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
10 comments:
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
- Martin Luther King Jr.
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.
-Tim Basselin
Indeed, Dennis. And in what I just wrote I agreed with Jason that the presence of a greater force may well be the solution to the current problems in Iraq.
Singular focus of flexing our muscles? What about Somalia in the early 90's? Where we sent in military troops to make sure the food aid was received by the people instead of being used as a weapon by a warlord?
What about the Balkans in the mid 90's where we went in to stop muslims from being killed by Milosevic?
Our immediate aid for the victims of the tsunami particularly in Indonesia, the country with the highest number of muslims?
Our increase in aid to fight AIDS in Africa?
Our help to the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan?
The never ending stream of stories about grateful Iraqis that never seem to make most newspapers?
Your comment makes my point, I think. As you noted, the items you mention do not show a singular focus. What I have heard from this administration throughout this war in Iraq, however, has been a singular focus. There has been little to no focus on important cultural issues. There has instead been a seemingly singular focus on winning the war, rather than a broader perspective that allows for questioning the war or at least aspects of the war. My question from the beginning (even before Afghanistan) has been whether or not this war against terror is not going to make more terrorists rather than fewer.
I've argued from the beginning that our strategy needs to be different. The other aspect of my argument (what that different strategy should look like) has been that I believe our strategy needs to be different because I believe in Jesus' teachings. If I did not view Jesus' teachings the way I do, then I would be one of the first in line for supporting the war and believing in military might to make things right (when it is put on the side of justice, which is what I think you are arguing).
However, I believe Jesus taught something quite different from that, and I think his teaching is particularly relevant to the situation of terrorism where the enemy does not come against you with planes and tanks and a military. There are stronger cultural forces at work, and Jesus' teachings are aimed at changing (and creating peace between) such cultural forces. Ideally any war can be prevented by obeying Jesus' commandments of loving your enemy.
Sometimes, though, the evil is persistent, and God does not cause the good to win in the immediate - and in those times (and they must be quite desparate times, such as WWII) I think it is possible for us to argue for using military might.
Iraq did not, for me, qualify as a desparate enough situation to justify war. It would have qualified for me before I came to believe strongly in the peace-making affect of Jesus' teachings. But now, I believe strongly in the effectiveness of loving one's enemy, and I don't see how such love was even considered by this administration, much less attempted in any significant way.
My argument is not that we should now pull out of Iraq and leave them alone. My argument is that we should enter love into the conversation, an element that should have been in the conversation from the beginning but was left out.
I want us to ask ourselves honestly what does Jesus' command to love your enemy mean in this situation. What does it mean that Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that if someone has something against you (he does not say "if you have sinned against someone," but "if someone has sinned against you") to leave your offering at the alter and go to them and be reconciled before bringing your offering before God. This is the context of the command to love our enemies. It is my opinion that the church in America has taken its offering to God, declared itself righteous and thereby justified its support for war. The church should be following Jesus' command to go and be reconciled, to love our enemy, to do community-restoring justice that draws them into peace. Defining the "axis of evil" and using language of good vs. evil and placing ourselves fully on the side of good is self-righteousness, which is exactly what the Sermon on the Mount was against.
"Sometimes, though, the evil is persistent, and God does not cause the good to win in the immediate - and in those times (and they must be quite desparate times, such as WWII) I think it is possible for us to argue for using military might.
Iraq did not, for me, qualify as a desparate enough situation to justify war."
I think this essentially summarizes where we split on this. I understand this, and I feel we (you and I) are rapidly approaching a place where we will simply have to agree to disagree. Perhaps any future discussion between us would be better served to be by email instead of on your blog. I don't wish to monopolize your comments area any more than I already have. I have more to say but will finish my thoughts by way of email. Thanks for your time, thoughts, and most of all your friendship.
I found the horse on your blog. It's on post "11-2".
Bro,
I have a question. Do you believe that if everyone in the world were given all of the freedoms and "living conditions better" or better living conditons, that we would all live in harmony and peace with one another?? You have got to be kidding. This is so wrong on so many levels. First, not in order of importance, how come when the terrorist live in our beloved country to learn to blend in with our society, they still try to blow us up? If your point was correct, 9/11 would never have happened. Also, our Fathers, Grandfathers and theirs before them have fought for the freedoms and worked extremely hard for our "better living conditions". Could we as American's give more and do more for others both here and over seas? I belive some of us could do much more, but don't forget the many who have given all. I am not just talking about military.
You said something this week that I can't get off my mind. Please forgive me if this is too public of an arena to have this discussion. I will try to leave out all names and certain details in order to protect our personal conversation. We were discussing money, or better the lack of money. You stated that if you had a lot of money, you would just give it away. I have nothing against charity, but from my work with a certain homeless ministry, I have found that giving people things that they might need can be counter productive. I have been trying to apply my small minded local view to your world view. Forgive me for blabbering. I am trying to type this while watching Elyie Brooke, Caleb and Calyie keep distracting me. So, I will get to the point. I strongly believe that if you were to Give Risa a brand new car for her B'day, she would be really excited and tell everyone about her new car, but since she can't drive yet, it would be of little use to her. Robin would love it! Let's wait until Risa is 16. Now you give her another new car, but this time she can use it. She is also more mature, and hopefully since you will be getting my kids if anything were to happen to Jenny and I, she has been taught to respect property, hers and others, respect the law, and most importantly respect you as the authority in her life. She will ride around and show all her friends and enjoy her gift. Lets try one more scenerio. A more likely scenerio. What if Risa had to work to pay for all or most of her "used car". Risa would take much better care of the car and probably respect you much more. In all three scenerios, Risa "owned" the car. It was her car. But in the last one, she had earned the car. She had worked for the car. She understood the worth of the car. I see this as a major issue for our generation. From our parents to our goverment, we have been given to our whole lives. We "expect" everything to be given to us. Don't take me wrong here. This is not directed at my baby brother in any way. Who have worked hard for your education. I don't believe that you have been given that. You and Robin have worked hard to pay for both of your educations. I am very proud of you and Robin. I am praying that you find a great job so you can support your growing family. I wouldn't mind it being below the mason dixon line though. We could use a little more education down here. Ha, Ha. Back to my original point, if this is making any sense at all. You said that if you had money, you would give it away. Without setting all of the parameters, this may be a hard discussion to have. Especially here. I have so many thoughts on this. Please forgive me if I don't express them as well as you might. God gives/allows us to earn money in order to provide for our families and to bless others. I think we can all agree on this. I also believe that you can not out give God. I hope to continue to increase my giving percentage for the rest of my life. I think it is great to help out friends in a time of need. I try not to loan money to friends. If I feel led to give them some money, I do. If they give it back, that is ok also. I need to wrap this up. What I am trying to say is you can't just give people stuff. Most will not appreciate it. I have watched B'ham build nice parks, schools and housing in low income areas of town. Eventually it gets run down, because those living there do not have respect for themselves or others. I am not saying that we should stop giving to other nations. I just hope that we give to the ones who put the money to good use. And like the parable of the talents, take away from those that don't produce. Some of the countries that we are fighting with are very oil rich. The can afford a better standard of living for their whole country. They choose to hate us because that is what they are taught. I am not sure how to fix all of the worlds problems. I am not sure how to fix all of mine. I work hard for what I have, but I would give it all away to see one peron come to the saving knowlege of Christ. Thing is, money doesn't change people's hearts. God does. We can help the most by praying for God to change our hearts first. It is up to him to change others. He has to power to guide our world leaders in His Will. God, I pray that you would change my heart to be more compassionate for others. Help me to think of others before myself. I pray for peace in Jerusalem and around the world. Please keep us safe as we travel over the holidays. Thank you so much for sending your Son to this messed up world to save us. I hope you have enjoyed our celebration of our Savior. I pray that we will continue to celebrate Christ in our hearts everyday.
Tim, I love you and Robin. Risa and Karis were so awesome. I could not get enough of either one of them. If you ever want to send them south for a few months, we will have room for them. I can't stop thinking about Risa big brown eyes and Karis curly blonde locks. I don't get that many kisses from my own kids. Sigh! I miss you so much. I can't wait to see you again. I really meant for us to talk more while you were here. I just want everyone to know how much I love you and your family. I am praying for you everyday. I am doing a lot more of that lately. I thought you might like to know that. I hope to see you soon. Sorry to everyone else for such a personal post. I hope I did not say anything to offend anyone.
With all of the love I can muster,
Brother
(Wiping tear from eye)
Brother,
Thank you for your heart-felt comments. I truly appreciate your display of love and your questions and challenges.
I had a wonderful time with you as well, and my only regret from our visit is that I did not get to talk to people more. It's hard, though, to dive into stuff when you only see people once or twice a year. Perhaps more communication through channels such as this will allow us to stay closer more consistently.
First, I don't remember our precise wording in that conversation, but I do not mean that if I had a lot of money I would just give it all away. I believe there is a level at which charity is helpful (often more for the giver than the receiver), but as you pointed out, it by no means solves the problems.
What you are arguing for in your comments is what is known as deeds-consequence theology. It is the very basis of the covenant given to Moses as expressed in Exodus - Deuteronomy. Let me qualify that statement - it is the basis of our covenantal response to God. God continually tells the people that if they are obedient they will prosper and do well in the land, but if they are disobedient, they will be punished and exiled. This deeds-consequence theology is expressed throughout the Bible, especially in the writings in the Old Testament, such as Poverbs and Job. The vast majority of the book of Job, in fact, is very articulate arguments for deeds-consequence theology from Job's friends. And in one sense they were completely correct in making those arguments. Well, again, let me qualify that statement. I believe they would have been correct in making those arguments for themselves if they found themselves in Job's situation. However, when they made that argument against Job, they were judging him, which was not their place, and God eventually showed up and put them in their places.
There is actually another side to that covenant that God made with Abraham, Moses and all of Israel. Before, during and after giving the commands, God constantly reminds the people that God is the one that chose them, that delivered them from Egypt, that led them into the promised land. God did NOT show up at Egypt and say, "Well it's your own fault that you are being held down by a system of slavery. What you need to do is to follow these rules, these commandments, and by being obedient you will pull your self up by your own bootstraps." Instead, God simply delivers them. Similarly, when Jesus shows up, he does not begin by saying that the people need to follow the law more closely and then they will experience God's blessing - The beginning of his public ministry is marked in Luke 4 by his opening the scroll to Isaiah and reading, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free." When people asked Jesus, "Who sinned that this man was born lame, him or his parents?" - which is an obvious embodiment of deeds-consequence theology (what bad deed created this bad consequence?) - Jesus replies by saying that neither was the case, rather he was born lame so that God's glory could be revealed.
I do not disagree with deeds-consequence theology. I would be going against about half of the Bible if I did so. I think, however, that there is another theology also present in the Bible - what is often called liberation theology. The template for deeds-consequence theology is the covenant. The template for liberation theology is the exodus. God simply frees people. This is also built into the laws concerning poor people in the Pentateuch. There are times in which the law punishes people for making poor decisions. There are also times in which the law simiply provides grace. Read Deut. 15, where the people are told to let slaves go free every 7 years, which is an absolutely unimaginable command for that time. And they are told to not only let them go, but to give to them liberally from their storehouse of grain, wine, and such.
I think the Bible recongnizes that much of poverty is caused by our bad decisions, our immorality. However, the scripture also recognizes that much of poverty is caused by evil systems that get set up that favor the rich (because the rich create the systems) over and against the poor. And the Bible is interested in dealing with both.
I think what we often do is to look at only one theology or the other. I think that capitalist, free-market systems work well with deeds-consequence theology. The bible-belt has married these two quite nicely, believing that it is the poor's fault that they are poor, and that the poor only take advantage (because they are morally corrupt) of people's generosity. Though this is certainly often the case, I do not see where in the Bible that it tells those who have money and/or power that it is our place to make that judgment. Rather, the laws and Jesus' teachings consistently tell us to reach out to the poor, to give liberally, to identify and empathize with them. God continually tells the Hebrews to be kind to the strangers in their midsts because they knew what it was like to be strangers in a strange land. The impetus for freeing the slaves in Deut, and for giving to them liberally when they left, was that God had freed them from slavery and provided for them. I do not want to stand in the place of saying that a person or a group of people are not worthy of the money that God has blessed me with. It is not my place to judge, it is God's. Yes, I am called to live according to deeds-consequence theology, in so far as I am in covenant with God. However, I think it is dangerous to apply that deeds-consequence theology to other people, as Job's friends did to Job. They were not wrong in arguing for deeds-consequence theology. But they were wrong in putting the blame on Job and calling him a sinner. That is God's judgment to make, so God judges them instead. What if instead of sitting around and telling Job that he needed to recongnize his sin and repent and that then God might have mercy and spare his life, what if they had come around him and asked him what he needed to get started again? What if they had given to him liberally instead of judging him? I wonder how the book of Job would have turned out then?
BTW - I think it is equally as dangerous to have only a liberation theology. Doing so distorts the reality of our responsibility toward God. Theologies that lean too heavily on liberation (as does the "social gospel" in the liberal churches) create cheap grace in which God simply loves everybody and wants to give everybody everything without requiring anything from them. However, since those reading this blog are generally less in danger of being too accepting of liberation theology and more in danger of being too accepting of deeds-consequence theology, I spend most of my time writing for liberation theology as an attempt to balance things out.
To return to my misunderstood quote that I would just give everything to the poor - I would not actually do that, as is obvious from the fact that we own a house, two cars, and a ridiculous amount of other stuff, including the quite expensive computer that I'm currently typing on. However, with every purchase that I make, whether it is a simple as going to McDonalds or buying a CD or as big as buying a house, I am painfully aware of my priviledge in this world. It is painful for me to buy things, and I hope that it always will be, because I see that as a result of the tension I hold in my life between what I see as two very true theologies that are well-represented in the scripture - deeds-consequence theology and liberation theology. What I was referring to in that conversation were people who I was afraid had bought wholesale into deeds-consequence theology and had begun to feel entitled to their money, to spending it how they wanted, because they worked hard for it. I hope that no matter how hard I ever have to work for my money that I will never feel a sense of entitlement to it, or to do with it as I please, but that I will constantly be aware of Jesus' words at the final judgment, "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me . . . What you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me."
Jason -
You wrote, "I don’t see much objective analysis of the sort you recommend taking place." I don' think that I was suggesting that I had any objective analysis of the situation. Rather, I was pointing out that you had begun your comments by suggesting objective analysis and had then not been terribly objective - which you were much more of in these comments, btw.
I don't see how you can suggest that the Bible does not envision peace between nations. Nearly all of the messianic prophecies of the OT speak of the messiah creating peace amongst the nations. In the sense that Christ's Kingdom is already present on earth, there should be peace in everything it touches. This may be where we differ, though. I think I have a much stronger belief that Jesus brought the Kingdom ,and though it is not yet fulfilled, it is present, active and powerful, and that includes creating peace amongst nations (particularly in so much as Christians affect situations in moving them toward peace). The way you write makes it sound like we have nothing to do with peace, which I have a hard time even comprehending - that Christian influence should not include making peace. Sorry that last sentence is jumbled.
Thanks for your responses.
I enjoy the discussion, and I hope it is fuitful for all of us - I know it is for me.
Post a Comment