This is a marvellous program about how taking either side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is dangerous.

It is also a marvellous story of personal tragedies turned toward good.

Left Behind Video Game

Thanks to Matt for sending me this article.

It describes how a new video game, based on the Left Behind series, is considered family friendly by its creators. Yet to win the game, players must either convert people to Christianity or gun them down. Every person encountered has a life story, and many of the unconverted have Muslim-sounding names. This is, of course, a very logical outcome of the worldview presented in the Left Behind books.

What I find amazing is that the poeple who are promoting and buying this video game are the same people that would argue (I think rightly) that violent video games affect our view of the world and lead to violent actions. It's ok, though I suppose, as long as that killing fits into their worldview of who should be killed.

There's a dead horse in this blog room, and I've been trying to beat it and kick it out of the room. But the horse is heavy and doesn't move much when I kick. It certainly does not scoot across the floor and out the door as is my intention when I kick. But what else is there to do? I'll just keep beating it.

My friend Jason, who I was happy to see post, commented on my last blog very intelligently (which you can see in the comments area). I finally got around to responding to him today, and I liked my response, so this being my blog and all - I decided to post my response here.

Enjoy!
(or rail!!)


Jason - Thanks for the input. Nice to see you around. Sorry for the lack of response or posting the last couple weeks. I'm teaching, and it's the end of the semester, and . . . It's a difficult time. But I'm over the major humps now, and things are getting better.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. There is a sense in which how we got into the war does not matter right now. What is most urgent is how we are going to proceed from this moment forward. However, I don't think that is fully the case. There is another sense in which if we don't analyze how/why we got into the war, and how/why it was done wrongly, we are not going to be able to move forward with any helpful plan.

The position that I have argued is that the way to deal with terrorism is not to automatically flex our muscles and put the fear of God into them. Terrorism is grassroots, and the only way to fight it is through grassroots. When we make people's living conditions better, they are less likely to listen to the rhetoric of the terrorists. However, if we make living conditions worse, they are more likely to seek out the rhetoric of the terrorists.

We got into this war because we had a singularly focused approach to dealing with terrorism, and that approach (in my opinion) has greatly fueled the flames of extremist Islamic terrorism around the world. If we continue with a singularly focused approach - we will continue to do the same (such as adding more troops as you suggest). However, the civil war that is now Iraq will not be overcome by our adding more troops and killing more people. I do not believe that is a "reasonable" approach. It hasn't worked thus far, and there is no evidence that it would work if we stepped up our efforts. I honestly don't see how you find it "rational" to "get behind WHATEVER is deemed necessary." To simply get behind WHATEVER is following blindly. It is NOT being rational.

Along the lines of rationality (sorry I'm harping on this, but your tone came across as a bit condescending when you said you were going to "recap Iraq, rationally" - seemingly in opposition to our irrational statements). Your "rational" recap included the statement, "The UN's recommendation was ultimately to let the UN handle it." Your response was simply, "Ummm...right-o." I didn't find that a rationally convincing argument against the UN.

I'm not sure why you put "kind war" in quotes. This is not a phrase I've heard anyone use or argue for. Who thinks a "kind war" is possible? You seem to be arguing against someone that's not there in that paragraph, but maybe I just don't know who you are referencing.
You also state, "But all the dissention and criticism at home isn't helping. It is making things worse." I'm sorry you feel this way, because dissention and criticism is what makes democracy - and if you're interested in quieting those voices, then what exactly are we fighting for?
I am not, however, arguing that we don't need more troops there for a time. I think that is a legitimate possibility that needs to be explored, and I think it may well be an answer. What I am arguing, however, is against the kind of blindly singular focus that you portray in your position. That singular focus declared victory (a now preposterous declaration) nearly 3 years ago. That singular focus did not stop and think that our actions in Iraq might lead to a civil war. That singular focus did not consider the ways in which it is impossible to force democracy on people that don't want it, or the possibility that once "empowered" by democracy, the people might vote in ways that were against our best interest. That singular focus did not consider that killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might fuel greater terrorism.

Jesus commanded us not to get caught up in these cycles of violence but gave us instead a different way to approach these things. I believe that Jesus' teaching is not simply pie-in-the-sky for the sweet-by-and-by. Loving one's enemy doesn't just get you a crown in glory. In fact, Jesus was unconcerned with anyone's crown in glory when he instructed us to love our enemies. What he was concerned with was that we could live together, that we could show forth his light and love. Though it is not "rational," embracing one's enemy is the only possible way toward true peace. Attempts can be made to argue this rationally, but its rationality will never look as good as the rationality of smart bombs. It is only through faith in Jesus' command that we can stand strongly and denounce the false powers of this world that make quite convincing arguments that "might makes right."

To get a sense of what I think should be included in our view of what we should have done and how that might help us in moving forward in this war, take a look at what I wrote here:http://slowdownholdstill.blogspot.com/2006/09/war-in-Iraq-creates-more-terrorists.html

The day before the election, Bush said this:

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday.

So - obviously the Democrats are all anti-American, in fact they don't even seem to be American. I'm so very happy that this rhetoric of fear is no longer working with the American people. What a ridiculous statement.

Bush talked a lot at the time of his last election about how the people had given him a mandate concerning Iraq (even though he just barely won). I wonder if after this landslide shift that reflects public opinion concerning his administration - I wonder if he will take that as a mandate to change his policies in Iraq.

What do ya'll think? We gonna hear Bush say - "Well obviously the people of the country want us to get out of Iraq - so that's what I'm going to do. I've been given a mandate!"

T's Reply:

[ya'll will have to excuse my friend T. he's beginning his dissertation, so he currently lacks the ability to be succinct. - or perhaps this discussion warrants a long response. in either case, make a cup of hot tea and then sit down to read . . .]


Thanks to all for continuing the discussion. I’ve been aching for one that goes beyond the talking-head media flotsam. Matt & anyone else, please take me to task on whatever Tim posts on this blog. The implication of me agreeing that he could post our discussion is that it’s out there for all to debate. There’s something in the OT about harsh words from a friend being better than flattery by an enemy. So be a friend.

This discussion started about the big round number 600,000, so maybe it’s best to bring it back to that. Tim’s post cited Jim Wallis’ article, an article that erroneously cites 600,000 Iraqi deaths as the beginning and ending of any discussion about the war. His error was not in bring this to the fore of the discussion, but with the number itself. It needs to be clarified again and again that 600,000 deaths in Iraq are NOT civilian deaths. They are Iraqi deaths. The study does not attempt to distinguish civilians from combatants. The study doesn’t even venture a guess as to how many were civilians and how many combatants killed in action against U.S. troops.

Why is that important? Because every discussion about 600,000 deaths is framed by the supposition that they are civilian deaths. Some even imply that these deaths came at the hands of U.S. soldiers. They did not. They study itself estimated that only 1/3 of the 600,000 were at the hands of U.S. soldiers. The rest came at the hands of Iraqis, mostly from car bombings and gunfire. That sounds an awful lot like Iraqi on Iraqi crime. It fits the M.O. of the Iraqi death squads and other internal factions who mercilessly slaughter each other over tribal and religious differences. So, if we’re talking about deaths at the hands of the U.S., we’re talking about an estimated 200,000. That’s still about ¼ of a million people, a huge and tragic number. But that’s also still an estimate from a study whose criteria for “citizenship” was that someone only live in Iraq for 3 months or more. Any household who agreed to partake in the survey only had to live there for 3 months. Is it possible that some of these “citizens” were foreign fighters who were sent to Iraq to gain real-life training in fighting the U.S. troops? The study did not even mention this possibility, even though no one denies that this is taking place.

Furthermore, the study’s “control” death-rate began during the 1 year run-up to the war, when it was clear to anyone paying attention that the U.S. was going to take out Saddam. It was also a year of close scrutiny of Iraq, when the whole world was watching, looking for evidence of WMDs and other activity (such as his daily shooting at U.N. sanctioned jets who were patrolling the Iraq no-fly zone, an act which itself was an act of war). Do you suppose that during this time, Saddam’s brutalizing of his civilians was curtailed? Maybe Saddam played nice (or relatively nice) with his population while preparing for a U.S. invasion and putting together a bogus Declaration of Armaments? The study of civilian deaths should have gone back at least to the end of the first Gulf War in order to look for what a “normal” civilian death rate would be. But for some reason this methodological problem was also not mentioned in the study. It also failed to mention when the bodies in the numerous mass-graves were originally filled. That would certainly be relevant in any discussion of Iraqi civilian deaths. I’m not suggesting that Saddam was constantly using WMD’s against his people, even though he had used them in the past. I’m suggesting that he didn’t need WMDs to kill civilians and brutalize his people. He could take them to any of the ubiquitous rape rooms and “jails”, then dump the bodies with the rest of the slaughtered Iraqis at the hand of Saddam’s “bad” regime. If we’re going to talk about Iraqi deaths, let’s include statistics from this time period in our discussion. But again, no one does this. Too bad, because a stronger control rate would lend more credibility to the study.

Am I suggesting the war is right for humanitarian reasons, that war was necessary because Saddam killed a lot of people? Nope. How many are slaughtered, even as you read this, in Darfur? South Africa? Kenya? Indonesia? Cambodia? North Korea? How many people, do you suppose, have died as the result of corruption, internal strife, starvation as a means of population control, or simple homicidal tendencies? But do we invade those countries? Does anyone intervene in those countries? (That’s maybe a discussion for another thread) Why, then, would it be a good idea to target Iraq because of the war Saddam treated his people? It wasn’t. I think Bush envisioned a democratic, stable Middle East. Iraq would be the cornerstone because of its strategic location, its resources (yes, oil), and because if a country like Iraq can do it, its example would spread, domino-like, across the Middle East. The Middle East, of course, is the clumsy way to refer to the provenance of the jihadists who attacked on the U.S. 2001 and earlier, and who vowed to continue to attack us. And that threat is what changed a presidential candidate from being against “nation building” into the president we have today. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that was the reason why we invaded Iraq. We went in on the technical violation of Iraq’s bogus weapons declaration to the U.N., (even the U.N. said it was bogus), we went in because Saddam had been in violation of the Gulf War treaty for 16 years, and we have what we have in Iraq today as a result of that decision. That decision and that plan should be the focus of discussion. It should have been discussed in the beginning, but our wussy Congress and Executive Branch didn’t require a declaration of war, because that would have required this type of analysis, and because it would have put everyone on the hook for the way the war turned out.

Back to the numbers. This latest report about 600,000 is important, but it is not where the discussion of Iraq should begin and end. The discussion of Iraq should also not begin with the Monday morning quarterback syndrome into which many have fallen. The Iraq discussion should begin with why we went to war and whether we agreed with those reasons (not, agree-now-that-we-know-how-things-turned-out). Any discussion of war should factor, at the beginning, how many civilians are likely to die as a result, decide on an acceptable number (tragic and tough as that discussion is), then figure out the cost-benefit ratio before going to war. When the bodies pile up, it’ll feel “icky”, but if it’s within the agreed-upon range, then get on with it and pursue the goal. We don’t get to pull out early just because things don’t feel right. As cold-hearted as this type of analysis it, it is a very real part of war. If we can’t stomach this type of discussion, then don’t go to war, & don’t support the war. But, if the goal is worthwhile, then go to war and live with it.

As for the number 600,000, (or more properly, 200,000), how many of these were insurgents, freedom-fighters/terrorists/jihadists/whatever, and how many were civilians. I’d feel a lot worse about non-combatant civilian death then I would about people who are living by the sword. We could estimate what percent of Iraq’s population is fighting against the U.S., then, somehow, transfer that percentage to the 200,000 deaths from this study, and then have a better picture of civilian from combatant. I don’t know what that percentage is, and I don’t know the methodological nuances for translating that into an estimate of Iraqi casualties. But one would think that a study, whose purpose is to discuss how many more Iraqis died during the war, would at least address the issue. One would think.

One might argue that we’re responsible for all 600,000 of the deaths, because we removed the iron fist that prevented the Iraqi infighting which caused it. Would you also argue that car companies are responsible for vehicular deaths because they allow their cars to move faster than the speed limit, or because cars does not require a breathalyzer before being able to be turned on? Maybe we should hold rape victims responsible for the crime because they weren’t wearing a burka? I’m suggesting that people are responsible for their own actions, the street-racer, the drunkard, the rapist, and the murderer alike. We don’t encourage Iraqis to murder other Iraqis. We don’t arm the citizens so they can go shoot their neighbor. We “created an environment” where laws are not enforced during reconstruction, but that only means that people no longer have an external threat to keep them in check. They still have their conscience. They still have their humanity. They could also love their families more than they hate other tribes. Unless, that is, we’re suggesting that the U.S. is responsible because it is the nature of Persians and Arabs to act like savages, as if they’ll kill each other the first chance they get. Maybe what we’re saying is that we’re responsible for all 600,000 Iraqi deaths because they just can’t help themselves, those uncivilized beasts have a bloodlust that overwhelms any shred of humanity they Saddam might have enforced. Is that what we’re saying?

Look, I know Baghdad and central Iraq are a mess right now. Hundreds of thousands have died, countless more were maimed, and these numbers will continue to climb. I wish we’d conducted the war and reconstruction differently, and maybe that’s what we should champion, a strategy change in Iraq. But what is the goal and how best ought we pursue it? Not just with Iraq, but with the idea of national security in general? How should America conduct itself against the current threat of guerilla warfare by terrorist groups who target the civilian population? Because that’s the context of the 600,000; that’s the subtext of this whole discussion. To what end is America using its force against a perceived enemy? And how ought we conduct ourselves as Americans and as Christians?

From an interview with Linford Detweiler concerning Over The Rhine's album Drunkard's Prayer. The interview may be found here.


Jeffrey:
"Spark" has a riveting refrain: “Sleep with one ear close to the ground / And wake up screaming / When we lay our cold weapons down / We'll wake up dreaming." That sounds like a sentiment with a story behind it — something that could be about a relationship, or about the drama playing out on the world stage. (It strikes me as a “sequel” to “Changes Come.”) Can you give us a window into the genesis of that song?

Detweiler:
You’ve nailed it. It applies to relationships for sure, but it’s basically a protest song at the end of the day -- very much in the spirit of “Changes Come”. It’s a simple statement that addresses the reality of the fact that as long as we rely on massive military solutions to supposedly resolve conflict, we deny the possibility that there could be more innovative, creative, helpful solutions. We deny the fact that America, the country that gave the world Jazz and Bluegrass and Blues and Gospel music, could be equally as innovative when it comes to human conflict. The fact of the matter is, when we ignore the lives of people like Jesus, Gandhi or Martin Luther King and rely on force to bring about change, we do irreparable damage to the psyche of our nation.

Concerning the 600,000 post below -
T. and I continued our conversation through email. Here's more of the conversation (you may want to get caught up first by reading our comments in the 600,000 post. Please don't read this post unless you're terribly interested in the issue, for it is a ridiculously long post. T. was smart to continue the conversation through email in order to spare anyone that might be reading this blog. I, however, still need to learn my lesson.

T. wrote:
So, I read the report and took some notes on it. My pro-war bias shows through and I readily admit that. I only hope that between my bias and your that I will continue to learn and have my opinions shaped. The notes are simply notes, the only cohesive statement is at the end. They are what I think significant factors in the report that detract from the initial shock and implication of 600,000 deaths resulting from the war. They're hawk-ish and arguably pro-Bush cool-aid opinions about the report, even though I'm no fan of of Bush and the way he sold the war or how the war has been handled (that among many harsh domestic and foreign-affair criticisms I have of him). Given my bias in reading the report, I still think that I've pointed out significant factors in the report, not least of which is that it does not separate combatant and non-combatant deaths; and that it only begins the survey in the 1 year run-up to the war, a time when it was clear we were going to war is Iraq and therefore population data is going to be different than "normal", non-war or prelude-to-war surveys. In other words, the pre-war period which is the baseline for deaths only had 2 violent deaths recorded in the surveyed population. I doubt that the normal, non-wartime or pre-wartime periods in Iraq or any other country has only 2 violent deaths. L.A. alone has more than that. I'm curious what you make of all this. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm a knee-jerk hawk who needs to be tempered by more leftist considerations. I take your criticisms to heart and am continually reminded why you're such a good friend, because only a good friend would be honest in a discussion of this nature.

The attachment:
25% of the surveyed households were from Baghdad (the most violent place in Iraq), though it does have 25% of the population of Iraq.
Surveyers went house to house and asked for consent for the survey. Check out page 7 and the potential for bias and distortion in the survey. Among the factors could have been the migration of people from violent areas to non-violent areas, which would tend to increase the mortality rate of the violent areas because of the nature of those who were left behind. Considering that fully ¼ of the survey came from the most violent area of Iraq, that alone is a significant factor in potential bias. The report does, however, note many instances and causes where they could have underestimated the death rate, and the report spells out this implication. Yet where there was potential to overestimate the death rate, the report does not spell it out. So, it’ll say, “ and so-and-so could be a cause for underestimating deaths in this survey”, whereas it never says, “and so-and-so could be a cause for our overestimating deaths in this survey”, even though it is clearly an implication.
The survey did not separate combatant from non-combatant. Criminal murders from anti-coalition force also not distinguished. We know that there are death squads in Iraq, Iraqis killing Iraqis. Gunshots and car bombs account for the most violent deaths. Gun shots alone count for half.
Survey begins during the 1 year run-up to the invasion, during which time the violent death rate was low because Saddam was concentrating his forces for the invasion. Does not account for, say, a 10 year, pre-war death rate that includes the murder of Curds and wholesale slaughter of Saddam’s enemies.
Coalition caused deaths are 31% post-invastion
Coalition-caused deaths decreasing, even though the violent death rate increases.
Pre death rate 5.5 per 1000. Post invastion 13.5 % per 1000. Highest death rate was 20% during the invasion.
650,000 crude deaths.
600,000 due to violence.
The death rate has doubled during the post-invasion period.
Also compare to other conflicts and the civilian death rate there. Vietnam saw 3 million civilians die, Congo saw 3 million people die. East Timor saw 25% of it’s population die, (200,000 out of 800,000), whereas Iraq has 2.5% of its population have died.
All of these notes mean that the war has killed people from the hands of American forces. It also means that by removing a dictatorship, which, though violent and unjust, did bring stability to the country, now Iraq is in a period of instability. Infighting that was kept in check by the iron fist of Saddam is now flourishing, so Iraqis are killing Iraqis and account for 60% of the violent deaths in Iraq. They are killing each other. They are also destroying infrastructure, which also makes the place unstable. The report does acknowledge this infrastructure gap as a cause of the deaths as well.
What I am suggesting is that the report confirms that modern wars include civilian deaths, especially in unstable areas of the world. Post-invasion reconstruction is a lethal time and needs good-well planned leadership to guide the rebuilding process. Given that people die in war and they die after the war during reconstruction, the question is whether war is worth it. If a war is worth it, say as the last or only viable option, then we should mourn the deaths but also expect them and factor them into the cost-benefit analysis of the war. Given that 2/3 of the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of Iraqis, and that this survey does not separate combatant and non-combatant deaths, the number is appalling and expected and needs to be addressed. But consider whether simply de-funding the war and withdrawing troops would increase or decrease the violence. There are, after all, still American troops stationed in Germany and in Korea. This report is a strong piece of evidence for why war should be avoided at great cost, and for how we should proceed in this war and in future wars, but it is not a definitive piece of evidence for why the war in Iraq is or is not warranted at all. As for the elections, it should be a strong piece of evidence for how to vote, (and I personally hope that Democrats take over at least the House or Senate, and that in the next election the Executive and Legislative branches are split), but it is not the only piece of evidence for how to vote, even if the vote is solely based on the war in Iraq (to say nothing of the one in Afghanistan, or the looming one in Korea and Iran).

And I'll put my response to T. in the comments area.
(Congrats T. No one has ever received a whole post on my blog with only their thoughts.)

Kings and Kingdoms

i'm teaching through the old testament right now. and god's act of freedom for the hebrews (the exodus) was not complete in and of itself. it was only completed in the set up of a new society - a contrast-society as Bruggemann puts it. a society that does not enslave, does not separate the rich from the poor. instead, the new society is to have only liturgical leaders, and everyone is suppose to be equal, receive an equal plot of land and be able to provide for their families. this is, of course, why god is against them having a king "like all the other nations" in 1 Sam 8. god lists there the reasons they should not have a king, reasons that basically come down to the fact that the king will inevitably enslave them. that's what kings do. that's what power does.

god allowed for the possibility of a king in the laws. in deut. god talks about when they get into the land and are settled and want a king like all the other nations that it is ok for them to have a king - BUT, and it's a big but, the king needs to act in certain ways. one of which is to not raise himself above the other people (deut 17:14-20). another is not to gather up horses or gold.
now is this really possible? can you have a king without him raising himself above the other people? Saul couldn't do it. but perhaps david achieved it at times. in the same spirit in which he did not use saul's spear to kill saul when saul was hunting david down in the wilderness. perhaps in this spirit of humility, david at times reached this ideal. though he was living in the now, where all kings ruled completely, he reached for the not-yet, where all people are equal before god. this humility often comes across in his psalms as well.
he of course was not able to reside in that place. he ended up not going out to war and finding bathsheeba left behind, and then placed himself and his office much higher than uziah by commanding his murder.

anyway - all that to say. god's plan from the beginning was that we would live as a contrast-society, living out of a different mind set - a mindset that has to do with equality and justice. it's taking us a long time to get it

600,000

I can no longer see how people can vote according to the "moral issues" of abortion and gay marriage while ignoring issues concerning our foreign policy. The new estimate is that over 600,000 Iraqis have died since our invasion of the country. Over 600,000.

I must agree with Jim Wallis that this # needs weigh heavily upon us as we vote in a couple of weeks.

Hmmm......

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/

watch the video

The Discussion

There has been some discussion concerning my post about the war in Iraq creating more terrorists. Please see the comments sections for the beginnings of that discussion, but I decided to re-post here my friend Dennis’ thoughts concerning my suggestions, which are then followed by my reactions to him.

I am posting this discussion here because I think it is a very important one. If I thought Dennis were simply way off base, I would not take the time to post his thoughts here. I respect his thoughts a great deal, and my lengthy comments are an expression of that respect, as I know his comments come from a place of respect for my position. I consider this a healthy, and helpful, dialogue. Thank you Dennis, and please continue to respond.

Thanks to Matt for centering our talk on Christian ethics, not on differing political positions.

From Dennis -
I am going to try to address these ethical issues succinctly, but please allow me to restate my opinion that this medium is not the best avenue to have such discussions because of its nature. I have tried to discuss big topics like this in the past on my own blog, and it is certainly not without merit, but it will never take the place of two or more people simply sitting down and having conversations about huge issues such as these. The fundamental difference here involves the role of the individual and the role of the government. I would agree that we as individuals in this country are far too self-centered, and we should be reaching out to those in the third world with the love of Christ. An example of what we should be doing comes to mind when I think of some friends of mine who are currently serving as missionaries in Ghana. Their primary reason for being there is to be witnesses for Christ, and one of the ways they are doing that is by being the first full time doctor in an area populated with about 30 rural villages. The average individual here in the U.S. cannot even tell you where Ghana is on a map. We are in a unique position in the world to be able to offer all manner of assistance and aid because of our amazing prosperity, but instead we are often too consumed with the latest building project for the “community center” for the church or the latest domestic political issue to consider that we don’t give any time or energy to the simplest and most obvious way that we can serve Christ by “serving the least of these.”However, what I have just described is a failure of the individuals within this country and specifically the church. Is it possible that the government reflects some of these same attitudes in its policy? Of course, it is, but that is not a problem that you fix from the top down but from the bottom up. I believe that the Bible makes it clear that the government is ordained by God and is not given “the sword” in vain. (Romans 13, I think) Therefore, I believe that non violence is in regards to our lives as individual believers when we come into contact with the world representing Him. When we receive persecution or stiff resistance, we are not to respond with violence in an attempt to defend Him. However, I do not believe that non violence is taught to us in regards to self-defense or in a legitimate government role that is not acting immorally. I do not believe that violence in and of itself is inherently immoral for the believer. Obviously, it can be, but for example, I do not believe it is wrong for a believer to become a cop, FBI, Coast Guard, or any of the other forms of law enforcement even though they are jobs that innately carry the potential for violence on the part of the officer. I do not believe it is wrong for me as a father and husband to protect my family from an attacker with physical violence. I also do not believe that it is wrong for a Christian to be a soldier. I will acknowledge that this would be a particularly difficult position to be in because the nature of the job, more than any other, causes the person to have to constantly decide whether to take someone’s life or not which is a heavy burden to place on any man’s shoulders. My main point is that Tim’s comments would be best described as non-violent and violent ethics instead Christian and non-Christian ethics. To do otherwise is a slap in the faces of people who love Christ with all their hearts but are put into situations that require them to use their God ordained authority to protect others through violence. I realize that many will say that the Iraq conflict is an inherently immoral war and therefore does not qualify for such a distinction, but I disagree, in spite of acknowledging that the administration has committed many tactical blunders along the way.


Dennis,
Of course I'd love to have coffee.
And you're right that this blogging does not allow for some beautiful aspects of sitting together and discussing things. However, it does allow for some greater permanance of thought. We are perhaps more careful with what we say when we're putting it out there in this form of discussion. This can, of course, be helpful as well (not that you were saying it couldn't be).

I've sat back and allowed this conversation to form on its own a little before responding. I've enjoyed ya'll's sparring. I must admit that I have up until this last post been fully on the side of Matt. I understand, however, where you were coming from Dennis. Comments I've made in the past certainly did link these issues to the Bush administration and such. These comments, however, were written from a place of sadness, not frustration. I was sad that we have acted so unChristianly.

Dennis, you are right in your assumptions about my being pro non-violence, and frankly I don't see how any Christian can not be pro non-violence. You are wrong, however, in assuming that I rule out any use of force. I agree (though tentatively) with Bonhoeffer's decision to join the plot of those attemping to assassinate Hitler. I agree also (for the most part) with the U.S.'s decision to go to war against the Nazis. Saddam, however, is not a Nazi, and to associate the two (as Bush has often done) is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. I think it is possible for war to be just, but only as a last resort, and it is very, very difficult for me to imagine a situation in which a pre-emptive war is a last resort.

Also, Dennis, I strongly disagree with you about the personal/political split, particularly when we are in a democracy. A democracy is meant to be a reflection of the people's will, and we as Christians are part of that. To say that issues of violence and non-violence are personal issues only is to deny their earthly power and affect. It is to say that what Jesus taught really only has to do with something beyond this world. We are to suffer violence only because it points people beyond this world to a different world. I think, in contrast, that God's kingdom has something to do with this world. I think that loving your neighbor is meant not just as a way of trying to keep in focus the possibility of saving his or her soul from hell, but it is meant as a means of changing the actual relationship with that person. It is in that change, and perhaps only in that change, that there is a possibility of eternal salvation. From an evangelical viewpoint, then, we as a "Christian" nation (I'm referring both to the right's view of having a Christian as the president and to the Muslim perception of our being a Christian nation - which we, particularly Bush, constantly espouse) -- so, from an evangelical viewpoint (a view of intending to save others) we are failing miserably. We have distanced ourselves from Muslims. We are in an ideological war against them (a clash of civilizations as many have put it). We are not building relationships as Christ did with sinners. We have alienated ourselves. Can you imagine being a missionary in Baghdad right now? Anywhere in the Middle East?? How about if we had taken the actions that I mentioned in the previous post? What if we had reached out to Muslims and attempted to address their concerns? What doors might have been opened then for evangelism?

I am not suggesting that we should have done things differently simply for the sake of evangelism. Rather, even from a concern for evangelism, we should still (and perhaps especially) be against the use of force as much as possible. For, it is part of the essence of Christianity that it can never be forced upon anyone. (On a somewhat similar note, I would argue that it is nearly impossible to force Democracy on someone who does not want it.)

Dennis, I'm not comfortable with the split you made between violence vs. non-violence and Christian vs. non-Christian, as though the use of violence is not a Christian concern (which is of course not what you meant, but making that split does make that what you were saying).

You said that these things are not an issue that you fix from the top down but from the bottom up. I agree with this statement. However, in a democracy we do fix it from the top down by electing those in power. We have to know what we believe and fix it from the bottom first, but the jump to the top is quite quick in a democracy. It matters how we vote. Though we can't "fix it from the top down" that does not mean we should not fix it from the bottom UP. You seemed to suggest that we should just fix the bottom, fix only how we as Christians in individual acts respond to violence, and that that should have no affect up the chain to our government, that it should have no upward movement.

Saying that the government is not given the sword in vain by no means relinquishes the government from responsibility for how they choose to use it - and in a democracy, that responsibility falls back on us as individuals (and particularly on us as Christians). The OT especially is replete with warnings against Israel and other nations for how they use the sword. God judges them for their poor use of the sword. Pick any prophet!

Despite all this other stuff I've written, my primary point is that Jesus' commands have to do with the way we live our lives. I fear that you have spiritualized the command to love your enemy and made it only into a matter of spirituality, a state of the heart. I think Christ meant it to also (actually I think Christ meant it to be primarily) an action. Non-violence is not an acceptance of the other's violence. It is not a back-door endorsement of someone eles's violence. Non-violence, at least what Christ teaches as I see it, is always an action. It is always a statement against the violent action of excluding the leper. But is never only a statement against, it is always a reaching out to touch the leper. Non-violence is always a statement against the violence of slavery (Deut 15 talks about letting slaves free every 7th year), and it is always also an action against the systems of slavery (the people are then commanded to give to them liberally from their flocks and storehouses - presumably so that the freed slave would not simply continue in the cycle of having to sell himself or herself into slavery in order to survive). Non-violence is always a statement against violence. For example, Mt. 5:38-39 – “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you not to retaliate revengefully by evil means." But non-violence is also always an action. For example, Mt. 5:40-42 – “But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if any one wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to one who begs from you, and do not refuse one who would borrow from you.” These are specific situations of violence being done. It was unjust, unfair and violent for the Roman soldier to make a Jew carry his burden for a mile, but it was the law (was that law justified in God’s view – the sword not given in vain?). Jesus says that one’s response should not be – well, one day I’ll get revenge and hurt him in the same way he hurt me. This speaks to America’s need for revenge shortly after Sept 11, a need that I think most of us would say was (and in some cases still is) wrong. Jesus says to respond to the soldier’s act of violence by going the extra mile. It is an action of non-violence, not merely a statement against violence and a recoiling from the situation. Similarly, if someone does the socially violent act of suing you, Jesus suggests that you not retaliate revengefully. But that is not all that Jesus says, and it is not all that non-violence says. Rather, Jesus says to give your cloak as well. These are not mere spiritual platitudes. They are not just about the condition of our hearts. Jesus is giving specific, material advice. We cannot separate Jesus’ command from the actual cloak that is envisioned. There is something tangible that should happen. Non-violence is to be done, not merely stated.

BTW-
We found it was Jefferson that had a brown nose, though once the brown was removed, his nose was no longer nickel as it should have been. Corrosive acids had made him black.

War in Iraq creates more terrorists????

Shocking, shocking news. The NYTimes has reported on a National Intelligence document that has suggested the war in Iraq is actually creating more terrorists instead of getting rid of terrorists. "WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

Is it possible?? They continue, "The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe."

You mean we haven't done an appraisal of the state of global terrorism during the last 5 years while we've been at war with terrorism? Isn't that a little . . . well, like invading a country because they pose an enormous threat, without actually verifying the threat first? Or like trying to set up a democracy in a country before figuring out if anyone in the country wants a democracy, or before figuring out if the best way to set up a democracy is through forcing it on people at gunpoint or encouraging it through peaceful means? That's ridiculous. Surely we've appraised the state of global terrorism while trying to fight against it. How else would we know what we were at war with?

You know what, now that I think of it, the fact that the Iraq war is creating more terrorists isn't such a crazy idea. I remember sitting in an ethics class in the couple months after Sept. 11, 2001 and discussing how we as Christians should respond. You know what we decided? We decided that God would have us love our neighbors, and even our enemies. And in loving them, we would fight for peace. We could take actual steps to increase justice amongst the oppressed. We decided that instead of the US giving half of its foreign aid (3 billion at the time) to Israel so they could buy war planes and continue to oppress the Palestinians, we should instead give a good portion of that money to the Palestinians to help them build infrastructures in Palestine that allowed people to have normal jobs and support their families.

I wonder how Muslims around the world would have reacted to that? I'm not exactly sure, but I am guessing we wouldn't have been creating more terrorists.

What if instead of fighting a war on terror (which we didn't even take the time to try to understand) we instead fought a war on injustice. What if we'd spent our time stopping the genocides in Sudan and Darfur? What if we had toppelled Sadam's regime and then poured all the money we could possibly pool together into creating infrastructures and providing relief for the people of Iraq. If we hadn't been fighting a war against Islamic extremists, and we had given examples in Sudan and Palestine of our good intentions, I wonder how the Iraqi people, and the Islamic world would have responded to our ousting Saddam? What if instead of being focussed on protecting our own selves, the richest most powerful people in the world, what if we were interested in protecting the least of these, the broken and the hurt around the world?

I wonder how Muslims around the world would have reacted to that? I'm not exactly sure, but I am guessing we wouldn't have been creating more terrorists.

I remember sitting in my ethics class while the US began to bomb Afghanistan, and the report started coming in that because of the bombings the roads were being destroyed and thousands upon thousands of people were going to be trapped in the mountains having to try to make it through the quickly aproaching winter without any access to their normal ability to trade or to get to food. And some began to plead with the US government to stop bombing for a while, particularly because Ramadan was beginning, and allow these poeple to come down out of the mountains or at least to allow aid groups to get in there and give them food, or else thousands were going to die. And we reflected on what we as Christians should do in this situation. I decided that we should show solidarity with those who were dying, and that one way I could do that would be to participate in Ramadan. So I fasted and prayed during that month along with millions of Muslims around the world. And I wrote an article for our school newspaper about showing solidarity with Muslims during this time. We as a nation could have shown, perhaps even proven, our good will in respecting a holy holiday, but instead the bombs began to drop because we had to find Osama. And broken bridges during Ramadan fueled the suspicions of a war between civilizations rather than a civilized war.

I wonder how Muslims around the world would have reacted to our joining them in fasting and prayer during Ramadan? I'm not exactly sure, but I am guessing we wouldn't have been creating more terrorists.

The article concludes, "recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”"

Cooler weather

One of my favorite feelings in the world has always been breathing a cold rush of air into my lungs. I remember as a child getting up in the morning, walking to the front door in my pajamas and opening it enough to stick my head out and see if the air was cool enough to warrant further action. And some days, it was. I would then slide through the opening and step out onto the porch. And breathe. Deep, slow breaths. The cool air rushed oxygen to my brain, enlivening my perceptions of all that was around me. Simultaneously, the coolness in my chest relaxed every part of my soul. I had a sense of being in a space that was bigger than myself, and I had the mental alacrity to perceive its details. "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it" (24:1).

The mountains hold this magic. It gets cold at night in the mountains and most of the year you can step outside your cabin or tent early in the morning and take these deep, stilling breaths. The soul opens itself to wonder, and the mind becomes perceptive of wonder's materials. The birds' songs become clear. White and black stripes on the back of a chipmunk 20 yards away become separated. And as you sit to soak it all in, you enter a noticeably different position in creation. You become one with your surroundings, but you are the thinker, the philosopher, the poet, the developer of culture and creation.

I find it difficult at this point to not then DO something: to not write, to not get started with the day and make breakfast and get to the sights that are to be seen. It is difficult to learn to be in that place, to allow our beings to be affected by simply being who we are in the cosmic orders of creation. Stepping into that place created in my soul by the cold, crisp air in my lungs is like stepping into a rich memory. Not a memory thick and heavy with detail and meaning that is to be figured out; but a memory richly detailed but light, like a dream, in its acceptance of something true. It is a memory that was there "in the beginning" with God, a memory that is always there beside me, just out of my reach, just beyond my longing to know who I am.

Another time this mystery finds me is during the change to autumn. The highs in Chicago this week have been around 60 degrees and the lows have been in the low forties. And every time I've stepped outside a hint of this mystery has opened my soul and I've found more peace than the day had at first promised.

George Washington has a brown nose.

A week ago today, Karis swallowed a quarter. At least, we're pretty sure it's a quarter. Risa told us it was bigger than a nickel, so it could be a dollar coin.

So Karis got taken to urgent care that day. The quarter was as plain as day, brightest thing on the xray. The Drs. said that the best thing to do was wait and that hopefully she would poop it out. If it didn't come out in 4 days we were to return. Oh, and by the way - we were instructed to dig through the poop so that we'd know when the quarter came out. Once it's out, there's no more need to return to the Dr. And they gave us two pairs of hospital gloves. Now, either they had no idea how many times this two-year-old can poop in four days, or (and this is the way we took it) they expected the quarter to pass quite quickly and we would probably only need a couple pairs of gloves. Well, we needed more gloves. Yesterday, 6 days after the initial swallowing, Robin took her back to urgent care. Another xray, another brilliant picture of a quarter. The Drs. there didn't want to get their hands in poop, so they sent us to the emergency room at another hospital that had "specialists." The emergency care pediatrician looked at the xray and decided that more specialists were needed - a pediatrician that specializes in gastro-intestinal whatchamaever.

Now, it was about 2:30 pm. Robin had been at urgent care and the hospital all day with both of the girls. None of them had had lunch and neither of the girls were enjoying their aftn. naps. I found myself unable to work while all this was going on, so I had taken the aftn. off and joined them at the hospital to be with Karis as she went through whatever extracting means were found necessary. It appeared that they would put something down her throat and try to grab it and pull it out. So we all waited in the hospital room, and the girls were very patient.

When I arrived, I had a banana, and of course the starving girls both wanted some. But I had to deny Karis any food (for obvious reasons). I told her that when we got the quarter out of her stomach, then she could have some food. So every time they did anything to her, such as when they took her pulse rate, she would then look at me and say "my nanna now? my nanna now?" "No honey, not yet, not until they get the quarter out."

4pm. The Dr. returned and informed us that the quarter has passed out of the stomach and into the digestive track, or so thinks the gastro-intestinal whatchamaever pediatric specialist. And the g.i.w.p.s. informed all involved that the best thing to do was to simply wait it out. It would be more dangerous to go in after it than to let it make its way out. As long as she doesn't start throwing up, or doesn't stop pooping, she is probably fine. With these instructions we were free to go (having basically wasted our entire day - and who knows what the bill will be that we'll get).

So, as long as there's no change, the g.i.w.p.s. says, we shouldn't be worried for at least a few weeks. In fact, these things can take up to two months to pass.

We asked for more gloves.

Check out my friends Jacob and Amy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qf3ND5nTdc

One post a month for the last few months.
That's just sad, as though I have no ability to think for myself anymore.

Well, I apologize. The things which I know I should do (like take time for my own thoughts) I do not do. And those things I do not want to do, I do. Oh wretched man that I am. Who will save me from this?

Today I taught my first two classes -
and nobody walked out. So that's good!

Despite my being drained from talking all morning and tired from not sleeping much the last couple days, I felt some strong feelings of fulfillment, which are always nice when you find them. Grace for the everyday (no, not you Gracie) - that fulfills me. When I find grace in those small tasks, I try to slow everything inside of me down just enough to open a space inside where I can fully accept that grace. I try to wait long enough to let the grace enlarge and then connect with the larger streams of God's graceful actions in the world. And when I do, I find that God visits that space inside myself. I think of that space as the place where God inhabits the praises of God's people. It happens also when I am able to open that space inside during a worship service at church. As that space opens, I feel myself being drawn into the ongoing praises of all creation. Sometimes when I pray, for others -usually not when I pray for myself, I feel that space inside open. And God comes. And simple prayers are drenched and then overflow with grace. And they are no longer my prayers, but begin to drown in the groaning of all creation for its Maker.

BLACK PEOPLE AT CHURCH!!!

Last Sunday our church hosted a dinner/celebration for diversity. It was quite a wonderful event. We had been telling Risa about the two parties we would be attending that weekend, one Friday night and one on Sunday night. She asks a lot of questions, so we had to explain to her what he parties were all about, what they were for, who would be there . . . etc . . .

Sunday morning, on the way to church she was asking again about the party that night, and we were explaining again the purpose of the party - "to celebrate our differences," we said. "Some people have red hair, like you, and some people have blond hair like Mom," I noted. Robin added, "Some people are black and some people are white." I continued, "Some people have elephants as pets, and some people smell really funny."

We got into the service and began singing worship songs. After about two songs I heard Risa saying "Daddy, Daddy." I looked down and she was pointing to the people down the row from us and added with a tremendous look of pride as though she'd solved a great puzzle, "Look! Black people!"

I smiled gently and returned to singing. When it was time for the offering, the pastor prayed, a girl came on stage and everyone was waiting for the music to start. Risa, confirming her new-found knowledge, again pointed and said louldy, "She's a black girl."

Well, by that time, I'd had enough. So I promptly picked her up, took her out to the lobby and laid a whooping on her! Can you believe her? Racist.

For Mom

Here's an email I sent to my mom recently.
I've decided to make it a more public thank you.

"Hey Mom.

I'm writing to let you know about something I've been thinking about lately - trust. I've always been astounded, even as a teenager, by your ability to trust. First it was your ability to trust God that I saw. You were my model, obviously, in trusting God in the face of the difficulties of Dad's accident. That trust in God then blossommed out into all areas of my life. I was also amazed at how you trusted God with our well-being - allowing us to experience life in wonderful ways, on motorcycles, skateboards and the like. I later discovered, especially in college, that you had an unusual ability to trust me, whether in dealings with money or encouraging me to go to Israel for a semester. I have always coveted that trust, holding it close to my heart, not wanting to break it.

I'm not sure why, but I've been thinking a lot about trust the last week, and I've been grateful (toward you) as I've found myself to be a rather trusting person. Our world is full of fearfulness, whether it be of what someone will think of us or concerns about money, and trust seems to be a rare commodity. We are encouraged to be so careful with everyone and to get everything in writing. I think it's a horrible way to live, though - constantly in worry about everything. I find it debilitating.

So I'm writing to thank you for teaching me how to trust, for letting me experience trust. In a world of very unstable marriages, I have no difficulty trusting Robin. Concerning difficult life choices about raising children and prusuing a PhD and finding a job (or two), I have little difficulty trusting God. I see people in the parking lot at the grocery store whose glances flutter about themselves hoping to catch some danger in the act of destroying their lives. Yet I find myself able to close my eyes for the last few steps to the car, and take a deep breath, and pause, and imagine the flight of the birds that I hear in the distance, and know that God knows their actual flight. Then I open my eyes and begin to put the kids in the car and the groceries away as an even deeper breath comes with the realization of how much more . . .

Thank you for modelling trust to me."

O'Connor quotes for the day -

"It seems to be a fact that you have to suffer as much from the Church as for it but if you believe in the divinity of Christ, you have to cherish the world at the same time you struggle to endure it."

"It was a case in which it is easy to see that the moral sense has been bred out of certain sections of the population, like the wings have been bred off certain chickens to produce more white meat. This is a generation of wingless chickens, which I suppose is what Nietzsche meant when he said God was dead."

 

Our new Home. 

 

 

 

 

 

Job

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

:)

I got the job.

Hope, Faith and Love

I thought of a parallel in church a couple weeks ago. A teenager loves recklessly because she is inexperienced in not having love returned. As she grows older, she becomes more cautious with her love. A young Christian hopes recklessly in the promises of God because she is inexperienced in non-fulfillment. But as she grows older, she learns God's plans are bigger than her hopes and thereby don't always include her hopes. The same pattern is true for faith. The new Christian can have reckless faith, yet as she matures she may begin to question her interpretation of some things and what she is putting her faith in.

Our culture has a simple way of addressing the first, i.e. love. We say, "It is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all." We don't, however, have that view of hope and faith. Perhaps we understand this about love because we know that humans are flawed and that finding love is really a bit of a crap shoot. We know we must take big chances in order to have any possibility of true love. Perhaps we figure that God, on the other hand, is perfect and should fulfill all our hopes and all our faith, so we think that hope and faith are somehow more eternal than love. But what we don't take into account often enough is that we are flawed - our hopes, our love, and our faith are all flawed. Hope and faith are therefore also a bit of a crap shoot, particualarly when we place our hope in other flawed humans. But why do we not hold the same positive view of them? Is it that love has more physical forms? Should we amend the statement to “It is better to have loved physically and lost than not to have loved at all?” But that doesn’t sound right, so why can’t we say it is better to have hoped and lost than not to have hoped at all?

Job Interview

Please pray for me this week. I have an all-day job interview on Monday for a one-year faculty position at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, IL. They're feeding me all three meals that day, so it must be pretty serious.

My head is filled with their faces most nights, when I first lay down and my day rushes through my mind in process form. Their faces are always the first images, mostly her face. She's looking away, eyes down. Then her eyes are fixed on mine, unable to look away, eyelids caught open. Then her head is fallen forward and her eyes are the only thing holding her head up, and she whispers, "I'm sorry." Fear-full. Shame-full.

And I wonder if my guilt is well founded, or if this must be how they learn to follow rules. I attempt to comb through that day's frustrations, that day's angers. Maybe I should yell less. Maybe she should never feel shamed.

I comfort myself with promises of reduction of yelling and shame-inducing looks. And I reach for the echoes of laughter, the seconds pregnant with grace and innocence and abandon. And I usually fall asleep.

Perhaps this is a good definition of original sin - knowing the evil so well that it turns to habit then using the good to deaden the pain.

Transcendence

Christian tradition has generally understood transcendence as a movement beyond human borders, either as God coming into the everyday and our somehow experiencing that or as humans reaching beyond themselves to God or as the crossing over into new life after death. This traditional understanding of transcendence, as being “above and independent of the universe,” is epitomized in Pascal’s challenge. He concludes that if there is a God then everything that occurs here on earth occurs according to a logic outside of our knowable reality. If one chooses to believe and trust this God’s non-human logic, one loses nothing. But if one rejects this transcendent God, then one might lose everything. As a youth evangelizing in shopping malls I was taught to unwittingly use Pascal’s challenge.

This understanding of transcendence, however, has been in question for a long time. In Martha Nussbaum’s challenge to traditional transcendence in her book Love’s Knowledge she examines Odysseus’ encounter with Calypso in The Odyssey. When offered a beautiful, goddess companion, the lack of any need, and eternal life, Odysseus refuses and continues his journey home. Nussbaum asks, Why? and why do we identify with that choice? We all say that we want eternal life, without trouble, and we do, but when faced with the problem of what that really means, do we want that life? Nussbaum’s conclusion is that we get “the feeling that the other life would just not be comprehensible as a life for a human being with human virtues and human heroism.” The reason for this is that “[h]uman limits structure the human excellences, and give excellent action its significance.” For example, a great deal of what we consider to be good morals has to do with our response to suffering. In a transcendent world free of suffering, what need would there be for such morals? Ultimately, Nussbaum agrees with Nietzsche’s analysis that humanity’s (particularly religions’) desire for a “true” world different from our own ultimately leads to our non-concern and inaction in the world we have. In answer to Pascal’s challenge, Nussbaum would claim that something very significant is lost if one gives assent to traditional transcendence. Her answer is “a transcending by descent, delving more deeply into oneself and one’s humanity, and becoming deeper and more spacious as a result.”

The ultimate denial of traditional understandings of transcendence came in 1882 when Nietzsche pronounced that God was dead. The nihilism that resulted from this pronouncement reached its literary zenith in the writings of Kafka and Camus. In Camus’ The Stranger, for example, the main character, Meursault, mirrors the choice made by Odysseus. Meursault is convicted of murder and facing a hanging in a couple of days. The priest is sent and gives Meursault Pascal’s challenge, asking him what good it will do him to not accept God. Meursault refuses the priest’s offer, saying that it was of more comfort to him to be sure of his couple of days and of his death than to have the priest’s false security. The priest asks him what he would want heaven to be like, and Meursault responds that it would be a place where he could sit and remember this life. Admitting these things gives him great peace, and he lies on his prison cot more full of life than he has ever been. His transcendence comes through a refusal of the traditional understanding of transcendence. Meursault is the fictional embodiment of Nussbaum’s questioning of the significance of an afterlife.

In Camus’ The Plague, the plague that strikes the city is a metaphor for the absurdity of the human condition. The only hope of transcending the ill effects of the plague comes through choosing solidarity with other humans over and against any benign explanation from another world that is not really our own, such as is offered by the town’s priest. Concerning why the plague exists and why it must be fought, the main character says, “a man can’t cure and know at the same time. So let’s cure as quickly as we can. That’s the more urgent job.” This is again a fictional representation of transcendence through descent into humanity, not a reaching beyond humanity. Camus suggests, in the line of Nussbaum and Nietzsche, that to ask why or to focus at all on any transcendent reasoning necessarily takes away from the work at hand. The world is full of more trouble than we can deal with; all we can do is cure as quickly as we can. Wallace Stegner also portrays this understanding of transcendence in his works where relationships pull people through difficult times, not any transcendent understanding of God’s purposes.

Secular philosophers and writers are not the only people who have found transcendence through descent interesting, or necessary. As early as 1975 Sallie McFague began to apply these concepts to her understanding of theology and literature. In her book Speaking in Parables she takes as her model of transcendence something very basic to our human understanding – language, and more specifically metaphor. She writes,
Metaphor is, for human beings, what instinctual groping is for the rest of the universe – the power of getting form here to there. We use what we have, who we are, where we are to grope toward what we dimly feel, think, and envision we might have, who we might be, where we might be. We do this through a process in which imagination is the chief mover, setting the familiar in an unfamiliar context so that new possibilities can be glimpsed.

“The meaning of the gospel is generated through metaphor, through words which we ‘know’ but which are now put into a new context so that we see ‘what is’ in the light of ‘what might be,’ the ordinary emerges shaped by a new context. Thus we move, through metaphor, to meaning; metaphor is a motion from here to there.” Jesus is par excellence the metaphor of God, and so his story is the way to God.

Each of these authors demand to one degree or another a transcendence through descent. They claim that paying attention to the hereafter takes away from what we could be doing in the now. These authors make excellent points and each of them greatly affected my view of what transcendence can be. I grew up in a Pentecostal, fundamentalist sub-culture that concentrated greatly on transcending to the next world, which I believe at times contributed to the detriment of this world. I thus found myself agreeing with much of what Nussbaum wrote and found parabolic theology to be a healing corrective for my personal understanding of God. However, I also see tremendous limitations. For example, my Pentecostal roots were born in social struggle. Pentecostalism flourished in the poor south only a short time after being beaten in the Civil War. It particularly flourished among African-Americans who had learned under the heavy yoke of slavery to long for the world beyond this one, to which the great spirituals are testimony. Today Pentecostalism especially flourishes in third-world countries that know only suffering and have little or no hope in anything they find in this world. What shifting context within this world would give them hope? If you told a mother in Africa whose husband, brothers and half her children have died from aids that she must descend into herself to find the answers to her struggle, or that understanding herself in a new context here and now would save her, from where would she find hope or salvation? The Pentecostal focus on the soon-to-return Christ in power and glory to wipe away God’s enemies and bring about his Kingdom of peace would much more likely be useful to her, especially if physical healing were offered to rid herself and her remaining children of HIV.

McFague’s theory does work well on most of Jesus’ parables, and I appreciate her resistance to over-spiritualization. However, the theory only works when Jesus’ parables are separated from the rest of his life. Christ’s healings were not mere metaphors. His raising of Lazarus from the dead was not a mere metaphor, much less so was God’s raising of Jesus from the dead. Christ’s ascension was not a metaphor, nor was his promise to return, nor his giving of the Spirit to empower his followers. Most of Nussbaum’s critique of religion is very strong, except in one place – when she considers the doctrine of the Incarnation in Christianity. She writes, “Christianity seems to grant that in order to imagine a god who is truly superior, truly worthy of worship, truly and fully just, we must imagine a god who is human as well as divine, a god who has actually lived out the nontranscendent life and understands it in the only way it can be understood, by suffering and death.” She goes on to note, “the universal compassion for human suffering that one associates with Christianity is difficult to imagine apart from the paradigm of human suffering and sacrifice exemplified in Christ.” It is God’s transcendence through descent, the incarnation, that most appeals to her.

I think we need a dual understanding of transcendence. Transcendence by descent is by no means sufficient for our understanding of who God is; however, it is helpful in reminding us to focus on this life, in reminding us that God is concerned with this life.

Responding to my post on theology and culture, a friend replied that there is "another side to this story." I thought he made some good points, and I think it is an imortant discussion, so I decided to post his thoughts and my reply to him here.

Tim,

There is another side to this story. I understand your feelings as it regards this kind of "run for the hills" sort of sanctification from the world..."circling the wagons," so to speak.

At the same time, there is a very real danger in all of this "cultural engagement" talk running through various veins of the church today - at least in the way it is being adopted.

James tells us that, "Friendship with the world is hatred toward God." In another place we are told that, "Religion God accepts [includes] keeping oneself from being polluted by the world."

From what I can tell, this sector of Christians who choose to "engage the culture" are not really engaging it at all. Rather, using a lot of empty philosophy and jargon, they are actually doing nothing more than justifying their desire to have all this world has to offer without losing out on the Kingdom of God in the process.

We cannot be "friends of the world." We were called out of the wolrd and we are no longer "of" it. At the same time, you are correct in this: the culture cannot be allowed to languish in this hopeless estate because Christians were scared to look it in the eye.There is a balance and like all things of great and monumental import, we have a wonderful Scriptural example of that balance.

In the book of Acts we have the account of Paul engaging the Greeks. The first thing we notice is that Paul went to them. The second thing we notice is that Paul reasoned with them by relating the Gospel to the world in which they lived.

But we also notice something else. Paul did not BECOME one of them. He didn't put on a toga and drink wine in the temple of pagan gods. What we actually see is quite the opposite. Within a relatively short time, Paul was able to make a clear distinction between what he believed and who he was as a Christian vs. what they believed and who they were as Greek philosophers and pagans.

The result was that a number were moved to stay and hear him further, while the others wrote him off and moved on.

Our job is not to integrate with the culture, to salvage it, or to save it. Our job is to bring Christ to it and our interest is in those who PEOPLE "want to hear us further" - not "culture" as an organism or an entity.

Blessings!
Jason



Jason –

I don’t have time for a full response at the moment, but let me make a few brief statements.

I was bothered by these two sentences in your response: "From what I can tell, this sector of Christians who choose to "engage the culture" are not really engaging it at all. Rather, using a lot of empty philosophy and jargon, they are actually doing nothing more than justifying their desire to have all this world has to offer without losing out on the Kingdom of God in the process." I was bothered by them because what I wrote calls for an engagement with culture, so these words are directed at me. However, it seems you are imposing an outside philosophical dichotomy upon what I wrote instead of engaging with the specifics of what I wrote.

You are right in that I do want all that this world has to offer, because when God created the world God said, “It is good,” and I want what is good. Drunkenness, however, is not what God meant when God said, “It is good.” Rather, drunkenness is part of our sinful ways of being, which I don’t consider to be much of an offering from this world in any good sense. It is certainly not an offering I have any desire to receive.

I like the reference you made to Paul at Mars Hill, because when Paul goes to the Greeks, he does not impose some outside understanding of who God is and then expect them to either accept that or reject it. Rather, Paul begins with an altar they already have there in their culture. He then quotes to them their own poets and engages in dialogue with them, attempting to explain who Jesus is in relation to these cultural items. These cultural items are even used to shed light on who God is. That is the type of dialogue I am talking about in this post, not an engagement "in all this world has to offer” in some negative sense.

I think you have a reversed eschatology that sees Christ’s salvation as calling us away from this world into another realm, which I believe is the opposite of the purpose of the incarnation and Christ’s teachings concerning the Kingdom of God. I believe Christ brought God’s Kingdom into this world, and that Christ’s death and resurrection was meant for the restoration of this world unto relationship with the Father. Eschatology is the study of end things, and I believe Jesus brought the end things (such as peace, love, and transforming power) into the current world in which we live, and to be Christian means to follow Christ in doing exactly that – taking God’s light into the dark places of this world so that all may see Christ and be reconciled with God so that their lives may be affected here and now. I do not believe that Christ came just to draw us out of this messed up world. Rather, Christ wants us to engage this world and redeem it.

I appreciate your dialogue on this matter.

One down - 3 to go

One Comp is done, took it this morning. I feel good about it. It was my easiest comp, though.

COMPS

Well, I've been studying like a mad man - cramming really.
I decided to share with you what I wrote for one of the questions (out of 6) for one of my exams (out of 4). So, here it is.

Oh - ignore the references to people and their books; it's just a way of trying to show the prof that I've read some of that stuff.
And - I know the last of my three points needs a little work, but that's a personal issue.

Let me know what you think -


1. What is your method for approaching the study of theology and culture?

For the Christian tradition I grew up in, culture was viewed as a contagious disease, and whoever got close to it would get contaminated. We were not allowed to play cards or go to movies. I attended a senior banquet instead of a prom (where dancing occurs). As I grew older, however, I found that this complete disregard for culture was wrong for at least two reasons. First, it was simply hypocritical. As I began to encounter other Christians’ views of the world sometimes finding them more satisfying, I began to see that often what my tradition taught as doctrine was more culturally influenced than revelatory. The second reason such disregard of culture was wrong is that the philosophy did work to a great degree in separating me from culture, which is the opposite of Christ’s example. The more separated I was from culture, the less able I found myself to relate to anyone who was not a Christian, and the less able I was to bring anyone the good news. It is with the memory of the dangers of separating the two too much that I proceed to consider in what way theology and culture can be studied together.

The interdisciplinary study of theology and culture must be attentive to both theology on its own terms and culture on its own terms; however, as Christians our theology necessarily sets the agenda for our approach to culture. This is not to say that theology overrides our study of culture at every point, which I will get to in the next step. Rather, it is to emphasize that Christ alone is our center and that Christ came to a fallen world full of evil. Any theology that takes the doctrine of original sin seriously, and views our natures as thoroughly corrupt, must be discerning when listening to any cultural voice. Likewise, any theology that takes demonic forces of evil seriously must be careful not to be deceived.

There are two important theological concerns when considering the relation between theology and culture. The first is that our theologies are not perfect due to our inherently fallen nature due to our inherently fallen natures. The constant danger in the study of theology and culture in evangelical circles is to allow our cultural studies to be subsumed under our theological tasks. It is important that we recognize that our theologies are limited as well. and are not equal to God’s work. The original sin that has infected our culture has also infected our theologies, so our theologies do not always see clearly or rightly. This theological limitation opens a door for the priority of culture.

The second theological necessity is a strong understanding of the triune God’s work in the world – in creation, in the Christ event of salvation and in the Holy Spirit’s drawing humanity unto God . Since Christ is sovereign over all and has redeemed all and is at work in all peoples drawing them unto Himself, it is possible that truth can be found outside of our churches and theologies. This is the point where most evangelicals fall short in their analysis of culture. For example, in his book Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, William Romanowski insists that it is the perspective that one brings to a subject that makes the subject Christian or not. This view discounts any possibility of God’s work in the artist or in a non-Christian viewer of the art.

Also, since our churches and theologies are necessarily impaired by original sin, it is possible that a truth found outside of our churches can both help guide and rightly critique our understandings of who God is and what God is doing. All those who follow George Lindbeck’s teaching, including Hauerwas and those in what Robert Holland has termed the Yale School in an article entitled “How Do Stories Save Us?,” attempt to protect their theologies against outside corruption. The only way, however, that we can be honest about our own limitations is to open our theologies to the possibility of correction. Wherever closed theologies march into cultural arenas, no revelation will be found; instead, only reflections of truth already possessed can be seen.

Much of current evangelicalism has missed the necessity of these two theological points in discussing theology and culture. Most attempts at discussion have so focused on protecting their theologies that they have not truly been open to cultural insights, though of course some have gone too far in the other direction, such as Sallie McFague’s suggestion that the Christ event is merely a metaphor that will help us be better people. With these theological foundations in mind, we can move on to exactly how we are to allow our theology to interact with our culture. We need a robust theology that 1) understands culture, 2) openly interacts with culture, and 3) stands apart from culture.

1) One of the scriptures that the Christianity I grew up with based their view of interaction with culture on was the scripture that says God’s word will not return void (Isa 55:11). Our theology was a proclamation theology, not looking for any response from culture, except repentance. However, I now believe that the proclamationist theology is based upon a reversed eschatology. We have not been called to extract people from culture and rescue them unto heaven. Rather, we should follow Christ in announcing (and carrying) God’s future kingdom into the present. Our model of evangelization should be the incarnation, not Left Behind. A reversed eschatology and proclamationist theology make no attempt to understand culture and are often blinded by the ways the culture they dislike has influenced them negatively – such as the religious right’s too often blind acceptance of the ills of capitalism and/or of the sufferings of peoples around the world who do not agree with what is in U.S.’s interest as a nation.

The fact is that we are all cultural beings, and Christ’s presence in the lives of Christians is not meant to drive out culture, and make the Christian spirit-only, but to redeem the culture within a person. Don Browning notes in A Fundamental Practical Theology that all theology must begin with descriptive theology – describing the current state of things, of ourselves, of our culture. It is important to note that Browning does not see culture as something separate from theology. Rather, describing our culture is part of the theological task. The reason for this can be explained by looking at the way Jesus evangelized (if we can redeem that word).

Jesus did not give the same answer to questions from different people. He contextualized his answer (often in a story) for each different person. He knew each one’s particular need and knew that the gospel was good news to them personally, in their moment. This model of evangelization is a matter of understanding felt needs and then showing how God can meet each need. This method necessarily involves listening, understanding, and wisdom before proclaiming. It is also a sophisticated understanding of what good news is, for Jesus’ good news is not a universal statement that can be applied to anyone at anytime and that either glorifies them unto heaven or condemns them to hell according to their immediate response. The gospel’s power does not lie in its being a perfect word from heaven that overpowers its listeners. Memorizing Jesus words in the original Greek or Aramaic and then standing on a street corner and shouting them out would do no good. The gospel must be contextualized, and it is contextualized through our cultural selves into our culture. In order to contextualize the gospel, we must understand our culture.

2). We cannot, however, stop with understanding culture as a means to evangelizing culture (as Briner does in Roaring Lambs). We need instead a theology that interacts with culture. The beginning place for this is the theological foundation of God’s sovereignty over all creation, as James Barr argues in his book Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Alternative world views can bring new understandings (new visions) of what justice could look like, and these alternative world views do not always come through theological exploration (especially when theology is concerned with keeping itself correct). Artist, musicians and writers often envision for us new ways of being. Madeline L’Engle has noted that art opens up new parts of ourselves with which to be Christian. Our theologies must be open to these visions, must be ready to embrace them, must find the good in them and proclaim them as news. But if we are theologically closed-off to the possibility that God can speak through culture, that God is sovereign over all the earth, that Jesus’ redemption was for everyone and everything, then we will not be able to see God’s work. It is possible for items in culture to be used by God for spiritual matters; as Robert Johnston notes in his introduction to Reel Spirituality, it was in a movie that he felt God’s call for his life. The lines between what is religious in our lives and what is cultural need to be blurred, for God is at work in both. I do not mean to imply, however, that interaction is a one way street from culture toward our theology. Interaction with culture also involves bringing to bear our long Christian histories and traditions upon culture. Christians should impact culture positively as well, producing art, literature, scholasticism, bread – everything cultural. This is a large part of spreading God’s kingdom.

3) Finally, we need a theology that is able to take a stance against culture, when necessary. I put this step last because it is dependant upon the first two. We cannot stand against culture before having understood and interacted with culture. Without understanding, we may stand against something that is actually good. Without interaction, our stance will gain no respect from non-Christians. When making a stance against culture, it is important to remember that Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to redeem the world. Our stance against culture should never be one of condemnation. Rather, we should always be proactive in attempting to change culture through love. Jesus showed us that the only way to true change is through love. If we remain enemies with culture, we will only end up killing each other. Through love, however, we can impact the world for the sake of the kingdom of God.

After breaking up . . .

You and I

You and I
We speak in ideals,
In lofty terms of how things ought to be.
That is why
We could never work
But I miss someone bringing out that part of me.

For we missed each other’s faults
And ignored each other’s wrongs,
We looked too much at what was right
And listened to each other’s lies too long.

Though most cover there faults only a little time
We mastered the art of disguise
So that reality never disturbed our lake
As we lay and painted our blue skies.

You and I
We spoke in ideals,
In lofty terms of how things should have been
That is why
We never worked
But sometimes I miss forgetting my sin.

Human After All

I grew
I flew,
My dreams
Envisioned
By others.

I lost
It cost,
My life
Forgotten
And smothered.

It all came down to me
Because they were what I am:
Looking for someone to believe in.

And I thought I could be
What they needed from me,
But now myself I can't believe in.

With dissipated dreams
And gusto-less life,
I guess I’m just human after all.

Bono and the National Prayer Breakfast

The National Prayer Breakfast was yesterday. It is a breakfast that the President, many congresspeople and many heavy hitters from religions in America attend. Bono was the special guest. I'm providing a link to a transcript of his speech for anyone who has not already read it.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060203#3

It's good. It's important.

Freedom of Speech?

"Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan received an apology when Capitol Police dropped charges against her of unlawful conduct due to her controversial t-shirt that created quite a buzz at Tuesday night's State of the Union address.
The peace activist was arrested minutes before the President's speech for wearing a shirt protesting the war; she had a ticket to attend the speech.
Capitol police now say it was all a mistake. They say she was arrested because of an old, vague law against protesting inside the Capitol Building, but they say just wearing a t-shirt is not unlawful. Police plan to work to clarify the law."
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4448298&nav=15MV

Sheehan's shirt read: "2245 Dead. How many more?"

"Late Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer issued a statement of apology to the two women, and said the charge against Sheehan may be dropped.
"The officers made a good-faith but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," he wrote.
"The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/02/tshirt-arrest060202.html

An old, unwritten interpretation of a prohibition? An interpretation, an unwritten interpretation? And do we really believe that anyone would be removed from the State of the Union Address (which you have to have an invitation in order to attend) without the officers first checking with their superiors? They misinterpreted an unwritten interpretation and acted on their own and removed and hand-cuffed and jailed a guest of a congressperson? Seriously?