Living Wittily

How Do We Defeat The Enemy (3)

Written by

admin

in

DSC00228The Poem "How do I defeat my Enemy" by Michael Rosen, is a profound and searing indictment of the modern nation state and its political cynicism. The primary concern is not what is right, or good, or has ethical principle – but what is in the interests of the state, regardless of ethical fallout. 

In Christian spirituality sin can be so personal and so petty, so visible and obvious – but sometimes sin is insidious, toxic, insinuating itself not only into human hearts but into human structures. Who is the enemy? And why do I need to, wanto, defeat him or them? Psalm 139 describes the beauty, the dignity, the uniqueness of each individual human being. In a prayer poem a prose chain of beautiful phrases are used to describe the process of creation. God is like an artist, with care and vision, skill and that gift of bringing out the once in the life of a universe specialness of this one creation, this one individual, this person – me, you, him, her. And then there’s the end of the Psalm, which clatters on the floor like a dropped baking tray interrupting a Baroque oboe concerto, about hating those who hate God with a perfect hatred – despite the deep truth of the Hasidic ethic, that to kill a human being is to kill a universe.

We live in a world where such precious, unique, dignity and worth are, according to the Bible, to be accorded to each person, made in the image of God. Yet we inhabit a world of suicide bombs, improvised explosive devices, remote controlled drones, death by enemy action and friendly fire, – it is such an unpredictable, complex, confusing and heartbreaking reality, this life that is both precious and disposable.

And Psalm 139 captures it with the kind of honesty we may find it hard to take. “See if there is any offensive way in me”. The psalmist has just spouted an atrocious hymn of personal hatred, following on a beautiful song of human worth, dignity and God given value. This is hatred in the name of God, and it isn't only a historical fact, or something that happens elsewhere. In Scotland, sectarian attitudes come very close to this religiously inspired hatred, this distorted, grotesque view that God can be co-opted to be on the side of our prejudices and hatreds. Followers of Jesus can never say, ‘I hate with a perfect hatred those who hate you’ – why – because while we were God’s enemies Christ dies for us – oh and that verse begins, ‘God commends his love towards us in that….’

Comments

8 responses to “How Do We Defeat The Enemy (3)”

  1. Bob MacDonald avatar
    Bob MacDonald

    I think putting down this psalm’s ending by rejecting it is too obvious a solution to the enigma of the enemy in the psalms. The perfect hatred is enclosed examine–know–way, matching the opening verses. It is similar to the request of Psalm 19 re hidden faults. Hatred is perhaps the necessary choice, not the emotion with which we are accustomed to hearing this word.

    Reply
  2. Bob MacDonald avatar
    Bob MacDonald

    I think putting down this psalm’s ending by rejecting it is too obvious a solution to the enigma of the enemy in the psalms. The perfect hatred is enclosed examine–know–way, matching the opening verses. It is similar to the request of Psalm 19 re hidden faults. Hatred is perhaps the necessary choice, not the emotion with which we are accustomed to hearing this word.

    Reply
  3. Jim Gordon avatar
    Jim Gordon

    Thanks Bob – I think there are a couple of initial responses. First, I don’t think I did put the ending of the Psalm down – I fully acknowledged it as an authentic expression of human experience. The most telling comment on it is the claim of Jesus, ‘You have heard that it was said you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say unto you……” I cannot be a follower of Jesus and not take seriously the radical call to love the enemy, not hate them.
    My second comment is that I’m not clear on how hatred is a necessary choice, and certainly not one without emotion – which would be even more chilling.The enigma of the enemy in the Psalms, and in the human experience of our world, remains, but is challenged by the mystery of a love that will not mirror hate for hate, and certainly that will not make hatred into an art form – perfect hatred is a tragic oxymoron for me. And I’m still left with the reality of the God who while we were enemies died for us.

    Reply
  4. Jim Gordon avatar
    Jim Gordon

    Thanks Bob – I think there are a couple of initial responses. First, I don’t think I did put the ending of the Psalm down – I fully acknowledged it as an authentic expression of human experience. The most telling comment on it is the claim of Jesus, ‘You have heard that it was said you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say unto you……” I cannot be a follower of Jesus and not take seriously the radical call to love the enemy, not hate them.
    My second comment is that I’m not clear on how hatred is a necessary choice, and certainly not one without emotion – which would be even more chilling.The enigma of the enemy in the Psalms, and in the human experience of our world, remains, but is challenged by the mystery of a love that will not mirror hate for hate, and certainly that will not make hatred into an art form – perfect hatred is a tragic oxymoron for me. And I’m still left with the reality of the God who while we were enemies died for us.

    Reply
  5. Bob MacDonald avatar
    Bob MacDonald

    Jacob have I loved, Esau I have hated. These are words that express a choice and they are put in the mouth of Yhvh. (And quoted in Romans 9:13) That was why I used ‘choice’ above. While I agree with you about praying for and loving enemies, I am no less enemy to them or they to me. I must say that I find it easier to see the psalms than to express what they say to me.

    Reply
  6. Bob MacDonald avatar
    Bob MacDonald

    Jacob have I loved, Esau I have hated. These are words that express a choice and they are put in the mouth of Yhvh. (And quoted in Romans 9:13) That was why I used ‘choice’ above. While I agree with you about praying for and loving enemies, I am no less enemy to them or they to me. I must say that I find it easier to see the psalms than to express what they say to me.

    Reply
  7. Bob MacDonald avatar
    Bob MacDonald

    Hi again from across the waters – and continuing thanks for your advent meditation. I came today to be working on Psalm 139 – and I note that I translated this verse as “a consummation of hatred – I hate them // as enemies they are to me”.
    It strikes me that if I were reading this in the role of the first century Jesus, he would see that the consummation of hatred was to be absorbed by himself in his hour of judgment, completing and consummating the creation and redemption of the world as intimated by Genesis 2:4a.
    My justification for reading the psalms this way is the work of the author of Hebrews who uses the psalms as the text of the dialogue between the Father and the Son. Yet this dialogue does not exclude any who read the psalms in the role of the elect.
    This too is a transformation of the enemy – and refuses to let us read the enemy as object and separated from reader.

    Reply
  8. Bob MacDonald avatar
    Bob MacDonald

    Hi again from across the waters – and continuing thanks for your advent meditation. I came today to be working on Psalm 139 – and I note that I translated this verse as “a consummation of hatred – I hate them // as enemies they are to me”.
    It strikes me that if I were reading this in the role of the first century Jesus, he would see that the consummation of hatred was to be absorbed by himself in his hour of judgment, completing and consummating the creation and redemption of the world as intimated by Genesis 2:4a.
    My justification for reading the psalms this way is the work of the author of Hebrews who uses the psalms as the text of the dialogue between the Father and the Son. Yet this dialogue does not exclude any who read the psalms in the role of the elect.
    This too is a transformation of the enemy – and refuses to let us read the enemy as object and separated from reader.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Jim Gordon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts