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.)
Nov 1, 2006
Oct 18, 2006
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
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.
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.
Oct 12, 2006
Oct 9, 2006
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.
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.
Oct 2, 2006
Sep 29, 2006
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.”"
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.”"
Sep 21, 2006
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.
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.
Sep 19, 2006
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.
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.
Sep 2, 2006
Aug 31, 2006
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.
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.
Aug 9, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)