Riverwood Presbyterian Church

I’ll start off.

Colin Powell once said that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. I think the validity of that statement is what’s at issue here. If that’s the sole mission of the army - to find the enemies of the US and kill them - then humanitarian roles are not suited to the army. The US military’s experience in Somalia teaches that, even on a humanitarian mission, it is inevitable that we become involved in the fighting. After all, if the Hutus were willing to hack up little children with machetes, is it unforeseeable that they’d attack any force that attempted to thwart their plans?

So, the paradigm of merely intervening to allevaite suffering seems somewhat naive to me. Had the US intervened, as in Somalia, it would surely have become involved in the fighting. We Americans have NO frame of reference when it comes to tribal disputes. We understand racial and religious conflict, because it’s in our own history. But the distinction of tribe is virtually unknown to the US. Surely the Hutus were the aggressors in 1994. They probably did have some legitimate gripe against the Tutsis too (not justifying the slaughter of course). I, personally, do not think that it’s fair to our military to put them in the position of judging historical grievances. If anyone’s army should have borne that responsibility, by all rights, it should have been the Belgians, whose idiotic colonial racism exacerbated the tribal rivalry in the first place.

This is not to justify what the Hutus did by any means. But, in the words of Ecclesiasties, there’s nothing new under the sun. Europeans have had their own tribal slaughters over the centuries. It’s just that when the Vikings or the germanic tribes did it, there was no satellite feed and internet to report it and stream the images to the world.

I think a distinction can be made with Iraq. I do not believe that we went into Iraq to allevaite human suffering, nor do I believe it really had much to do with WMDs. We did it because Bush believed that Saddam could not be trusted not to ally himself with al Qaeda and provide them with a staging ground - a military, not humanitarian, rationale.

I’m not sure how to answer the ultimate question of what the church should do if a military intervention is not appropriate. Putting relief workers on the ground for those who escape is one thing - or at least supporting those folks with our money, supplies, and prayers. Ultimately, though, what I’m left with is the sovereignty of God. In the midst of all of this, I have to believe that God is at work, perhaps through the efforts of Christians like Paul, to build his kingdom and bring himself glory. That sounds tough to swallow, but I think the horror of the alternative is even worse.

There is a lot of stuff within the borders of these questions, not to mention any impending rabbit trails. That’s good though!

Let’s see, first off: Evangelicalism seems to be basically over. The terminology has been so skewed that it now means nothing specific. Part of the reasoning for this is exemplified by Rwanda’s struggle. I do not remember any voices calling from evangelical pulpits, books or media outlets for Christians to shoulder up on this issue. There may have been some, but I was much more attune to both politics and evangelicalism at the time & don’t recall any. There should have been an outcry from all corners of the church.

I think there is a bias against aiding African nations in general. Whether this is due to ignorance in the populace (which would, then, generally be attributed to lack of media coverage) or political reasons based on any number of things, is hard to say. There seems to have been over the past century, at least, an attitude that Africa doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of global politics and economics. I believe that idea is beginning to change if for no other reason than the AIDS epidemic and all the poverty issues which do eventually filter to the rest of the world.

There is more humanitarian work to do in Africa than one can imagine. I agree with Clay that it is not in ANYONE’s best interest for the military to try to do humanitarian aid. Some limited things can be achieved, but it is a ‘left handed job for a right handed entity’. The military can not move swiftly enough to meet humanitarian needs, nor or they equipped to.

I think Paul, in the movie, was akin, in a way, to Allied soldiers in WWII Europe. He was an ‘everyman’ doing some extraordinary acts. By God’s Sovereignty, he was in a position to help in a way others couldn’t. I guess, for the individual and the local church, this is part of the answer. Where we find need and have opportunity, we should act. In global matters, this is obviously much more thorny.

I personally don’t believe it is a good policy for one nation to intervene in another country’s internal disputes. Part of the problem we see now in Iraq is due to this. Not that we entered to settle a dispute in this case, but that we actually lit a fire under a dispute by disrupting the balance of power. Now we’re trying to bow out gracefully and hope that warring parties can quickly understand that democracy rest on self governance.

It is so easy to fall into thinking that “I am so different from person x (or group x)”. When I see the Gay rights Marchers and the child molesters and the ultra lefts and the Ultra right on the TV & I shake my head in disgust, I am both right and wrong. I am a child of the Creator of the Universe. I am, therefore, well within my bounds and duties to call righteousness right and evil evil based on His word- not my inclinations. I am also child of man and save for the Grace of God, my own devices lead me to being closer to Hitler than Jesus.

Anytime we start separating and ‘ranking’ the groups of man, the power struggle begins and some ‘win’ & some lose. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Somalia, Bosnia, the Rwandan & Darfurian debacles (not to mention the Catholic/Protestant fighting in the UK and other places)all testify to the depravity of man’s nature. This nature doesn’t need any encouragement, but (again, to emphasize Clay’s point) the Belgians have much culpability in the example from last night. Setting one group against another in this manner was absolutely sinister. My mouth dropped open the first time I saw this. In the movie “Joyeux Noel”, the same type of thing happens. Only in that movie, the culprit was the church. I won’t spoil it for you, but if you want to know, just email me.

Enough rambles for now-on with the discussion Jeff

I thought I would post a couple of observations about the comments and my impressions of the movie just to keep things going. You obviously have figured out that there are a lot of big issues for Christians floating around in this movie and discussions about it. I tried to set up the questionaire to instigate some of them.

First, I also don’t think that a specific nation should intervene for humanitarian reasons. Nations should be self serving. I guess there are people who thought the Civil War and WWII was fought for humantarian reasons but history speaks otherwise. There were abolitionists who would have fought (and did) to abolish slavery but that wasn’t the reason for the war. In WWII, stopping the holocaust was certainly secondary; it was very late in the game before it became anything resembling a reason. However, I do think that a “world group” like the UN could, and perhaps should, interact against this type of thing occassionally, and with participating nations’ approval. The problem is that the UN is perhaps the most unwieldly instrument ever devised to do anything of value. Rwanda, in particular, would have lent itself to this sort of thing. It was very unlikely to become something bigger.By the way, I suspect that the disaster in Somalia had a lot to do with Clinton laying off this one.

The strange thing about the movie to me was how uplifting it was. The stand that Paul and Tatiana took was literally thrilling. And the way he did it reminded me so much of Jesus’ words in Matthew to be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” Paul had danced with the devil when he courted and bribed the powers that be, and he was able to use that to save the people at the hotel.

Speaking of Clinton, one of the great scenes in the movie was when Paul was listening to the radio when the American woman was using Clintonesque semantics to explain the difference between “acts of genocide” and “genocide.” Paul reaches up and turns it off in disgust.

Finally, where western governments fell down was in their total silence and purposeful ignoring of the genocide. Consider how effective Paul and the “guests” at the hotel were with their very limited campaign. Maybe I’m naive but I can’t imagine western approbation not having a substantial effect on this. Again, it should have been thundered from the church at the highest levels. As you know, I’m the furtherest thing in the world from a political Christian, but this isn’t political; it’s being human.

Let’s have more comments!

What an incredibly thought provoking movie. Since Sunday night I have wanted to post a comment, but I have struggled with what to write…putting words to the emotions that were stirred. And now, after reading the very thoughtful and intelligent comments already posted, I realize I don’t really have a clear and compelling argument. I have questions; I have an internal struggle of what to do with evil. There is a battle between my mind and my heart. Intellectually I agree with much of what has already been written. But my heart screams back at my mind, “what about the torture, massacre and pure wickedness?”

I also do not believe our military should get involved in humanitarian missions. But I struggle with whether being more vocal would be sufficient. I am struck by the fact that the day we began this discussion our country witnessed the worst “at home” massacre in recent history. It is so much more real to me because it took place two states away rather than in another country. If the violence continued today, tomorrow and the next, I would demand that we do something to end it. Should it be all that different when it involves another country? Are people not people? Is it a different kind of evil and wickedness? What if we saw the same type of genocide taking place in England – would we react differently?

For now, I have reminded myself that I really don’t have the answer. I am enjoying reading the comments and dealing with the many questions that have surfaced. Thanks.

Matt

I thought that the Paul was an excellent example of a loving christian. While the movie never outwardly addressed Paul’s christianity, it showed him grasping the cross on his wife’s necklace. It left me wondering what might have been going on in the directors mind. Was this his way of telling the viewer that Paul was a christian without risking the release of the film? The film would have certainly been opposed and likely left on the cutting room floor had he expounded on Paul’s christianity.

I do think that the film may have wrongly left the impression that the evacuation of foreign nationals while leaving the native rowandans was racially motivated. These situations are much more complicated than that. Where would the Tutsi Rwandans go? And once there would they ever go back? Whoever takes on evacuees is faced with a huge responsibility and better be prepared because they have embraced a tar baby (ie the Superdome during Katrina, the Orange bowl and the Cuban refugees).

With all of that said, something should have been done within the boundaries of Rwanda.

Matt, I feel ambivalent also. On the one hand, it seems that a country with resources like ours should intervene in humanitarian crises at least in some way, but on the other hand, there are always major problems with intervention as we painfully see everyday.

I think Matt raises a very good point: if genocide we’re happening to those who looked more like us, we probably would be more inclined to intervene. This was something that came to my mind when I watched the movie. It did seem the world turned its head, debating the meaning of genocide, rather than issuing any real help on the ground. Always easy to see in retrospect.

I for one, have really been challenged to reconsider what a Just War Theory looks like from a Christian point-of-view. But, like many I have more questions than answers.

Much good has come out of the atrocities in Rwanda. The Anglican Church is perhaps strongest, from an orthodox perspective, in Africa (particularly Rwanda and Nigeria). In fact, the Anglican Mission in America is sponsored by the Archbisophop of Rwanda.

I think one thing the church can do is spark economic and education development in war-torn and developing countries. This is beginning to happen in Rwanda, and is largely spearheaded by Christian organizations.

Blake Johnson

I wanted to follow up on some points made by Steve and Matt. Matt questioned whether we would have had the same reaction had a genocide taken place in England. Steve suggested that the movie incorrectly implied that the evacuation of Westerners was racially motivated.

It strikes me that there is a non-racial explanation for the US’s failure to act. If a genocide were occurring in England, we would definitely be more concerned, because, for reasons of history, culture, law, economics, and religion, we are extremely closely allied with and, in some ways, dependent on, the UK. It would not be in the US’s interests, geopolitically or economically, for that to happen there. As crass as this may sound, there was no political or economic cost to the US of failure to intervene in Rwanda. Following the money often explains much.

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that race wasn’t involved at some level. But, where the racism ends and other, non-racial factors begin is difficult, if not impossible, to discern, because so many of the other factors I identify above are co-extensive with race.

There’s an old saying among lawyers that hard facts make bad law. What’s really challenging to us as Western Christians is what hard facts the Rwandan genocide presents. As I’ve argued above, cold, hard-headed pragmatism dictates that intervening would have gained us nothing economically or politically. But, our Christianity pulls us (rightly) toward the opposite impulse.

In the Riverwood Book Group, we are currently discussing Francis Schaeffer’s “The God Who Is There.” Last Tuesday night we found the following idea which is very apropos to Hotel Rwanda. Schaeffer says: “The Christian is the real radical of our generation, for he stands against the monolithic modern concept of truth as relative. But too often, instead of being the radical, standing against the shifting sands of relativism, he subsides into merely maintaining the status quo. If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross, and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong-including man’s inhumanity to man.”

Jimmy, that’s a great quote and very appropriate to this discussion. The part that caught my attention was:

“If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross, and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong-including man’s inhumanity to man.”

What would that, in reality, look like?

All, By no means should my comments be taken as “spiritually definitive,” because I am just as flummoxed when we ask the question, “So what should a Christian do?” Especially, in a situation that will occur again and IS occuring again (Darfur).

I think, maybe, our American mind has blinded us into thinking that the only humanitarian/forceful extension we have, is through military or political means. The Church/believer is not so bound. Perhaps, the Church and local believers should initiate movement DELIBERATELY to genocidal hotspots.

“But it’s not safe.”
“But I’ll die”

All of these things are laughable to a believer— whose entire perspective is that this life is the closest thing to hell that they will ever endure. We would not dishonor our countires diplomatic stances by simply being a presence. I bet that a few bloodied and dead white faces on CNN could radically change the course of a conflict. Would I be willing to die a “martyrs” death to prevent thousands of others? Sarcastically and honestly: But I have a family and job and what good will it really do……….

It could be that I am going to preach on Is. 58 this week, but it seems to me that our Western evangelical piety(or superior theological precision, for that matter) isn’t worth a twit to a God who wants justice for the defensless(note: I didn’t say innocent).

Jimmy: Excellent movie.

Matt, this is an attempt to answer your question regarding real life/real time response. In the context Schaeffer was using, I think he was speaking of taking all truth as truth. The world makes all truth relative. There is no sin; no fault. In the Rwanda case, I think that there cannot be, nor is, in reality, any justifiction for the Christian not responding to evil with hatred and with persistence. This is accomplished in many ways but always persistently. Tim spoke of actual movement to the field and this is possible for some. There is complaint to the church for expression and action. There is complaint through government and legal channels. Think of the phone campaign of the Hotel Rwanda “guests” multiplied ten thousand times ten thousand. There is a seeking out of Christians in Rwanda (Durfur, etc., etc.) and giving support.

Most of all, in my opinion, there is the necessity of ALWAYS standing, in your mind, your words and actions, with truth; the truth that God exists and that His character is the moral law of the universe, and that we, as His children, are to uphold that character. To give an example (and this doesn’t particularly refer to Rwanda), the expression, “My Country, right or wrong,” is not a Christian attitude. Our true allegiance as Christians supersedes anything “wrong” and we cannot accept or support it because it is relative; because it suits a particular condition, whether it is economic, political, social, or even more likely, philosophical. We always stand for the truth. We always avoid excusing, apologizing for, justifying,or rationalizing, evil. Evil is not of God or of Christianity. So when “My Country, right or wrong,” is brought up, voted on, talked about, etc.; our response is always to never support wrong, even if it is “My County.”

I hope this is practical enought to answer your excellent question. I’m trying to say (very wordily, I’m afraid) that it consists of possible physical response but always moral and intellectual response.