The Use of Violent Biblical Texts by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Northern Uganda

Introduction

In examining situations of violence, the ideologies which support them need to be addressed. In the case of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in northern Uganda, biblical texts have been used to justify violence. Due to limitations of space, my engagement with Old Testament texts in this article will be minimal and thus I will lean more closely towards their use in context rather than an in-depth exegetical treatment.

Evidence from northern Uganda shows that the Bible was turned into a weapon of violence and oppression by the LRA, an armed group under the leadership of Joseph Kony. Kony claims that he was sent by God to liberate the people of northern Uganda from suffering at the revengeful hands of the then National Resistance Army (NRA) who had just taken power in 1986 under the leadership of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (see Behrend, 1998: 108; Behrend, 1999: 24; Bøås 2004: 289; Van Acker, 2004: 342). ¹ From the start of the insurgency in 1987, the LRA claimed as their major objective the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments (see Branch, 2005; Hackett, 2004: 5; Jackson, 2002: 29; McDonnell and Akallo, 2007: 31; Van Acker, 2004: 348; Vinci, 2005: 360). In their bid to adopt (restore) ² the Ten Commandments, the LRA have carried out various violent actions in northern Uganda which have left many wounded and others widowed or orphaned. Of particular importance is the LRA’s forceful recruitment of children, girls and boys (see Dunn, 2007: 131; Larubi, 2000: 21; McKay and Mazurana, 2004: 29; Singer, 2006: 20; Vinci, 2005: 360). On the orders of rebel commanders, the children were to kill or to serve as porters, cooks or spies (Cheney, 2005: 33; Dunson, 2008: 33; Weber et al., 2003: 28). In the worst cases, girls were given as rewards to high-ranking commanders and turned into sex slaves (see De Temmerman, 2001: 44–45, 69; UNICEF, 2006: 43).

The LRA has used the Bible to justify their violent actions, and their use of force has overturned the social and generational structures of the Acholi people (see Cheney, 2005: 32). LRA members attempt to apply the Old Testament to justify their actions – and the result has been detrimental to society. This situation has caused confusion not only for the Christians in churches in northern Uganda but also for many other people in the region, posing a problem for biblical interpretation since the Bible, which should be a source of strength and comfort to the people, is now used as a weapon to justify destruction. It also raises important hermeneutical questions with regard to the relevance and contemporary use of the Old Testament in Acholi-land. In my view, this dimension has generally been ignored in the study of the LRA insurgency. The purpose of this article is to analyse some of the Old Testament texts and motifs that have been used by the LRA to justify their violent actions. The article examines how the LRA used other Old Testament texts as hermeneutical tools for the Ten Commandments, in order to provide a particular violent interpretation. The main questions I will engage with are: How does the LRA interpret particular Old Testament commandments? Is there anything in the Old Testament texts which facilitates these interpretations and applications?

This article begins with a presentation of the LRA’s use of biblical texts, followed by an exegetical analysis of texts connected to ‘frequently’-mentioned themes, and asks whether there is anything in the texts that supports their particular interpretation. Lastly, I conclude by observing that the LRA’s understanding and use of biblical texts does not exist in a vacuum. Given this, I close the article with a question for biblical scholars: since the LRA’s main ideology was supported by a particular reading of scripture, how can biblical scholars and theologians safeguard against the harmful application of these texts?

The LRA’s Use of Biblical Texts

In the early years of the LRA, it was commonly claimed that they were fighting in order to ensure that the people of northern Uganda, Uganda as a whole and the entire world obey the Ten Commandments as given by Moses in the Old Testament. Consequently, the LRA members conceived of themselves as soldiers of the Lord. ³ My interviewees explain that, because of the desire to adopt the Lord’s Ten Commandments, the group was named the Lord’s Resistance Army. As soldiers of the Lord fighting to ensure everyone obey the Ten Commandments, my interviewees say they were taught about these commandments in the bush. Interviewees claim that Kony derives his teachings about the Ten Commandments from the Bible. From their responses, we note that Kony is perceived by his LRA followers as a lawgiver, a role played by Moses in the Old Testament (see Exodus 24:7). And, with a self-understanding as a God-sent army, the former LRA members claim that all their actions are in accordance with biblical teachings. In an interview Steve, a former LRA commander, argues that:

When you look at what happened in the north and you go to the Bible and you read from the beginning to the last part you may find 90% of what happened here in Gulu is in the Bible. Whatever has happened is exactly how God designed it. ⁴

Steve’s answer encouraged me to probe deeper into what the LRA really mean when they claim that all their actions are in accordance with the Bible. I explained to him and other interviewees that many outsiders believe that through their various acts of killing the LRA are breaking the commandments that they seek to adopt. Lethal force, theft, rape and abduction have made people doubt the sincerity of the LRA’s desire to adopt the Ten Commandments (Nkabala, 2010: 183). This prompted the question: from the perspective of former LRA members, what does it mean to adopt the Ten Commandments?

According to my interviewees, restoration of the Ten Commandments entailed punishing anyone whom they considered to be in violation of them. They also argue that Kony explained each commandment as he wished. As members of the LRA, their role was to protect the commandments and to ensure that they were used as the standard Constitution of the Ugandan government. Punishments ranged from flogging, to cutting off body parts considered to have led someone into sin, and in extreme cases to killing. This explains why many of the LRA activities have been characterised by continued acts of brutality against the people they desire to protect (De Temmerman, 2001: 154; Dunson, 2008: 34; Farmar, 2006; Green, 2009: 10; McDonell and Akallo, 2007: 31). My interviewees went on to explain that Kony told them that according to the Old Testament, anyone who does not obey the commandments must be killed. For example, this is how former LRA soldier Arnold summarises Kony’s beliefs about obedience to the law: ‘For him [Kony], obedience to the law means that you have to destroy the people who do not believe. That is why God sent the Angel of death to destroy Gomorrah’. ⁵ The same view is held by Kelly, a former child-soldier who served in the LRA for four years. She explains: ‘We were taught that the Bible teaches that somebody who does not obey must be killed’. ⁶ It is clear that they believed death was the fitting punishment for a breach of the Ten Commandments. Similarly, other former LRA members mention the commandment relating to the Sabbath. Respect for the Sabbath meant that LRA members did not fight on Sundays (which the LRA considered the Sabbath) unless attacked, and that even non-LRA members were not supposed to do gardening or any other work on this day. In fact, if anyone was caught working on a Sunday they were subjected to punishments ranging from amputation of body parts (especially the limbs) to death. This was confirmed in a focus group discussion:

If you were got working on … Sunday, it means you had disobeyed the Holy Spirit and God’s commandments. The ears which do not listen must be cut and the hands which pretend to be working should be reduced by cutting it. When you were got we would ask you about three or four questions. That, do you want a blanket? You want a coat? You want to put on a long sleeved or a short sleeved? So you must choose. If you said for me I want a blanket that means you want to die. Because you will not be knowing what you are asking for. If a coat then they will chop off the palms and fingers if long sleeved and short sleeved they would cut where these reach. ⁷

The LRA considers a person in violation of the commandment forbidding adultery if they have sex with someone who is not their partner. People caught committing adultery would suffer punishments exceptionally grave compared to those for other sins. Pritchard, a former child soldier, confirms the importance of not committing adultery: ‘They teach us that … do not commit adultery. And from the bush if you are not given a wife or a girl you have not to do it; if you do it you will die’. ⁸

Harriet, an ex-child soldier, further underlined the teaching on adultery by explaining that before marriage, or before the young boys were given partners by the LRA leader Kony, sex was not permitted. Having sex outside ‘marriage’ was the biggest offence. Steve, the former LRA controllie, ⁹ explains a similar view that it was forbidden for a man to have sexual intercourse with another woman or girl other than his own wife. He recalls:

In 1996 in Aru some people were brought to firing squad [killed] because they went and negotiated [had sex or committed adultery] with the wife of Brigadier Ochan yet they knew that the activity is not a good one according to the Ten Commandments. ¹⁰

Former LRA combatants explained that there were instances of people being killed because of the sin they had committed.

As evidence for this position, they point to episodes of divine violence such as the Genesis flood accounts in chapters 6–9 and the Sodom/Gomorrah accounts in Genesis 18–19. ¹¹ For example, Zacchaeus, a former LRA commander in charge of girls and women, argued:

For him [Kony] he says it is God who sent him to kill people so nobody should stop him. You know this thing is very difficult to understand as he [Kony] refers us to the Bible. Because he says God does what He wills, and what He wants to do, He does. If He wants to kill He sends a person on Earth as He sent in the past. He also said in the past God sent rain to clear and finish people and it rained for 40 days during Noah’s time and also Gomorrah was destroyed. Many were killed. That was the anger of God. In Kony’s time, God has sent the Holy Spirit, and it is the one which is doing the work through Kony. ¹²

During my interviews, the same sentiments were raised by several other people such as Ritah ¹³ and Dona.

Furthermore, the belief that God was punishing his people by destruction and death because they refused to obey the Ten Commandments was further underlined by Duncan, a former bodyguard of Kony:

Even Kony himself knew that he was a Moses, and Kony would tell us that God is going to punish this world because people have left the Ten Commandments. So times will come when such kind of things which were happening in Sodom and Gomorrah will be happening in this world. ¹⁴

The responses from my interviewees prompt two questions: first, what is the basis of such an understanding of obedience to the Ten Commandments? And, is there anything in the Old Testament texts which facilitates these LRA interpretations and applications?

The Ten Commandments have been important to the Christian tradition worldwide (Atuhaire, 2003; Bagumisiriza, 2005; Clements, 1972: 123; Haag, 2004: 389; Hossfeld, 2004: 630–633).From the way the commandments appear in Exodus 20, no sanctions or consequences at all are specified for anyone who goes against them. With reference to dishonouring the Sabbath, texts found elsewhere in the Old Testament – like Exodus 31:14–15 and Numbers 15:32–36 – are used to support the LRA members’ interpretation of the commandment. In these texts, it is permissible to put to death a person found working on the Sabbath day. These texts likely influence the decision to kill those who are working at forbidden times. In this case it can be argued that texts from the Old Testament support the LRA interpretation. The use of amputation as a form of punishment against those considered sinners is not unique to the LRA; there are many other groups who do the same. ¹⁵ Given the widespread use of amputation among other groups it seems likely that obedience to a biblical text is not the primary concern – the groups likely use these tactics as a means of instilling fear and respect. Therefore, the LRA practice of amputation could be a means by which an opposing group uses terror to gain or maintain socio-political control over a population in wartime (Doom and Vlassenroot, 1999: 27; Nordström, 1992: 261; Nordström, 2002: 275–276).

In addition, in Exodus 20:13 we have the commandment which forbids killing, often interpreted as prohibiting murder (Bailey, 2005: 41–42). Similar Pentateuchal commands can be found in Exodus 21:12, Leviticus 24:17 and Deuteronomy 27:24 (see Hosea 6:9 and Isaiah 6:9). In Leviticus 19:17, the command is internalised and covers hatred in the heart (see Childs, 1991: 419). Among the Acholi, this commandment is translated as peinekilawoti, ‘Do not kill a fellow human’. ¹⁶ It is important to note that, as we have it in Exodus 20:13, this command forbidding murder is broad and lacks specific cases or circumstances with regard to killing. Since the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 do not stipulate any punishments for lawbreaking, the LRA must draw on other verses to support their application. As former LRA members testify, killing is used as a form of punishment for anyone perceived to be breaking the commandments. Therefore, scholars need to look at how other biblical texts are used to support violence.

A quick survey of the Old Testament shows that the death sentence was permissible in certain circumstances. According to Fabry (1997: 202), the death penalty, in the legal sense, existed in the Old Testament and originated in nomadic times. In Genesis 2:17, God allows man to eat from every plant in the garden other than the one in the middle, warning that eating from that one would lead to death. Numbers 15:35 uses a similar phrase to describe the penalty for violating the Sabbath: ‘Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man [who breaks the commandment] shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp”’. Other texts, like Exodus 31:14–15, show the permissibility of the death penalty in certain circumstances and could be used to support the actions of the LRA.

On death and sin, Illman (1997: 198) explains that there are instances where death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Also, in the Old Testament, there are texts which point to sin as one of the reasons for death. This is often echoed by the LRA. Some of these are Ezek 3:18, 33:8, Deut 24:16 and 2 Kgs 14:16. In the Acholi cultural beliefs, there are also circumstances where killing is permitted. As was explained to me, when a person practises unacceptable behaviour, the Chief Rwot and the elders can condemn them to death. The Acholi refer to this kind of killing as ngolo kop me too – ‘judgment of death’ – and it is opposed to the forbidden peinekilawoti presented earlier. In a focus group discussion, my interviewees claimed that the kind of killing carried out by the LRA was the acceptable ngolo kop me too because it was done against those who acted contrary to the Ten Commandments. ¹⁷ Can we then say that the LRA adopted beliefs about this from the Acholi culture? It would be easy to answer ‘yes’; however, our analysis shows that we cannot totally rule out the influence of the Old Testament on the beliefs and practices of the LRA. But this poses a complex situation for one’s understanding of the Bible, as pointed out by Bishop Nelson Onono Onweng, the retired Anglican Bishop of the Gulu Arch Diocese, who said that: ‘You know the Bible gives you all the justifications of doing evil depending on what text you have picked’.

It is important to note that in their executions the LRA members use instruments such as machetes, stones and iron bars, to name a few. These are forbidden in Numbers 35:16–18 (Behrend, 1998: 116–117; Briggs, 2005: 116; Doom and Vlassenroot, 1999: 25; Rodriguez, 2009: 33; Ward, 2001: 187) and, according to the biblical text, when they are used to kill in a private conflict the one carrying out the act is guilty of murder. The text reads:

But anyone who strikes another with an iron object, and death ensues, is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or anyone who strikes another with a stone in hand that could cause death, and death ensues, is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or anyone who strikes another with a weapon of wood in hand that could cause death, and death ensues, is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. (Numbers 35:16–18)

The text shows that if, in a private conflict, anyone kills with these forbidden instruments, they are guilty of committing murder. This seems to show that the LRA views itself as a judge carrying out an appropriate sentence of death – not as a murderer.

Ex-LRA members also claim that God himself killed. As Illman (1997: 208) observes, ‘The aspect of Yahweh as a God who kills and makes alive is evident in Deut 32:39, 15, 2:6. 2 Kgs. 5:7’. Barton (1998: 1–2) notes that it is no secret that some biblical texts describe violence and killing without questioning these acts. Since these texts with a message of violence or killing are in the Old Testament, they may provide a basis for the way the LRA interpret their actions.

The Ten Commandments, as well as many other biblical texts, prohibit adultery. Scholars have debated the correct interpretation of the prohibition on adultery in the Ten Commandments (Braaten, 2007: 135; Durham, 1987: 294; Freedman, 1998: 114; Nielsen, 1968: 107). The commandment which prohibits adultery is used specifically and exclusively with reference to the physical act. Therefore, sexual behaviour short of intercourse did not qualify as adultery (Dorff, 2007: 150; Gordon, 1986: 171). Freedman et al. (1998: 114) suggest that: ‘Since the Decalogue itself does not go into further detail to explain its sixth (seventh) commandment, the meaning must be determined from other texts’. ¹⁸ From the text as we find it in Exodus 20:14, there is no penalty for one who commits adultery. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch it is treated as a capital offence because it is considered not only a violation of the sanctity of marriage but also a serious breach of the covenant relationship with God (Durham, 1987: 294; Jeremiah 5:7). If anyone commits adultery with another’s wife or even with an engaged woman, he is to be punished by death (Harris, 1980: 542). Similarly, in Leviticus 20:10–21 there is a list of casuistic laws dealing with sexual transgressions, and verse 10 states that: ‘If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death’. It is such texts and circumstances which seem to support the LRA’s understanding and interpretation of the commandment on adultery.

Lastly, when it comes to the LRA’s self-presentation as intermediaries of God, as evidenced by continued reference to the Sodom/Gomorrah narrative, it should be pointed out that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah came ultimately without any intermediaries or human agent; Yahweh acted directly (Fields, 1997: 160; Genesis 19:24; Von Rad, 1961: 212). The same is true of the flood narrative. Nothing in the text suggests that God uses humans to kill (Genesis 7:4). For scholars like Seely (2004: 311), the flood represents God’s ability to bring apocalyptic judgment upon sinners. Notable also is that in the two narratives, God’s grace is clearly exhibited through the saving of Lot’s family (Genesis 19:15–22) and of Noah and his family (Genesis 7:1). However, there is nothing in the LRA to suggest that in the middle of judgment, God’s saving grace is sufficient. On the contrary, the LRA are even said to kill children, including the unborn (see Rodriguez, 2009: 33, on the Atiak and Barlonyo Massacres). ¹⁹ Therefore, as I have argued before, the claim that God is using the LRA to carry out punishments against sinners is questionable, as it does not find a proper basis in the Flood and Sodom/Gomorrah narratives (Nkabala, 2010: 188).

In my view, therefore, by referring to the two narratives, the LRA members seem to be grasping at the Old Testament in an effort to legitimise their actions (see Johnson, 2006: 1; Nkabala, 2010: 183, 192). It should be observed that some groups use the Ten Commandments partly because they think of themselves as God’s chosen people, just as Israel is in the Old Testament (De Temmerman, 2001: 156). When leaders claim Mosaic authority, they frequently alter the miracle stories of the Bible and conflate divine and human agency; as a result, the leader perceives a high level of continuity with persons or situations in the text (Rowley, 2014: 28–29, 80–102, 118–138). And this seems to be the case with the LRA. From my field findings, there is much in Kony’s beliefs as revealed by my interviewees to suggest that he has set himself up as a God-like leader who conflates his actions with those of God. The killing that is carried out at his command seems to be primarily aimed at creating fear among its victims (Nordström, 1992: 28; Vinci, 2005: 377). However, the above notwithstanding, there are numerous texts in the Old Testament that allow for killing in certain circumstances. Though one might disagree with the LRA’s interpretation and application of these texts, it can be argued that these texts can and have facilitated killing.

Conclusion

This article has shown how the LRA uses other biblical texts in tandem with the Ten Commandments in order to support their violence. The interpretation of these commands never takes place in a vacuum, and the LRA is one of many groups that have used the Ten Commandments to support their own violent ends. Though reverence for these commands does not necessarily, or even usually, facilitate killing, this article has shown how the LRA interprets the Ten Commandments in conjunction with other texts in a manipulative way so as to facilitate killing and instil fear. Since the LRA’s main ideology is supported by a particular reading of scripture, how can biblical scholars and theologians safeguard against the harmful application of these texts? To answer this question, it is very important for all concerned parties, especially Ugandan Christians but also scholars of African biblical hermeneutics, to engage with finding ways to counter such a violent hermeneutic as the one used by the LRA.