|
|
The Emergence of a New Historical Epoch?
|
Back to ACS home page
The
dominant political realities of the historical epoch of the Cold War were
evidenced in such Orwellian novels as 1984 and Animal Farm. The horses and their riders of Revelation
6:3-8 threatening the peace of the world in the course of that era could be
seen in terms of the power of the Nazis and the Communists. The world has
changed since September 11th , 2001. It also changed significantly
in the events associated with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. We now need
new insights into the character of the horses and their riders threatening the
peace, the justice as well as the life and death issues related to the changed
conditions of the times in which we live.
An allegory
is a fantasy genre involving a one-to-one correspondence between the actual
concrete world of our experience and a projected imaginative world. A good
example of this form of literature is provided by George Orwell's Animal
Farm. It seeks to
draw a parallel between a specific human situation and a fantasy story
involving a farmyard rebellion of the animals against the farmer. The human
situation is that of the socialist revolution promising a greater measure of
freedom to serve others, only to turn sour into another form of tyranny. It was
exemplified by the Soviet Union under Stalin. The farmyard story is meant both
to illustrate and highlight the threat of tyranny following the promise of
liberation found in communist-socialist ideology. In this sense the farmyard
story is an allegory of the latter situation.
The Lord
of the Rings,
Tolkien's saga of Middle Earth, is not an allegory in the sense just described.
Any attempt, for example, to see it directly allegorizing the First or Second
World War was strenuously denied by the author. Its literary genre is a form of
fantasy having a high degree of generalization and imaginative reconstruction
from the concrete details of the world of our experience. However this does not
mean that this work of fantasy does not have both a definite and significant
relation to the concrete and actual world of our experience.
I would
suggest that this connection is via the way in which responsible creatures
exercise their cultural formative power within the cosmic conflict between good
and evil. In this respect Tolkien's work does not seek to allegorize a particular historical situation. Like the
apocalyptic sections of the book of Revelation, it exemplifies features of
every historical epoch and, in that sense, allegorizes the central drama in the
whole of human history.
In
Tolkien's saga the conflict between good and evil, involving the exercise of
cultural formative power, is centrally related to the fate and quest of the
ring - the
'precious' stolen by Frodo's uncle Bilbo in the Hobbit, the story forming the background
to the main saga of The Lord of the Rings.
In the
course of this saga, the powers of darkness - in the form of Sauron, his
servile orcs and the Black Riders - seek to wrest the ring from Frodo, the
Hobbit. They want it as a means by which to cement their absolute power over
the free and responsible creatures of Middle Earth. Thus the humans, as well as
the hobbits, elves and dwarves have their free and responsible dominion over
Middle Earth threatened by the powers aligned with Sauron.
Throughout
the course of the quest to take the ring to the place it needs to be destroyed, both
Frodo and others are tempted to use its power for good. Boromir, the leader of
the human kingdom of Gondor, is a good example. He loses his life in battle as
a consequence of his attempt to take the ring from Frodo, with the erstwhile
intention of using it as an aid in the battle against the orcs.
Clearly the
symbolism of the ring in the saga of Middle Earth is very important. This saga is not the kind
of story between 'the goodies' and 'the baddies' exemplified by the wild west
and most of modern crime fiction. It is much more profound. In particular it
pictures something radically wrong with the human condition that makes the
simple 'goodies versus baddies' paradigm both trite and false. Furthermore, the conflict between good
and evil is cosmic in its scope. Nonetheless, central to it all is the problem
concerning the way in which we humans exercise power.
The
symbolism of the ring is probably the most important key in any attempt to
interpret the meaning of Tolkien's fantasy. The purpose of this article is
both to try to give some Biblical insight as to how this might be done, and
also to try to concretize it in relation to the power struggles that are likely
to determine the character of the new historical epoch emerging in the current
international situation.
In this
exercise, it needs to be emphasized that I am not claiming that Tolkien was writing a
futuristic allegory that is being exemplified by current events. I am claiming that the universal issues
of the temptation to misuse power in the present conflict between the Kingdom
of God and the Kingdom of Darkness are illustrated both by Tolkien's fantasy as
well as in the real history unfolding before our eyes
It is
tempting to say that the symbolism of the power of the ring exemplifies the
Biblical notion of sin. This view has much to commend it. However, the problem is that
Christians, at least for the greater part, do not appreciate, the way in which
sin is operative in the use of power.
This is important because, in Tolkien's treatment, the principal focus
of the way in which the ring corrupts and leads to twistedness and tyranny is
via the way in which we humans try to use/misuse our power.
To
exemplify this from Biblical teaching, it is worth considering the account of
the problem as it is related in the twentieth chapter of the gospel of Matthew.
This story concerns the desire of the mother of the disciples Andrew and Simon
Peter, to have them sit on the right and left hand of Jesus at the coming of his
Kingdom. Jesus indicates both to
her and to her two sons that they do not really know what they are asking. The remaining disciples, on the other
hand, are indignant at the request. In the midst of these kinds of typically
human power struggles, Jesus calls them all together and says:
"You
know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men
exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would
be great among you must be your servant; even as the Son of man came not to be
served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt 20:25-28).
The playing
of power games is a very common human pursuit. It occurs at all levels of human
activity, and churches are not exempt from its clutches. Such power games can
be very disruptive of marriages and families. They are rife in business and
commerce. However, they have their biggest potential for evil within the
political arena. This is well
illustrated today by the modern day problems of terrorism, 'rogue states' and
in the attempts to deal with the complex issues that surround them within the
framework of the United Nations.
The
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments present a picture of a destiny to
history in which humankind will eventually manage the world in a stewardly way
that is free from the vicissitudes of evil. This is heralded by the
resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and is to be completed with the coming of
the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Furthermore,
the process of human history reaching this climax is not simply one
characterized by the conflicts between 'goodies and baddies', epitomized by
George Bush's categorization of 'an axis of evil' that tends to demonize of
some nations, whilst giving the impression that the accusers are paragons of
virtue. To the contrary, Biblical insight would indicate that there is the
potential for good in the worst of us and the potential for evil in the best of
us. This applies not only to individuals. It applies also to marriages,
families, companies, churches, governments and nations.
There are
many ways in which Tolkien's fantasy imaginatively portrays these features of
the Biblical picture of our pilgrimage in the course of the present life. As responsible creatures we are called
to tread a path in the midst of the cosmic battle between the Kingdom of God
and the Kingdom of Darkness. This pilgrimage is one that calls us to fully
appreciate the dangers of the temptation to utilize 'the powers of the ring'
for good. The temptation to use the ring, as a symbol for the source of evil as
the misuse of power, is to be avoided altogether. In the course of our
pilgrimage in the present life, we need to appreciate our calling to carry it
to the place were its power might be destroyed. In the process of this
pilgrimage we are to be very aware of its potential to subvert and twist us.
In other
words I am suggesting that, in Tolkien's fantasy, the symbolism entailed with
'the ring' needs to be explored in relation to the contrast of the way in which
we humans should exercise power as set out in the twentieth chapter of the
gospel of Matthew cited above. Do
we try to use our power to laud it over others and play the kinds of games that
seek achieve such domination? Or
do we seek to resist such temptation, and follow the path of trying humbly to
serve others - whether as individuals, families, churches, governments or
nations?
A
Mirror of the Present International Situation?
I began by
pointing out that The Lord of the Rings is not a simple allegory, but a genre of
fantasy that has a high degree of generalization and imaginative reconstruction
concerning the specifics of the cosmos we inhabit. In this respect Middle Earth, as a total world, mirrors the
whole cosmos of our experience.
Looked at
in this way, it can lend us some important insights into the main contours of
the international situation confronting us today. We have grown accustomed to
the portrayal of the rise and exercise of the power of Nazism in Germany as the
embodiment of evil, depicted by Sauron and the orcs in Middle Earth. After World War II, it was communism
that epitomized the growth and spread of evil. In this respect, throughout the greater part of the
twentieth century we, in countries like Britain, the United States of America,
France, Australia and New Zealand have generally tended to think of ourselves
as 'the goodies' over against 'the baddies'.
However,
although we believed that this entailed a life and death struggle between the
'freedom' of the West and the 'tyranny' of the communist bloc, the extent of
the conflict experienced in World War II was to be avoided at all costs.
Hence, in 1945 the nations that had defeated Germany and Japan established the
United Nations (UN). Although a successor to the League of Nations set up after
World War I, it was given a lot more teeth. In effect, the UN was given many legislative powers
appropriate to the drafting of international law.
Ever since
its modern beginnings in the sixteenth century, the keeping of international
law has been a major problem. Until the twentieth century, the only way in
which international law has been able to be enforced is by means of systems of
law internal to nation states. Even today, the international law drafted through
the UN concerning fishing in international waters is flouted by many countries
who are suppose to abide by it. In this context we have the bizarre situation
in which self-styled vigilantes interfere with the activities of fishing
companies who flout these laws in international waters. These vigilante
activities may not be sanctioned
by the UN or any nation state. However they are motivated by a concern
to uphold international law. As such they parallel the proverbial stories of
Robin Hood.
This simply serves to illustrate the point that the
upholding international law runs counter to the idea of national sovereignty as
an unconstrained exercise of political power. Within the context of the Cold
War it was generally very difficult for any one such nationally sovereign state
to dictate the terms. In
accordance with the principles held to by nineteenth European nations, the
peace was effectively maintained - often at a knife edge - by means of the balance
of power.
The
significance of this was taken on board after World War II. During the 1930's
Britain failed to respond to the German re-armament program. This failure was rightly deemed to have
contributed to the advent of World War II. Hence the significance of the balance of power doctrine in
the life of the United Nations over the last fifty years or so.
However,
the world has changed markedly in the last fifteen years. The Soviet empire
collapsed in 1989. The attempted invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 met with a
concerted military action that was fully supported by the UN. However, partly
as a consequence of its continued military presence in Saudi Arabia, on
September 11th, 2001, the USA, as the only remaining superpower, was
shown to be vulnerable to terrorist attack.
In terms of
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings this might be thought of as an overt attack by the Black Riders upon
Hobbiton. As such, America's response was that of an attempt to bring out all
the big guns that Hobbiton doesn't have. There was no thought of the
possibility that the ring held by Bilbo Baggins for so many years might have been a central part
of the problem.
The United
States declared war on Terrorism, and invited other nations to join them.
Seeing the threat to the entirety of Middle Earth, the human inhabitants of Gondor
and Rohan, along with all other peace-loving peoples responded, shocked at the
way in which ordinary citizens had been targeted by airliners turned into
kami-kaze killing machines on a massive scale.
However, this response did not result in a council meeting at Rivendell to discuss the quest of how the ring might be disposed of. There was no soul-searching devoted to asking questions as to why fanatical Muslims might see it their god-given duty to inflict such harm upon America. There was no recollection of the popular revolution in Iran of the late seventies calling America 'The Great Satan'.
There was no recollection of the ways in which American foreign policy meddled in the affairs of other nations, sometimes destroying democratic governments in the process. In particular there was no recollection of the fact that, in the 1950's, the champions of freedom and democracy - Britain and America - had together conspired to unseat Iran's democratically elected government of Muhammad Mussadiq. Under him, Iran had incurred British wrath by nationalising its oil resources. After Britain had unsuccessfully challenged the legality of the action through an appeal to the International Court in the Hague, it retaliated by leading an international boycott of Iranian oil. In part as a consequence of this, Mussadiq's parliamentary support became dependent upon leftists that included some with communist leanings. In the early days of the Cold War, Korea and McCarthyism, the United States and Britain had given their initial support to Mussadiq on the grounds of his democratic mode of appointment. However, under the cloak of a concern for a possible fall to communism, the full support of Churchill and Eisenhower was given to a subversive plot involving the CIA and MI6. Mussadiq was removed from power, with the Shah taking centre-stage. Western interests were fostered; the Shah became more and more powerful and more and more remote from the concerns and needs of the people. It was against this kind of background that America became 'the Great Satan' in the furthering of its own interests, especially in respect to oil, by providing support to the autocratic regime of the Shah.
Instead the quest for the power of the ring initiated by the terrorist attacks of September 11th resulted in a response that was predicated upon the assumption that the West, America in particular, was a completely innocent party. In this vein America invaded Afghanistan in the quest for Osama bin Laden. In the process they took prisoners and denied them legal rights on the grounds that they were not prisoners of war, but terrorists who, in effect, had no rights. Who is the legitimate judge of these matters?
The next step was taken by President Bush early in January, 2002. He made it clear that the war on terrorism would be extended beyond the destruction of the al Quaeda network. As such it would focus upon 'the axis of evil' - North Korea, Iraq and Iran - countries that could be described as 'enemies' of the United States.
The theory is that any country having nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and also 'an enemy' of the United States, has the potential to sell or give these weapons to terrorist groups. The latter would then be able to use them against civilians after the pattern of September 11th, 2001 and the Bali bombings of October, 2002.
This is to be counteracted by actions under the rubric of the doctrine of 'the pre-emptive strike' against any country that refuses to have such weapons monitored. It was in this light that the whole issue of the agreement on the part of Iraq to give up its 'weapons of mass destruction' at the end of the Gulf War was reactivated, with the ensuing crisis over invading Iraq.
Suffice to say that the issues surrounding these matter are grave indeed. Although coalition forces have succeeded in the overthrow of Saddam's regime, law and order in Iraq has been severely disrupted. Furthermore, the power vacuum created by the overthrow of Saddam is being filled by a whole range of forces, including that of the Shi'ite clergy having similar aspirations to those who took power in the Iranian revolution of 1979.
The consequences of the war for the future of international relations, for the whole Middle East, not to mention the people of Iraq, are far from resolved. The decision of the USA not to involve the UN weapons inspectors in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction providing the basis in international law for the invasion, might be read as an illustration of the future way in which America chooses to make use of its superior military, political and economic power.
Throughout the historical epoch of the Cold War, the UN provided a framework that helped prevent rival superpowers from gaining a monopoly of Empire. It also played a major role in preventing the cold war from becoming hot. The manner in which the UN and the USA came into conflict over Iraq sets a precedent that, if not dealt with in an appropriate manner, could lead the way to America exercising a role of a de-facto Empire paralleling that of Rome in the early centuries of the common era.
In this respect, it should be remembered the Roman Empire had two systems of law: Ius Civile and Ius Gentium. The latter applied both to the relations between Romans and non-Romans as well as between non-Romans and non-Romans. It entailed a considerable measure of freedom for the different peoples within the Empire to follow their own traditions. At the same time, however, these freedoms were curbed by the necessity of Rome to keep law and order in the interests of fostering its 'civilized' way of life.
It was within this context that the early messianic communities - Christian churches - grew in an amazing way. In the apocalyptic picture given in the book of Revelation, the civilization of Rome is contrasted with Kingdom of God under the rule of the Lamb. It is significant that the growth of the messianic communities was an effective challenge to the pseudo-Kingdom bound up in the political power and might of the Roman order. Its challenge to the latter was in the terms of the way of the cross and the willingness to suffer exemplified in the teaching of Matthew 20:25-28.
America, together with such allies as Britain, Spain and Australia, correctly see the threats posed by the orcs of terrorism in conjunction with the Sauron-like power of Saddam Hussein. Nations like France, Germany and Russia also share this kind of concern. However, the stance of 'the coalition of the willing' has accused the latter of allowing Saddam Hussein the luxury of playing endless power games and, in the process, encouraging other 'rogue states' to engage in power games that might entail links with terrorism. As such it considered the UN in danger of becoming irrelevant to the central issues of our time.
The whole balance of power issue has now shifted decisively from the era of the Cold War. The military might is now firmly in the hands of 'the goodies'. In this new era, the balance of power and the containment of the potential outbreak of wide-spread hostility is no longer the objective. The objective of 'the goodies' in 'the coalition of the willing' is to use force to defeat of the threat of terrorism working in conjunction with 'rogue states'.
In this respect, perhaps the most worrying feature of the present situation is the fact that 'the goodies' in the form of America and 'the coalition of the willing' are themselves threatening to make far too much use the power of the ring. The excessive use of this ring twisted Gollum, and was in danger of twisting Frodo.
It could also be argued that, in an extreme form, its use for 'the good of civilization' is well illustrated by the Roman Empire. With its maintenance of law and order it provided many benefits for the nations under its political rule. In the last analysis, however, this rule of law was maintained for the benefit of Rome itself. By keeping the peace, it was able to provide an environment in which its economic power and civilized way of life could be maintained for its citizens all over the Empire. At the same time its culture and economic system extended to all peoples in ways that parallel McDonalds, Coca Cola and Kentucky Fried, not to mention the equivalent of the power of General Motors the world over!
In the awful struggles of the twentieth century, the world can be thankful for the manner in which America, Britain and their allies reacted to the various threats of the powers of Sauron to secure the ring. However, it is as well to remember that we self-styled 'goodies' have certainly been far from blameless in its use. It is perhaps timely to remember some of the ways in which 'the goodies' used the power of the ring during World War II. Although, in many ways it is probably unfair to mention it, in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these allies are so far the only ones to have actually used weapons of mass destruction in the context of war. I am well aware of the fact of the unprovoked attack upon Pearl Harbour, and the terrible prospect faced by the allies, America in particular, as the fanaticism of the Japanese troops threatened to take the lives of so many allied soldiers in the Pacific. The fact remains, however, that weapons of mass destruction, in the form of nuclear weapons, were used on a civilian population.
On a more personal level, as a student in Britain during the 1960's, I befriended a German exchange student from Darmstadt. I stayed with him and his family during the anniversary in which the people of Darmstadt remembered the bombing of their town by the allies during the war. The exercise had had no immediate strategic military purpose. It was simply a dress rehearsal for the bombing of Dresden, a mission that did have such an objective. Suffice to say that it was a very sobering experience for me to share this time with my German hosts!
Thus, it is perhaps time that we reminded ourselves as to how the power of the ring can twist and bring out evil in the best of us! With the balance of military power now decidedly in the hands of 'the goodies' we should not kid ourselves that we are immune from an infatuation with a vision for using 'the ring' for good. In both the heritage of our past as well as in dealing with the present era characterised by terrorism and 'rogue states', we self-styled 'goodie' nations need to learn the lesson that the temptation to overuse the ring is now a matter that needs as much attention as the threats posed by international terrorism. Indeed, the failure to deal with these realities is likely only to further fuel the threat of terrorism.
Randall Balmer, Professor of American Religion at Columbia University, writing in the April 14th, 2003 issue of The Nation, an American weekly paper of mildly leftist leanings, compares the theological outlooks of George Bush and Jimmy Carter. He considers the latter as characterised by an emphasis upon the mercy and forgiveness of God, with justice having primarily a restorative character. Bush, on the other hand, is charactized by a view of justice that is primarily punitive. In this respect, given that the leaders of the religious right - Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Beverly LaHaye as well as others - often speak of the United States as a 'Christian nation', it is significant that their political impact arose during and after the single term of Carter in the Oval Office.
It is significant too that the reading of the book of Revelation of the religious right is orientated to an apocalyptic depiction of events as they are deemed to occur in the future. This kind of hermeneutic, coupled with the attitude that only looks at other nations as a having a propensity to do evil, tends to make them blind and almost unable to appreciate the way in which it might apply to the present. In this respect, the deeply ingrained view of punitive justice in American life has been discussed by T Richard Snyder in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Punshment. (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2001).
It is in the light of these issues that I would like to encourage people to carefully re-read the book of Revelation. In so doing, I would suggest that the appropriate hermeneutic first entails reading it as an apocalyptic account of the way in which 'the power of the ring' - sin as power games - was active in the historical epoch of the Roman Empire. Second, the required hermeneutic involves us in a reading of this apocalyptic language as it applies to all epochs of history. In this respect, its fantasy genre is akin to that of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Both the latter work of fantasy and the book of Revelation apply to all human historical epochs. They applied to the Napoleonic era, to the era of the British Empire, particularly in the latter half of the nineteenth century; they applied to the Nazi era; they applied to the era dominated by the cold war. They also apply to the new era emerging before our very eyes.
Furthermore, I suggest that by appreciating the way in which the nascent Christian movement operated within the 'civilized' world of Rome, and comparing it with both the book of Revelation as well as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, we might learn some lessons as to the way in which we Christians should be seeking to live out our calling in the modern world. Our primary calling is to engage in the battle of the Kingdoms on the side of the Lamb of God who is currently bringing all enemies under his feet. This needs to be carefully distinguished from a patriotic roll of drums that attempts both to demonize political opponents and ignore our own sins. In other words, it is important for us all to realize that 'the axis of evil' goes right through our own hearts.
Some suggested further reading:
Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now, Orbis Books, New York, 2000.
Alan Kreider, The Change of Conversion and the Origin of Christendom, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg, 1999.
T Richard Snyder, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Punishment. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2001.
-- end
Back to ACS home page Back to top
|
Website enquiries and messages to site editor f.cole@unsw.edu.au Last modified: 15 June 2003 |