"Nonviolent, Spiritual Peacemaking," column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on September 15, 2007 - 3:36pm.

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke is a regular contributor to the Dunkirk Observer.  The following, "Nonviolent, Spiritual Peacemaking" was published on September 13, 2007. 

Moveon.org recently ran a full-page ad in the New York Times calling General Petraeus,  “General Betray Us.” Emotionally at first, I was pleased.  I knew it was a cheap shot, but I thought, “they” deserve it.  It makes up for all “their” cheap shots about Saddam Hussein being behind 9/11 and on the brink of unleashing nuclear weapons on America. Emotionally I was pleased but deep in my soul I knew the ad was wrong -- and would in the long run be counter productive.
In Ron Rolheiser’s spiritually challenging book, “The Holy Longing,” he has a brief, one page section entitled “Nonviolent Peacemaking.” While acknowledging the stark lack of progress in making peace and admitting that it is also attributable to  “the world’s hardness of heart” and “the entrenched powers of privilege [not being] easily moved,” he also points to the naiveté, the self-righteousness, and lack of peace in the hearts of many peacemakers.
He argues, and I paraphrase him, that many think the urgency of the peace cause is so great that they can by-pass the normal laws of public discourse and be intolerant, disrespectful and arrogant to those with opposing views. The “General Betray Us” ad is a good example.
I’m reminded of Eckhart Tolle’s insight that there is always a “competing narration.” Our minds are finite and fallible.  Therefore, they are incapable of grasping, let alone expressing the whole truth -- on anything.  There is always another way to look at issues, another side, another approach.  Peace activists with fire in their bellies for what they perceive to be unquestionably just  (and I am one) are often tempted to dismiss the competing narrations.  We must, however, force ourselves to hear them respectfully.  We will convince no one with angry rhetoric and our anger will diminish our message -- and our souls.  We win others to peacemaking only through our example and calm, respectful dialogue.
I confess that I have succumbed to the temptation of anger in criticizing President Bush and the neo-cons that began and still control the ill conceived and disasterly managed War in Iraq. It is very difficult for me to listen to the arguments and accept the sincerity of those who agree with this President. Psychologically it is difficult; politically in the short run it probably will not be productive, but spiritually it is obligatory.
There are those who would say that this kind of tolerance concerning such an all-important issue betrays a lack of commitment and conviction.  I say in response that our intolerance betrays a pride and arrogance that our analysis is the only one possible.  Furthermore, as Rolheiser also says we should not judge our success and failure as peacemakers “on the basis of measurable political achievement.”  We should be more interested in the long-term prospects for peace in the world than in short-term gains in specific military operations. We will accomplish these long-term goals, if we accomplish them at all, only through nonviolence and respectful, persistent diplomacy.
This might not make sense politically, but it makes eminent sense spiritually. It is, however, also how Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in India, Nelson Mandela in South Africa and Lech Walesa in Poland.  Admittedly, their peace-making successes were not in military wars as such, but against formidable systemic oppression. The argument could be made that such institutionalized and widely accepted oppression was even more difficult to end than a hot war.  In any case their efforts were nonviolent, peaceful and ultimately enduring.  Of course, in these countries there were honest confrontations and in some instances violence by some of their followers, but these three modern peacemakers and justice workers are shining examples for us. Peace after all is the fruit of justice (Is. 32:17).
Gandhi, Mandela and Walesa had another attitude in common.  They had faith.  They possessed a deep spiritual belief in a just and loving God whose work on earth they saw to be their own.  Their nonviolent activism was coupled with prayer.  Instinctively, they knew they could not only work for peace and justice; they realized they must pray for it.  Theirs were spiritual quests.
In the present heated political atmosphere, it would be naïve to expect such an approach in congress.  Our representatives seem more intent on protecting their careers or favorably positioning their political parties than in a genuine, statesmen-like search for peace.  Where are the politicians who see the long view of history, seek the global good of world peace, and dare to follow the example of peacemakers like Gandhi or Mandela?  Many would dismiss their nonviolent, spiritual approach as mystical and unrealistic, but all of us especially we peace activists should try it. Ultimately -- I keep telling myself -- it is the only way.
Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the
Administration at State University of New York at Fredonia, he lives in
Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears the second and fourth Thursday
each month. He has published "Spirit at Your Back," a book of his previous columns. The book may be purchased or comments sent to
orourke@netsync.net.