Canaanite servant. The God of Justice reacts through Nathan the prophet, appointed by God to bring about the real peace, the “Just Peace.”
The prophet comes with a parable before the king, to which he reacts indignantly with the preconception that, it was an injustice happened somewhere else in his kingdom. This is the strategy of power holders, finding or locating injustice outside its sovereign head. David enquires and pronounces a verdict, “that Ben Māwet,” “the son of death” deserves to die. He is eager to find the “death dealer” outside him and his hierarchy, to punish him and to reclaim himself and his system as just. When the statement “you are the man” comes from the prophet, it points to the “death dealing force” within the hierarchical head.
Until this moment, David had evidently never looked his crime in the face. Now it was so placed before him that he saw it in its entire enormity, stripped off from any mitigation or excuse which he might have thrown over it, if it was known to him through any other means. When we continue to read from v.16, we see that the prophetic intervention for just peace upsets the peace, maintained in David’s court and definitely in his kingdom. Here the peace making itself becomes peace breaking in a hierarchical structure of power.
“Peace” is not a static state or a stable condition, in which one could settle down contently in a human society. One cannot keep peace, but only could make peace. For the official priests Zadok, and Abiathar the tales of pomp and glory about the “shining golden era of Israel’s monarchy” under David, was enough to put behind the veil, the tale of Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba who were assaulted by the state sponsored violence. For them to sit back silently, neglecting the fate of the Hittite was the strategy to keep peace. But for God and his prophet the injustice done to the Hittite was the crucial thing to be addressed concerning David’s reign. Peace needs to be interpreted as a “yet to be attained state” in a society, through the unceasing struggles for justice. So the prophet comes to seek the justice for the Hittite in the reign of David, which the king and his priests failed to address. For the prophet, peace is experienced only in just struggles and not in contentment about acquired peace. Often the “peace” in which we live is only a state of unaddressed violence and unattended injustice. In our contentment we need to ask the question, without peace can there be justice? Without justice, can there be peace? We should ‘qualify the peace’ in which we live.
The process of “just peace” begins, with unmasking violence and uncovering hidden conflicts, in order to make their consequences visible to victims and communities. It has to disturb the artificial peace, expose structural violence and find ways to restore relationships, but not relying on retribution. “Just Peace” is “Just” diplomatic, political, economic and social means of struggle. Peace and freedom are never bestowed, but they are attained. So the striving for just peace involves the transformation of fear, apprehension and allurement through which the “kingdoms and authorities” “manages” the common people.
Too often we pursue justice at the expense of peace, and peace at the expense of justice. To conceive peace apart from justice is to compromise the hope that “Justice and peace shall embrace,” envisioned in Ps.85:10. When justice and peace are lacking or set in opposition, we need to reform our ways. This reformation is possible through exposing the locale of hegemony through “responsible disobedience.”
Exposing the locale of hegemony through “responsible disobedience”
The diligent silence of the priests Zadok and Abiathar may be because they think that to speak with the King about this injustice will be impotent because Uriah was killed a long way back and his wife became the mother of David’s son. Their obedience to the authority was infused in their silence, which the sovereign king sought for. This silence thus legitimised the authority of the King to decide over the destiny of his subjects, and this authority was eventually getting integrated, to the way of exercising power and to the sovereignty of the king. The entry of Prophet Nathan, was to prevent this legitimisation of power to decide over the destiny of the people, even though the story of deceived Uriah was long forgotten in the history of wars, waged by King David. By the utterance “You are the man,” the prophet negates the diligent silence or even a heedful dialogue and goes for a “confrontation” as a means of exposing the locale of hegemony, that resides in the “sovereign” King. Confrontation becomes necessary when one of the parties to a dispute holds such a measure of power, that can determine the conditions for and can manipulate any efforts seeking just resolutions.
Nathan was never named as an official of David, as the priests Zadok, Abiathar and Abimeleck. But it was not these priests but Nathan, who had less accessibility to King and his rule, stood up for the “unclaimed justice” for the murdered Uriah and the raped Bathsheba. For Nathan there came the moment, to “disapprove” the royal power as it appeared to be malevolent in its exercise; and the unvarnished truth about the injustice has to be named and faced. Nathan’s confrontation was “responsible disobedience” in the sovereign monarchy of David. He was disobedient out of a higher obedience, the obedience to God.
Responsible disobedience is a social behaviour, directed to the change of the community. The responsible disobedient disobeys, because he/she has concluded that disobedience will enhance righteousness and justice. Responsible disobedience is an action that warns and admonishes but it is not in itself a threat. The responsible disobedient assumes the right to disobey for genuine ends. At this point the response of Gandhiji towards civil disobedience is worth reminding. He says, “Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies.” So civil disobedience begins at a point when no hope is left with the authorities.
In the book of Esther, God’s people were saved by act of courageous law-breaking of Queen Esther, as she bang into the inner court of the King Ahasuerus claiming justice for her people (Esth. 4:10-11). It was an appropriate title for any prophet, that king Ahab gave to Elijah, “You disturber of Israel,” in his encounter with the prophet (1Kgs.18:17). The mandate for such a disturbing mission is a powerful instigation; a commission from God. The Gospels does not leave us in a slightest doubt that Jesus, who was judged by the standards of his religious milieu, was in fact often “disobedient.” The rage of the religious and political conspirators, against this “unyielding disobedience” sent him to the cross.
Non-violent resistance is central to the way of “just peace.” Recognising that, the strength of the powerful depends on the obedience and compliance of citizens, non-violent strategies of resistance include, the acts of civil disobedience and non-compliance. Blind conformity to the will of superior, unquestioning acceptance of all rules and directives issued by legitimate authority may promote peace, but not “just peace.” We need to speak truth to the power, and if truth is to have a chance with power, it must be done potently. Truth has its own autonomy over obedience. Flattery is neither love nor service.
The prophet advances further through recounting the records of David’s power.
Dismantling hegemony through recounting the “records of power”
God reviews the history of Divine graciousness towards David in Vv. 7-8. It was a history dominated by “giving”, in contrast to David’s “taking” mentioned in v.9. God states about the willingness, to have given David even more (v.8b), but David has now moved from “gift” to “grasp.” Here the power and authority given to David was taking a violent form. So David’s offenses are not just against Bathsheba and Uriah; they are offenses against God who cries “You have despised Me.” Here God through the prophet recounts the records of power of King David.
For God’s chosen ones the offices for services were instituted by God. These offices were installed with a certain authority. This authority is to protect, to lead, to administer justice, and to restore the strayed ones. These were the authorities given to priests, judges, prophets, and kings. But sometimes these offices just like human individuals, tend to turn upon themselves, and indulge in self seeking, self-glorification and pride.
The hegemony exercised by David is seen not in the direct action of killing Uriah, but in devising the death. Hegemony becomes a weapon, more powerful than any other, in determining the fate and destiny of the people. The hegemonic power of the king over the Hittite left him with no other option, than to put his personal happiness and life in his master’s disposal. And it was this power relations, that aggravated David’s crime. The sin of David is not merely located in his unjust actions against Uriah and Bathsheba, but really lies in the hegemonic power distribution, that enforces his subjects to serve the king by giving less importance to their personal priorities. Here the prophet recounts before King David, the record of his power.
In David’s justice system every injustice has a resolution and could be satisfied by compensations, as v. 6 says, a fourfold return is expected from the wrongdoer. But for God, the perpetrator of injustice himself needs to be changed, the hegemony that controls human fate must vanish. After the prophetic intervention, King David was left with no power to decide over the destiny of the people, but he was left as an unfortunate father who laments over a dying child. Here the hegemony gets dismantled and “just peace” dawns.
The claim of the MNCs backed by the so called “development oriented missionary governments” over the natural resources such as land, water, minerals etc can only be viewed as modern day manifestations of this hegemonic power chemistry. The poor villagers who are left only with their ancestral lands and streams of water are asked to contribute their everything, satisfying themselves by meagre compensations. The stories from Narmada, Nandigram, Singur, Jharsuguda etc are the stories of protests against this hegemony.
Any office of service could become masked violent structures, when it exercises power to carry out its sovereign will. Whenever such offices face voices of dissent, it should be discerned that some flaws have happened in the way the power was executed. A recounting of the records of power at this juncture could help, for a re-envisioning of the offices in service, which God intended. Any relationship between the groups of people inside or outside the Christian circle, has to be seen in its real setting of power relationships. Our social and political institutions such as state, Church, family, educational institutions etc often remains reluctant to leave away its pre-eminent influence over their subjects, through the methods of discipline such as, dismissal, divorce, excommunication, isolation, and prison. Unless and until these social and political institutions shed off their hegemonic power over common people, and recount the records of their power, they will remain as a threat for the people.
Christ investing Peter with the supreme authority in the Church calls him Rock. But subsequent to it, He calls him Satan. This is true of all who holds authority. There is in them a duality of Rock and Satan. Hence they are not beyond criticism. They need to distinguish for what their authority is; for service or to exercise hegemony.
There is a divine governance of history, that transcends human institutions. There is a divine power at work in history, that judges human exercise of power. This divine governance reminds constantly all who holds power, that they have to recount the records of their power.
Bringing in peace is not reduced to the task of authority. The promptings of the Spirit never occurs entirely within wholly authorised conditions, and it eludes the checks of the hierarchy. Those who heed to the promptings of the Spirit, may be asked to move along unmarked paths, without the counsel of the usual norms of obedience. No authority has exclusive access to the “Holy Spirit.” Hence there exists a tension specific to the Christian disobedience. This is what Karl Rahner evidently tries to point out, when he says, “If the Spirit is not to be extinguished, we need a correct and courageous interpretation of civil and ecclesiastical obedience.” Thus these powers have to recount their records of power and bring peace to the call, for which they have been called.
Within our limitations of language and intellect, “just peace” can be comprehended as a collective and dynamic process of freeing human beings, from fear and want. It is the envisioning of overcoming enmity, discrimination and oppression, and of establishing conditions of just relationships, that gives privilege to the experiences of the most vulnerable and respect the integrity of creation.
While life in God’s hand is irrepressible, peace does not yet reign. The principalities and powers, though not sovereign, still enjoy their victories, and we will be restless and broken until peace prevails. Thus our peace building acts should criticize, denounce, advocate, and resist as well as proclaim, empower, console, reconcile and heal. Peacemakers will speak against and speak for, tear against and build up, lament and celebrate, grieve and rejoice, in the way of “Just peace.” May the God of “just peace” empower us, to take bold steps to thwart the powers of unjust dominations. Amen.
India has a celebrated history of, diligent adherence towards peace and propagation of peace. India thus became the mother to several religions, that had strong desires for the search to realise the ultimate peace. The recitation “Threefold refuge” of the Buddhist tradition ends with the utterance of this utmost longing, “Peace.” The champion of Indian freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi is the most revered personality in 20th century, for his persevering quest for peace, freedom and liberation. Yesterday, Jan 30th was the Day of Martyrdom of Mahatma Gandhi. But the day becomes a reminder for me and all of us that the quest for a real peace is still beyond our reach. The discernment Gandhiji had, about the peace instituted by the British Raj and the path that Gandhiji trod for the independence of India, calls us for deeper engagements with the current “manifestations of peace.”
Henry David Thoreau an American philosopher of 19th century had profound influence over Gandhiji and Martin Luther King Jr. in devising their strategies of non violence and civil disobedience. Thoreau points out that, “The essential freedom is the freedom to dissent.” Standing firm on the convictions of these personalities, today we have to question our clichés of freedom, peace and liberty. When multitudes of Indian citizens are detained, ravaged and bruised, when their civil rights does not have the luxury even to chit chat in public, we must enquire where our peacemaking efforts have reached. The struggles of Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, Medha Patkar, Anuradha Koirala, Tasleema Nasreen, Daya Bai and many more to name reminds us to critically view our notions of peace. Today the read passage for reflection calls us to look keenly into the actions of peacemaking under sovereigns and try to find meanings for our current scenario.
The system of Davidic monarchy was a well devised one. There were rules regulating the social life of the people, and the irrevocable laws which were given by Yahweh ensured human rights, and the violation of any kind was punished by the king, in the name of Yahweh. Moreover David was such a king in the history of Israel, who never compromised with the laws and commandments of God. So there was absolutely no chance for a crime to happen, and if so happened, the wrongdoer could not get away from the punishment prescribed by the Mosaic Law. There was no way for anyone to find a serious Human rights violation, under the monarchy of David. At this point Nathan, the man send by God comes up as a witness of a grave crime, before the court of David. This entry of the prophet subverts all kinds of manipulated peacemaking, in order to establish an unprecedented way of peacemaking.
For God and the prophet, the peace making is qualifying peace through disturbing “peace.”
Qualifying peace through disturbing “peace”
Uriah was killed and his wife Beth-Sheba was under the detention of David, and hence there were no one to address the injustice and crime done by David. V.12 says that the violence done by David was in secret. The scheme of David thus went well-off, no one interrogated in to the matter, no riots have broken out and in a sense a sort of peace persisted in his reign, even after the incidence. For the king and the people, the system was put up in peace, but for the deceased Uriah and his wife Beth-Sheba, who was detained and raped by the king, the system was violent and unjust. But the Lord God could not sit back, disregarding the injustice done to the helpless and the voiceless since it was done in secret, or since it was done by the anointed one of God against a Canaanite servant. The God of Justice reacts through Nathan the prophet, appointed by God to bring about the real peace, the “Just Peace.”
The prophet comes with a parable before the king, to which he reacts indignantly with the preconception that, it was an injustice happened somewhere else in his kingdom. This is the strategy of power holders, finding or locating injustice outside its sovereign head. David enquires and pronounces a verdict, “that Ben Māwet,” “the son of death” deserves to die. He is eager to find the “death dealer” outside him and his hierarchy, to punish him and to reclaim himself and his system as just. When the statement “you are the man” comes from the prophet, it points to the “death dealing force” within the hierarchical head.
Until this moment, David had evidently never looked his crime in the face. Now it was so placed before him that he saw it in its entire enormity, stripped off from any mitigation or excuse which he might have thrown over it, if it was known to him through any other means. When we continue to read from v.16, we see that the prophetic intervention for just peace upsets the peace, maintained in David’s court and definitely in his kingdom. Here the peace making itself becomes peace breaking in a hierarchical structure of power.
“Peace” is not a static state or a stable condition, in which one could settle down contently in a human society. One cannot keep peace, but only could make peace. For the official priests Zadok, and Abiathar the tales of pomp and glory about the “shining golden era of Israel’s monarchy” under David, was enough to put behind the veil, the tale of Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba who were assaulted by the state sponsored violence. For them to sit back silently, neglecting the fate of the Hittite was the strategy to keep peace. But for God and his prophet the injustice done to the Hittite was the crucial thing to be addressed concerning David’s reign. Peace needs to be interpreted as a “yet to be attained state” in a society, through the unceasing struggles for justice. So the prophet comes to seek the justice for the Hittite in the reign of David, which the king and his priests failed to address. For the prophet, peace is experienced only in just struggles and not in contentment about acquired peace. Often the “peace” in which we live is only a state of unaddressed violence and unattended injustice. In our contentment we need to ask the question, without peace can there be justice? Without justice, can there be peace? We should ‘qualify the peace’ in which we live.
The process of “just peace” begins, with unmasking violence and uncovering hidden conflicts, in order to make their consequences visible to victims and communities. It has to disturb the artificial peace, expose structural violence and find ways to restore relationships, but not relying on retribution. “Just Peace” is “Just” diplomatic, political, economic and social means of struggle. Peace and freedom are never bestowed, but they are attained. So the striving for just peace involves the transformation of fear, apprehension and allurement through which the “kingdoms and authorities” “manages” the common people.
Too often we pursue justice at the expense of peace, and peace at the expense of justice. To conceive peace apart from justice is to compromise the hope that “Justice and peace shall embrace,” envisioned in Ps.85:10. When justice and peace are lacking or set in opposition, we need to reform our ways. This reformation is possible through exposing the locale of hegemony through “responsible disobedience.”
Exposing the locale of hegemony through “responsible disobedience”
The diligent silence of the priests Zadok and Abiathar may be because they think that to speak with the King about this injustice will be impotent because Uriah was killed a long way back and his wife became the mother of David’s son. Their obedience to the authority was infused in their silence, which the sovereign king sought for. This silence thus legitimised the authority of the King to decide over the destiny of his subjects, and this authority was eventually getting integrated, to the way of exercising power and to the sovereignty of the king. The entry of Prophet Nathan, was to prevent this legitimisation of power to decide over the destiny of the people, even though the story of deceived Uriah was long forgotten in the history of wars, waged by King David. By the utterance “You are the man,” the prophet negates the diligent silence or even a heedful dialogue and goes for a “confrontation” as a means of exposing the locale of hegemony, that resides in the “sovereign” King. Confrontation becomes necessary when one of the parties to a dispute holds such a measure of power, that can determine the conditions for and can manipulate any efforts seeking just resolutions.
Nathan was never named as an official of David, as the priests Zadok, Abiathar and Abimeleck. But it was not these priests but Nathan, who had less accessibility to King and his rule, stood up for the “unclaimed justice” for the murdered Uriah and the raped Bathsheba. For Nathan there came the moment, to “disapprove” the royal power as it appeared to be malevolent in its exercise; and the unvarnished truth about the injustice has to be named and faced. Nathan’s confrontation was “responsible disobedience” in the sovereign monarchy of David. He was disobedient out of a higher obedience, the obedience to God.
Responsible disobedience is a social behaviour, directed to the change of the community. The responsible disobedient disobeys, because he/she has concluded that disobedience will enhance righteousness and justice. Responsible disobedience is an action that warns and admonishes but it is not in itself a threat. The responsible disobedient assumes the right to disobey for genuine ends. At this point the response of Gandhiji towards civil disobedience is worth reminding. He says, “Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies.” So civil disobedience begins at a point when no hope is left with the authorities.
In the book of Esther, God’s people were saved by act of courageous law-breaking of Queen Esther, as she bang into the inner court of the King Ahasuerus claiming justice for her people (Esth. 4:10-11). It was an appropriate title for any prophet, that king Ahab gave to Elijah, “You disturber of Israel,” in his encounter with the prophet (1Kgs.18:17). The mandate for such a disturbing mission is a powerful instigation; a commission from God. The Gospels does not leave us in a slightest doubt that Jesus, who was judged by the standards of his religious milieu, was in fact often “disobedient.” The rage of the religious and political conspirators, against this “unyielding disobedience” sent him to the cross.
Non-violent resistance is central to the way of “just peace.” Recognising that, the strength of the powerful depends on the obedience and compliance of citizens, non-violent strategies of resistance include, the acts of civil disobedience and non-compliance. Blind conformity to the will of superior, unquestioning acceptance of all rules and directives issued by legitimate authority may promote peace, but not “just peace.” We need to speak truth to the power, and if truth is to have a chance with power, it must be done potently. Truth has its own autonomy over obedience. Flattery is neither love nor service.
The prophet advances further through recounting the records of David’s power.
Dismantling hegemony through recounting the “records of power”
God reviews the history of Divine graciousness towards David in Vv. 7-8. It was a history dominated by “giving”, in contrast to David’s “taking” mentioned in v.9. God states about the willingness, to have given David even more (v.8b), but David has now moved from “gift” to “grasp.” Here the power and authority given to David was taking a violent form. So David’s offenses are not just against Bathsheba and Uriah; they are offenses against God who cries “You have despised Me.” Here God through the prophet recounts the records of power of King David.
For God’s chosen ones the offices for services were instituted by God. These offices were installed with a certain authority. This authority is to protect, to lead, to administer justice, and to restore the strayed ones. These were the authorities given to priests, judges, prophets, and kings. But sometimes these offices just like human individuals, tend to turn upon themselves, and indulge in self seeking, self-glorification and pride.
The hegemony exercised by David is seen not in the direct action of killing Uriah, but in devising the death. Hegemony becomes a weapon, more powerful than any other, in determining the fate and destiny of the people. The hegemonic power of the king over the Hittite left him with no other option, than to put his personal happiness and life in his master’s disposal. And it was this power relations, that aggravated David’s crime. The sin of David is not merely located in his unjust actions against Uriah and Bathsheba, but really lies in the hegemonic power distribution, that enforces his subjects to serve the king by giving less importance to their personal priorities. Here the prophet recounts before King David, the record of his power.
In David’s justice system every injustice has a resolution and could be satisfied by compensations, as v. 6 says, a fourfold return is expected from the wrongdoer. But for God, the perpetrator of injustice himself needs to be changed, the hegemony that controls human fate must vanish. After the prophetic intervention, King David was left with no power to decide over the destiny of the people, but he was left as an unfortunate father who laments over a dying child. Here the hegemony gets dismantled and “just peace” dawns.
The claim of the MNCs backed by the so called “development oriented missionary governments” over the natural resources such as land, water, minerals etc can only be viewed as modern day manifestations of this hegemonic power chemistry. The poor villagers who are left only with their ancestral lands and streams of water are asked to contribute their everything, satisfying themselves by meagre compensations. The stories from Narmada, Nandigram, Singur, Jharsuguda etc are the stories of protests against this hegemony.
Any office of service could become masked violent structures, when it exercises power to carry out its sovereign will. Whenever such offices face voices of dissent, it should be discerned that some flaws have happened in the way the power was executed. A recounting of the records of power at this juncture could help, for a re-envisioning of the offices in service, which God intended. Any relationship between the groups of people inside or outside the Christian circle, has to be seen in its real setting of power relationships. Our social and political institutions such as state, Church, family, educational institutions etc often remains reluctant to leave away its pre-eminent influence over their subjects, through the methods of discipline such as, dismissal, divorce, excommunication, isolation, and prison. Unless and until these social and political institutions shed off their hegemonic power over common people, and recount the records of their power, they will remain as a threat for the people.
Christ investing Peter with the supreme authority in the Church calls him Rock. But subsequent to it, He calls him Satan. This is true of all who holds authority. There is in them a duality of Rock and Satan. Hence they are not beyond criticism. They need to distinguish for what their authority is; for service or to exercise hegemony.
There is a divine governance of history, that transcends human institutions. There is a divine power at work in history, that judges human exercise of power. This divine governance reminds constantly all who holds power, that they have to recount the records of their power.
Bringing in peace is not reduced to the task of authority. The promptings of the Spirit never occurs entirely within wholly authorised conditions, and it eludes the checks of the hierarchy. Those who heed to the promptings of the Spirit, may be asked to move along unmarked paths, without the counsel of the usual norms of obedience. No authority has exclusive access to the “Holy Spirit.” Hence there exists a tension specific to the Christian disobedience. This is what Karl Rahner evidently tries to point out, when he says, “If the Spirit is not to be extinguished, we need a correct and courageous interpretation of civil and ecclesiastical obedience.” Thus these powers have to recount their records of power and bring peace to the call, for which they have been called.
Within our limitations of language and intellect, “just peace” can be comprehended as a collective and dynamic process of freeing human beings, from fear and want. It is the envisioning of overcoming enmity, discrimination and oppression, and of establishing conditions of just relationships, that gives privilege to the experiences of the most vulnerable and respect the integrity of creation.
While life in God’s hand is irrepressible, peace does not yet reign. The principalities and powers, though not sovereign, still enjoy their victories, and we will be restless and broken until peace prevails. Thus our peace building acts should criticize, denounce, advocate, and resist as well as proclaim, empower, console, reconcile and heal. Peacemakers will speak against and speak for, tear against and build up, lament and celebrate, grieve and rejoice, in the way of “Just peace.” May the God of “just peace” empower us, to take bold steps to thwart the powers of unjust dominations. Amen.
[Ajay T.Oommen, the preacher of this sermon, is a final year student of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]
