Syrian Government Agrees to Ceasefire

This week’s challenging news story is from Syria. We still don’t know how well the cease-fire is working, but it is certainly not likely to be any kind of lasting solution. This lesson poses some great questions about how we apply our resources, who we are responsible for, what does it mean to love your neighbor?  The Scriptures cited below show us that these questions have been around since the beginning, and that we’re often not very good at answering them. I was particularly struck by the Proverbs quote: if you say, 'Look, we did not know this' -- does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it? And will he not repay all according to their deeds?" In these days of internet and 24-hour news, can we ever say “we did not know this?” Which of course raises the further question of how we can possibly respond to every situation that we know needs help.

I invite you to give special attention to further discussion question number 3. It’s framed in terms of our personal involvement versus the institutional church. You may want to ponder on the question of how we become involved by encouraging our government to do the right thing, versus how we can be involved through the church. An example of the first is the long and ultimately successful effort to change policy around Sudan. For the second, what partners in mission do we have that are helping in Syria? And how do we go about that in an area where doctors are arrested for giving aid to wounded people?

Syrian Government Agrees to Ceasefire

The Wired Word for April 15, 2012

In the News

By the time you use this lesson, you will probably know whether or not a ceasefire in Syria negotiated by former United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan has been respected by both the Syrian government and the opposition. The ceasefire was to have begun on by 6 a.m. Thursday morning, Syrian time. While observers around the world hope the ceasefire will take hold, there is little in the history of that country or that region of the world to expect that it will.

The Syrian government is a dictatorship, headed by President Basher al-Assad, a British-trained physician whose father ruled Syria before him with an iron hand. While many hoped Assad would institute reforms, he has proved to be iron-fisted as well. When, in March 2011, residents of a Syrian town began protesting the torture of students who had posted anti-government graffiti, the Syrian military, under Assad's direction, responded with force. At that, protests spread more widely throughout the nation. These demonstrations had much in common with the wave of Arab unrest that began in Tunisia in December 2010 and quickly swept through the Middle East, toppling regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and resulting in civil uprising in other Arab countries. And, like in those countries, a wide variety of motivations and desires, not all of which are peaceful and freedom-loving, are present among the protesters.

Syrian forces have shown no hesitation to fire upon those opposing the government, and to date more than 9,000 people have died in the conflict and thousands more have been driven from their homes. But neither violent response from government troops nor Assad's offers of political reform -- which protest leaders reject as shams -- has brought an end to the unrest. In December, the United Nations said Syria was on the verge of civil war, an observation that is no less accurate four months later.

What's more, the split in the country appears to be along sectarian lines. Assad, many of the nation's elite and many military leaders belong to the Alawite sect of Islam, but only about 12 percent of Syrians are Alawites. Most of the rest are Sunni Muslims, and Sunnis are predominant among the opposition. The government has significant firepower at its disposal, but the insurgency has proved surprisingly resilient, striking back even in Damascus, the nation's capital.

The ceasefire brokered by Annan includes a six-point plan that does not require Assad to leave power. His government has agreed to the provisions, but many are skeptical that it will actually abide by it. Violent clashes increased in the days leading to the ceasefire date, indicating that it may be more of a tactical propaganda effort on the part of some of the combatants.

It's reasonable to ask why Americans should care what happens in a country on the other side of the world, with a culture and form of government unlike our own. Yes, there are humanitarian reasons to be concerned, as well as love-your-neighbor motivations for those who seek to follow Jesus, but there are are so many trouble spots around the world and so many people suffering that it is difficult to avoid "compassion fatigue." In addition, any and every possible action on the part of Americans or the U.S. government has its own limitations and undesirable side effects. But there are still reasons for Americans to care about what happens in Syria.

This week, CNN asked Hillary Mann Leverett, a Washington-based professor and leading expert on the Middle East and Syria; Joseph Holliday, a former U.S. soldier who is now a foreign policy analyst; and Robert Zarate, a geopolitical strategist, to explain why Americans should care about what happens in Syria. They came up with six reasons:

1. Geography. They said Syria is the core of the Middle East. When it's weak and destabilized, the whole area is negatively affected, and violence in Syria could quickly spill into bordering nations, including Iraq, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, they said. (TWW would add Israel to that list, as it, too, borders Syria.) If the conflict became regional, the United States would inevitably have to address it in some way.

2. Al Qaeda. The United States' primary enemy would have another failed state from which to operate in the Middle East, they said. (TWW comment: Even worse, Syria might have a regime that more actively supports the jihadist enterprise championed by al-Qaeda. But this is a two-edged sword, as indicated by the next point.)

3. Iran. Syria supports Iran, a country with which the United States already has a problematic relationship. "Syria is Iran's arm in the Middle East," Zarate said. "Iran has used Syria as a staging ground to train and support militants who have crossed into Iraq to hurt our troops and to train for other terrorist activities." And Iran has a nuclear program, perhaps with nuclear weapon capabilities. (TWW comment: The current three-way alliance of Iran, Syria and The-Party-of-God [Hezbollah] in Lebanon is arguably as bad as would be a Syria allied with al-Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood.)

4. Oil prices. Although Syria produces far less oil than some other Middle East countries, unrest there could affect global oil prices and, ultimately, how much Americans pay for gasoline.

5. The economy. Leverett and Zarate note that the Iraq war cost an estimated $1 trillion. (TWW comment: To put the financial cost in perspective, the cost of the Iraq war over eight years was almost two-thirds of the entire federal deficit [not total debt] in 2011.) Any military intervention in Syria, even if not directly involving the United States, will eventually affect the American economy.

6. Global reputation. "People around the world are looking for some kind of consistency in our foreign policy, and we've been criticized for not having that, not having anything close to consistency during the Arab Spring," Zarate said. The United States intervened, along with NATO, in Libya and lent moral support to the Egyptian revolution, saying those actions were in keeping with America's national values and responsibilities as a global leader. (TWW comment: Note also that neither of these have yet turned out as many had hoped, indicating some of the risks and uncertainties involved.)

More on this story can be found at these links:
 
Syria Promises Kofi Annan It Will Respect Ceasefire. Guardian
Syria News. New York Times
Why Syria Should Matter to Americans. CNN
 
The Big Questions

1. Does the United States have a responsibility to automatically support efforts of oppressed peoples around the world to secure political liberty? Why or why not? Who gets to define who is being "oppressed" and who the "oppressors" are? Are there any objective standards? If so, what might some of them be?

2. Given that there are so many trouble spots around the world, and given that no nation, no matter how much a global leader, can adequately solve them all, should we simply accept that our country cannot address every conflict? Should our government address only those where it is in our national interest to do so? Explain your answer. What is meant by "national interest"? What are some of the dangers of using military force when it is not clearly in the national interest to do so?

3. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and his Good Samaritan parable suggests that our neighbor is whoever is in need, regardless of how different from us they may be. Given that, how do you think Jesus would want us to apply the love-your-neighbor-as-you-love-yourself command to places where we as individuals can have little direct effect? In what ways are the Syrians our neighbors? Is it acceptable for us to focus our individual love-your-neighbor efforts where we can have some impact and leave the other situations to our government or even to other nations? How might individual and governmental roles differ when addressing world "hot spots"?

4. Should we who are Christians try to combat "compassion fatigue"? Do we need to practice "spiritual triage" in order to preserve and focus our energies?

5. While most Syrians are Muslims, there are some Christians in Syria. What do you know about their status in the struggles there? Do you consider them brothers and sisters in Christ? If so, what do you do as a result?

Confronting the News with Scripture
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

Genesis 4:9
"Then the LORD said to Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' He said, 'I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?'" (For context, read 4:1-16.)

This question from the Lord and response from Cain after the latter killed his brother have haunted Christians for centuries, for we hear in God's question the implication that we, in fact, should be responsible for our brother -- with "brother" being broadly defined to mean not merely siblings, but "others." For many Christians, God's question is a call to caring ministry.

Questions: What are the limits on the implied meaning of God's question? Does it mean that we are all responsible for one another? How do we apply that to people with whom we have no contact? At what point can you legitimately say, "They are not my responsibility"?

Genesis 26:4-5
"I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and will give to your offspring all these lands; and all the nations of the earth shall gain blessing for themselves through your offspring, because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (For context, read 26:1-5.)

Genesis 26:1-5 is the only biblical story in which Isaac is the main character, and it's an important one because it relates the passing of God's covenant promises from Abraham's generation to Isaac's. A key part of the divine promise is that all the nations of the earth would "gain blessing for themselves" through Isaac's descendants. That promise was part of what Christians think of as the "old" covenant/testament.

Questions: Christians understand themselves as parties in a "new" covenant/testament. How might we be the means by which nations of the earth "gain blessing for themselves"? Are there other nations that might bless themselves by our nation? Have we been a curse for some nations? Explain.

Proverbs 24:10-12
"If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength being small; if you hold back from rescuing those taken away to death, those who go staggering to the slaughter; if you say, 'Look, we did not know this' -- does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it? And will he not repay all according to their deeds?" (For context, read 24:1-12.)

Proverbs 24 opens with the admonition to not envy the wicked, and verses 1-22 are a development of that admonition. The passage above applies the admonition to difficult times, times when the wicked would easily turn their attention elsewhere, but when the wise person (vv. 3-7) sees that courageous action is called for. The wise should not "hold back from rescuing those taken away to death." Presumably this means those condemned to death not by judicial sentence, but because of political intrigue or the abuse of position by a person in power.

Note, too, that a self-justifying excuse for not acting, such as "Look, we did not know this," does not deceive God, who sees our hearts.

Questions: We know about many more injustices and wrongs than we can possibly react to. What can help us decide where to apply courageous action? What personal price are you willing to pay to stand up for the oppressed? What are the limits you are willing to risk in terms of job security, personal and professional relationships, when it comes to standing up for the oppressed in unpopular situations?  

Luke 10:36-37
"'Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?' He said, 'The one who showed him mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (For context, read 10:25-37.)

Most of us are quite familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan. We know about the priest and the Levite who saw this beaten, wounded man by the road and passed by on the other side. We also know that when a Samaritan came by, he acted to help the victim, getting directly involved and even paying for his follow-up care. We even know that in telling this story, Jesus broadened the definition of who our neighbor is.

But notice the incident that caused Jesus to tell this story. According to Luke, a certain lawyer asks Jesus, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life." Now, you may recall from your reading of the gospels that this lawyer was not the only one to pose this particular question to Jesus. On another occasion, the man we call the rich young ruler asked Jesus the same thing, and in reading that account, we get the impression that the rich man sincerely wanted to know the answer. In the case of the lawyer, however, there is a devious motive involved. As Luke explains it, this man wants to "test" Jesus, put him on the spot, see how he will handle himself in a public debate.

Jesus responds by saying, in effect, "That's a good question. How would you answer it?" The lawyer then spouts the answer any Jewish schoolboy would have learned in the synagogue, a quote from the Old Testament: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."

Yes, says Jesus, that's right. You know the answer to your own question. Then Jesus adds the kicker: "Do this, and you will live."

The lawyer has been trapped by his own words, but he doesn't want to accept that, so he now asks, "And just who is this neighbor I am supposed to love?" In response, Jesus tells this parable we have come to call the Good Samaritan.

From the point of view of human behavior, this lawyer's second question is interesting because it is quite clear that when he answered his own first question, he already knew what he should do. He just didn't want to do it. Luke says he wanted to justify himself. In other words, in posing the second question, this man seeks a loophole. The very fact that he asks this second question suggests that he has not been loving his neighbor, but only himself, and he wants to keep it that way.

Questions: When have you behaved like the lawyer, trying to limit your "neighborhood"? In what ways is the Good Samaritan parable a help when you hear news about people suffering in places far away, people whose "neighborhood" you will likely never visit?

For Further Discussion

1. If it is true that there is always a crisis somewhere in the world, how can we evaluate which ones should most concern us as Americans? How might that be different from which ones should concern us as Christians? Might individual Christians be called to different areas of concern, or should we expect every Christian to have the same level of concern?

2. Do Christians have an obligation to remain aware, as far as possible, of what is going on in the world? If so, why? If not, why not? Have you thought at all about Syria in the midst of national and local news? Is the price of gas at your local pump more of a story than the violence in Syria?

3. In his time on earth, Jesus refused to get involved in matters of empire and government (see, for example, Matthew 22:15-22). Why do you think that was the case? Would he want his followers today to do the same? Why or why not? Is there a difference between Christians becoming involved as people in the world -- citizens -- and the organizational church becoming involved? Are there different roles?

4. There are so many trouble spots in the world today that even to pray about them all would make one's prayers impossibly long. Is a "God bless everybody everywhere" type of prayer acceptable? Explain your answer.

Responding to the News

This subject can help us think about what it means to be both a citizen of God's kingdom and a citizen of the world. We may not arrive at any complete answers about that, but any exercise that asks us to apply kingdom principles to contemporary times is likely to help us understand or practice our faith better. 
 
Other News This Week
 
This Sunday is the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. While the tragedy that befell that ship and its passengers can hardly be called a current event, the observance of the anniversary is. One result of the tragedy was the adoption in 1914 of the Safety Of Life At Sea convention, which 1) increased the number of lifeboats required and 2) mandated that a continuous radio watch be kept (radio was still fairly new). A willingness to respond to a ship in distress was not the problem when the Titanic was going down; it was that the RMS Carpathia, which did respond, had a radioman on duty and heard the distress calls, while closer ships did not. The SS California was actually in visual range and noticed Titanic firing flares, but interpreted them as non-distress signals (company signals or fireworks). The California attempted to contact the Titanic by means of a flashing light (still the main form of communication at night) several times, but the latter did not respond.  

Should your class wish to discuss the Titanic, you might use Mark 4:1-9, the parable of the sower, which ends with Jesus' comment: "Let anyone with ears to hear listen!" Consider also how the disciples understood the meaning of the parables only because they drew closer to spend more time with Jesus in their small group. As long as people remained on the periphery of Jesus' ministry, without committing themselves to him, they heard his stories but were unable to interpret their meaning, just as the ships near the Titanic saw the flares but didn't get close enough to understand what they meant.

The Bible also makes a big deal about remembering big events, setting up stones, markers, etc. (see, for example, Joshua 4:1-7).

There could also be an interesting discussion of the "icebergs" we have hit in our lives.

Closing Prayer

O God, we pray for your wisdom for those involved in conflict in Syria, that peace and meaningful political liberty might be found. In Jesus' name. Amen. 
 
 

Copyright 2012 Communication Resources

We look forward to your comments!