© 2013 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
But it wasn't clear in his earlier life that he was headed that way. Born into a part of the Xhosa royal family, he was educated at a Methodist mission school. Later, while living under South Africa's apartheid system, Mandela became an anti-apartheid revolutionary. Although initially committed to non-violent protest, he eventually turned to more violent means. He was arrested in 1962 for leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government and was sentenced to life in prison. He remained there for 27 years, until international pressure on the South African government led it to free him.
After his release in 1990, Mandela joined negotiations with then President F.W. de Klerk to abolish apartheid and establish multiracial elections. In those elections, held in 1994, Mandela led the African National Congress political party to victory and became that country's first black president, and the first president elected in a fully representative democratic election. He held the presidential office from 1994 to 1999, and during that time, his government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid by tackling institutionalized racism, poverty and inequality, and by fostering racial reconciliation. Importantly, Mandela did not unleash a blood bath on those who had oppressed him and his people, but worked for reconciliation and forgiveness instead of revenge. Notably, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was multi-ethnic, and it illuminated atrocities on all sides -- including those of Mandela's ex-wife, Winnie.
Even before his death, many in South Africa were calling Mandela "the father of the nation," "the founding father of democracy" and "the national liberator." According to Mandela's biographer Anthony Sampson, a myth had developed around Mandela that made him "a secular saint" and which was "so powerful that it blurs the realities."
Despite his accomplishments, Mandela was often criticized. One criticism was for his movement in the 1960s to violently resist apartheid, the resistance that led to his imprisonment. He later told Jesse Jackson, however, that he was glad he was arrested, because his group had plans to continue the violent resistance, and he thought he would have ended up with innocent blood on his hands.
Later, while he was president, Mandela was criticized for his friendship with political leaders such as Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Suharto and for his refusal to condemn their human rights violations. Some members of the anti-apartheid movement viewed him as too eager to placate South Africa's white power elite rather than delivering "economic equality" to the majority who continued to live in poverty. Others questioned his decision to prioritize tranquility over justice and said that his reconciliation process left too many crimes unpunished. Yet others criticized his silence at the racism and ethnic hatred of many in his own political party, and their violence against the Boers.
In the South African magazine Daily Maverick, Pierre De Vos, a law professor at the University of Cape Town, wrote last week, "Nelson Mandela was not a saint. We would dishonor his memory if we treated him as if he was one. Like all truly exceptional human beings he was a person of flesh and blood, with his own idiosyncrasies, his own blind spots and weaknesses."
But De Vos also wrote that Mandela's "brilliance must surely be found in the fact that he was a principled and hard-nosed politician who also had the dignity and the self-knowledge that drove him to try and bridge the unjust divide between races created by colonialism and apartheid."
Mandela is no saint, De Vos said. And in that regard, we note that Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Lincoln all had mixed records as well. King reportedly plagiarized in some of his academic papers and committed adultery on occasion. Gandhi's been branded a misogynist and accused of racism against the blacks of South Africa. Lincoln had his own racism, and once proposed sending freed slaves to colonies in Central America.
The high regard and the label of greatness afforded to King, Gandhi, Lincoln and now Mandela, we suspect, comes from looking at their lives on balance and deciding that their achievements on behalf of those oppressed far outweigh some personal failings or wrong decisions.
TWW team member Malia Miller commented that in thinking about what makes people great, two qualities surfaced for her: passion and intention. "All leaders mentioned [here] had seemingly limitless passion for their causes and good intentions in how to bring about the change," Miller said. "The fact that they were flawed human beings is what made them like the rest of humanity. Their incredible drive to persist toward change for the betterment of humankind is what made them unique."
Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote of Mandela this week, "Was he a saint? Not if a saint is entirely flawless. I believe he was saintly because he inspired others powerfully and revealed in his character, transparently, many of God's attributes of goodness: compassion, concern for others, desire for peace, forgiveness and reconciliation."
More on this story can be found at these links:
To Call Mandela a Saint Is to Dishonour His Memory. Daily Maverick
For Mandela, Reverence, but Criticism, Too. New York Times
In Life, Nelson Mandela Often Irritated U.S. Washington Post
Desmond Tutu: Mandela All About Kindness. The Herald
Shaped by Methodists, Mandela Paid Tribute to the Role of Religion. Washington Post
Jesse Jackson: Mandela Preferred Prison to Blood on His Hands. Newsmax
A Long Walk to Immortality -- The Life and Times of Madiba. The Independent
Nelson Mandela. Wikipedia
The Big Questions
1. Professor De Vos wrote of Mandela that "Like all truly exceptional human beings he was a person of flesh and blood, with his own idiosyncrasies, his own blind spots and weaknesses." Do you agree that the same definition applies to all human beings, whether exceptional or not? If so, how can you spot your own idiosyncrasies, blind spots and weaknesses? How do they affect how you think of yourself? How do you think they affect the way others view you?
2. Given the Bible's insistence that "all have sinned and ... are now justified by [God's] grace as a gift" (Romans 3:23-24), do you think God weighs our accomplishments against our failings when judging us? Explain your answer.
3. Define greatness. Is the term used too often or not enough? What, in your opinion, elevates some people to the level of greatness? Do passion and intention apply? What characteristics of greatness do you seek to practice in your life?
4. What does the phrase "I'm only human" mean to you? Given that we are God's creations and made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), what should it mean? Psalm 8 reflects a high regard for humanity. How do we balance a high regard for what God has created, and the tendency in some parts of Scripture to suggest that maybe we have too high a regard for ourselves?
5. Think about people today whom you would consider great. What failings, if any, are you willing to overlook in those you have identified as great? Why?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ezekiel 37:25
They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children's children shall live there forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. (For context, read 37:15-28.)
Note that these words from the prophet Ezekiel talk about David being the "prince forever" of the people of Israel. But Ezekiel lived long after King David had died, and after the remainder of David's empire had been extinguished. Ezekiel, in fact, was himself in exile in Babylon along with many of his fellow Jews. His prophecy in 37:15-28, however, is about the restoration of the Israelite people in a kingdom where they will live forever, with David as their leader.
The mention of David here and in many other prophetic passages in the Bible shows that David, like M.L King Jr., Gandhi, Lincoln and now Mandela, became a larger-than-life figure in the collective memory of Israel, so that when they thought of the restoration of their nation, they naturally thought of their ideal leader being David or, perhaps more accurately, a "new" David (recall that when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, the crowd greeted him as "the son of David" [Matthew 21:9]).
The actual David had been mostly good news for the people of Israel. During his reign, Israel's enemies were subdued, the kingdom's borders were extended and, for much of the time, the people enjoyed peace, prosperity and God's favor. Thus David was remembered as the greatest of Israel's kings. But the actual David also had some significant failings, most notably his adultery with Bathsheba and his despicable murder of her husband Uriah, as well as his failure to deal with misbehavior among his own children.
Yet, on balance, David's accomplishments make him the hope of later Israel and the stand-in for the Messiah to come.
Questions: While David was still a youth, the prophet Samuel described him as "a man after [God's] own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14). Do you think David could still be described that way at the end of his life? Why or why not? Is the "on-balance" assessment of David in the memory of Israel correct? Compared to the author of 1 and 2 Samuel, the Chronicler skips most of the difficult portions of David’s life and presents him as a much more perfect figure. Is that what it means when we say God forgives and forgets our sins? Is that how God views the matter? Ought we?
Genesis 50:20-21
Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones. (For context, read 50:15-21.)
Like Mandela, the Old Testament figure Joseph spent several years in prison, and in his case, he was completely innocent. And like Mandela, Joseph came out of prison into government leadership without acting on bitter feelings to seek revenge against those who had hurt him. He took no revenge on Potiphar's wife, whose false accusations put him in prison, no revenge on his fellow prisoner who was released early and then didn't speak on Joseph's behalf, and no revenge on his brothers who'd sold him into slavery to begin with. The statement above shows Joseph acting out of kindness instead.
There is an interesting similarity to Mandela, with God using oppression to a good end in the South African story. Mandela's tribe, the Xhosa, at one time followed the vision of a young girl regarding how to appease the ancestors and defeat their enemies (mainly Boer and English settlers). Following her vision, they destroyed their own cattle and winter foodstuffs. The expected help from the spirit world did not arrive, and the Xhosa were made destitute, causing many to become dependent upon their former enemies. Many made their way to mission stations, where they were provided food and received a Western education. The education and skills learned gave them tools for politics and governance. Mandela was descended from that group.
Question: In what situations might Joseph and Mandela be models for us?
1 Samuel 17:48-49
When the Philistine drew nearer to meet David, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. (For context, read 17:38-51.)
David's killing of Goliath is when David first came to the public's awareness.
The poet Maya Angelou recently compared Mandela to David defeating a giant Goliath (in Mandela's case, colonialism and the apartheid system).
Questions: What "stones" did Mandela have in his bag? How can we acquire and make use of similar "stones"? How much credit should South African President de Klerk and the Boer (and English) leadership of that period be given for peacefully ending the apartheid policy and ceding their own political power to another group?
Matthew 25:34-36, 40
Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." ... "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." (For context, read 25:31-46.)
This is from Jesus' parable of the final judgment, in which people are divided according to how they treated those in need. In this parable, the only standard by which people are judged is how they have treated others.
Chris Bowman, Brethren pastor, scholar and writer, once said that Brethren have Matthew 25 in their DNA. He meant that the whole idea of the Brethren Service Explosion -- Heifer International, Church World Service, CROP (which is now ecumenical and not exclusively Brethren), Brethren Volunteer Service and other efforts -- is the result of this Scripture passage's importance. Christians insist they're saved by faith, but there is a tension between some of Paul's texts and texts like this one which seem to suggest that it's what we do that saves us.
Questions: Since this parable refers to only one standard of judgment, does it leave room to consider that perhaps God looks at our lives "on balance"? If so, how does that square with Paul's teaching in Romans that we are saved by faith and not by works (see Romans 3:21-28)? Do we think of people like Mandala as saved by what they have done for so many? Ought we also to think of individuals like Richard Nixon in terms of what they accomplished (an impressive record, in Nixon's case) instead of the malice they might have had toward others? Why or why not?
Luke 22:26
But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. (For context, read 22:24-30.)
This verse includes Jesus' definition of what makes a person great: service.
Questions: By this definition, who in national public life today would you label "great"? Who in your community? Who in your church? How skeptical are you when someone's biography (perhaps a campaign biography in politics or an inspirational biography for a Christian charity) seems too perfect? Why do we seem to look for flaws in good people or complain about the flaws if they are revealed?
Should we define both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, despite their obvious flaws, as great? (For example, even many people who are not fans of Mr. Bush acknowledge the great work he did toward eradicating AIDS in Africa. And even many who are not fond of Mr. Clinton acknowledge the importance of the Family and Medical Leave Act he signed, which has allowed over 20 million Americans to take unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or a sick family member.)
For Further Discussion
1. Comment on this, from a TWW team member: "One of the talking heads on TV this morning said Mandela was an angry and bitter man (after 27 years in prison) but that his greatness was in 'masking it,' in not letting his bitterness show to the detriment of the cause. If true, this gives me pause -- a great man with an un-healed wound contributing to a reconciliation cause. [Compare that] with Jesus; with him what you see is what you get: the sinless Son of God reconciling the world unto himself. I don't think we should minimize the bitter cup Jesus drank for us. Do we imagine Jesus didn't know what bitterness felt like? I think he must have tasted bitterness in order to fully understand what it means to be human. Mandela chose not to act on bitterness, much the way Jesus did not turn his bitterness back toward his oppressors. I'm not sure they were so different."
2. Consider this, condensed from a published piece called "Grudge Match," by TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "Assuming you'd been born by 1986, think about everything that has happened in your life since then -- all the births in your family -- all the deaths, how important each one was, and what it meant to be one family gathered together in sorrow, but also in healing and hope. Think of the trips you took. Think of the picnics and the family gatherings and the holidays and the holy days. Can you even imagine how many phone calls you made and received, how many letters you wrote and you got, how many emails and texts and tweets? Just think of ten, maybe only five, of the really high points that you wouldn't have missed for the world. All because you are free and equal with everyone else, and can dream and make your dreams come true.
"And now imagine that for the last 27 years, since 1986, you were in prison, much of the time in a cell eight feet by seven feet. Imagine that you were allowed to write one letter a year and to receive one letter a year. Imagine that you missed every high moment, every birth, every death, every family gathering, everything that's happened to you the last 27 years. All because you wanted to be free and equal with everyone else.
"What would you feel like? What would you do when you got out? What form would your revenge take? Who would you get even with? Who would pay for all your suffering? Nelson Mandela was in prison for 27 years. When he got out, and gained power, he did not take revenge on his enemies. He did not call for a bloodbath and begin a reign of terror to get even with the white minority government that imprisoned him under apartheid. He set up a commission where those who told the truth about what they'd done could receive amnesty. He worked for forgiveness and reconciliation. He met with his enemies and insisted that there had to be a way to break the cycle of violence. That's what he did after 27 years of imprisonment: forgiveness.
"So here are my questions to the rest of us. What grudge am I holding that is so important that I cannot forgive or seek to be forgiven? What kind of grudge are we clinging to that matches what Mandela went through? What grudge is so much greater than what this man endured, that we don't dare to forgive and seek reconciliation?"
3. How can you work for truth and reconciliation, not only between races and ethnic groups, but between other groups? How are you tempted to control others who are different than you, like was done under the apartheid system? What can you do to resist that temptation and free others?
4. In what ways do you believe God has helped you overcome your own flaws? How have lessons learned from life because of your flaws made you a stronger person and/or believer?
5. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: "Let us remember that the question of apartheid and Mandala's ideas has been decided. The point is that even though the problems we face today sometimes seem intractable and insoluble, from the vantage point of eternity they are already settled. Like Grover Cleveland stated in his inauguration speech a half century after the Civil War -- slavery was no longer an issue. People were pretty much unanimous that slavery was wrong. The celebrations of the 50th anniversary of many milestones in the Civil Rights movement demonstrate that racists were wrong. The issues we are facing today which are very polarizing are already settled. We're just not there yet. We do not live in a safe place if we are on God's side."
Responding to the News
Author Glennon Doyle Melton wrote on Facebook in response to Mandela's death: "Let's honor Mandela by doing the very, very hard work of refusing to fight others and choosing instead to fight our own egos. Let's fight for our Earth and for the vulnerable folks -- our sisters and brothers -- who live on it. Let's take our places as the leaders of this home. And let's start in our own families and friendships and neighborhoods."
We can respond to the news by striving for peace and reconciliation in the relationships closest to us: our families, our congregations and our communities.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment