On August 31st 1939 a small group of German operatives, dressed in Polish military uniforms seized a radio station in Gleiwitz, Germany near the Polish German border. The reason for this action was what conspiratorial types call a false flag operation, which is defined as, “ a covert operation designed to deceive, creating the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.” In this case the Germans wanted it to appear that the Poles were attacking Germans on German soil. The next day, September 1st the Germans invaded Poland. Part of their justification for this action was that great line of reasoning from our childhood - the Poles had started it (even though they hadn’t). But in official declarations Hitler and his National Socialists claimed that as a result of this Polish provocation the Germans needed to send in 3,472 tanks and 1,500,000 Wehrmacht infantry because you couldn’t have the Poles interrupting some Wagnerian Gotterdammerung on Radio Free Gleiwitz to blast Gus Polinski’s polka music throughout the Vaterland. There are some lines that a nation cannot let be crossed.
This false flag operation has always been interesting to me because it shows that on some level even the Nazis for all their goose-stepping and Aryan bluster thought they still needed some justification for their aggression. It could not just be about lebensraum and master races. No, the Poles had to have started it (even if they didn’t). And I want to take a minute and think about why the Nazi’s thought that the civilized world would want to see a provocation, in order for their aggression to be justified. And the reason for this seems to be part and parcel of the cultural milieu in which we live. Most people have a sort of half-baked Code of Hammurabi floating around in their heads, which says that if they hit me I get to hit them back. So the Germans made up something that would meet this criterion and could safely invade Poland because the Poles were the initial aggressors. That is often how the world likes things to work. I remember in the run up to the Iraq war one of the main criticisms was that Iraq had not attacked the US and so we were therefore not justified in attacking them. Now, maybe if Saddam had taken over WKRP in Cincinnati some of those people may have come around - but enough of this.
For fun lets see how this understanding of war, and aggression fits into what Jesus tells us today when he unleashes some of the most difficult commands he put forth in his ministry. He says this; “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” These are very difficult sayings because they essentially posit that we are to do the right and Godly thing no matter what the other person does to us. We are told that we need to act in this world as God bids us to act despite the circumstances and despite what other people may do or say. It is not about us, but rather it is about God.
Since I had to take a class on just war theory while I was deployed you now get stuck with a discussion of it. Just war theory is actually made up of three pieces, which usually go by their Latin names, because that makes people feel smarter. I won’t pretend that I am proficient in Latin, so I will just give it to you in English. The three pieces of Just War Theory are this: Just Cause, Just Conduct in war and Just Conduct after war. They are pretty self-explanatory but basically they mean you need to have a good or just reason for going to war, you need to behave justly in that war (i.e. no bayoneting the wounded) and when the conflict is over you need to work toward a just settlement (i.e. you can’t enslave your enemy and make them massage your bunions). The overarching theme is that in going to war, when it is all said and done, you need to have created a more just world. Or put in cooking terms at the end of a just war there needs to be more justice in the pot than there was before it all started. And so I want to think about Just War in light of what Jesus says. For it would seem that what Jesus is doing is laying out a system by which justice would increase in this world in the same way that Just War theory argues.
When we look at the ministry of Jesus he often comes along and reinterprets or strengthens the law, getting it back to what its original intent was. A famous example of this is when Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.” You see in statements like this Jesus is pointing out that the sin begins long before we actually kill someone. So if we are looking to follow God’s will it must start at the source, the place where sinful action begins, which is in our hearts and minds. People do not kill someone and then afterward decide that they were really mad at them. Instead the anger is what leads to the killing.
So going back to Jesus admonition about loving those who hate you and not striking back at someone who strikes you, this is about getting to the source of the problem and not allowing justification for sin. In other words if I do something wrong it is not made less wrong because the other person started it. On a slight side note this seems to be where most of our political arguments play out these days. If person A says that Donald Trump is bad because he has had extramarital affairs person B will respond by saying well so did Bill Clinton. Both are true and both are wrong. We do not get off the hook because we can prove that someone else also did something bad.
And so looking to wrap up this sort of meandering sermon that I have given you about why we should love our enemies. The answer to why Jesus tells us to do it is because it is the right thing to do. In other words hating someone does not become justifiable because someone hated you first. As I stated earlier when thinking about responses to unjust action most of us have a sort of half baked Code of Hammurabi floating around in our heads which says; if they hit me, I get to hit them back. But historically we must remember that an eye for an eye was actually a dialing back of how things worked. Before Hammurabi came up with this code in 1754 BC if someone took your eye you could burn their house down, kill their children and take their fondue set. Hammurabi came up with this to add some proportionality to people’s responses. But Jesus dials it back even further.
Just like just war theory requires a net increase in justice Jesus no longer allows other people’s misdeeds to justify our own. Because responding to injustice with injustice will ultimately add more ill feeling or harmful actions into this world; i.e. it adds more injustice to the pot. Since I seem to be on a roll of quoting our mothers it is also known as two wrongs do not make a right. And I know what Jesus tells us today is a very hard saying because our sense of justice often depends on another person suffering at least as much as we do, if not more. But in the cosmic sense, that is from God’s perspective, we are all his creatures so making another suffer, even we feel they have it coming, grieves his heart. God does not want more hate and vitriol injected into the system. So if we respond to evil with evil all that we have done is create a more evil world. It is a hard way to live, but one which ultimately puts us closer to the mindset of God so that we may be his both now and forevermore.