This another long-winded overreaction to one of Pastor Donnie’s posts. I decided to put it on my own blog instead of terrorizing him with it again. I said “terror” on the internet. Does that mean the Feds are going to come beat me down with the PATRIOT Act?
Ahem.. you can read Donnie’s post here.
—————————
I haven’t read “The Myth of a Christian Nation” in particular, but there is a part of that philosophy that I’ve been wondering about.
I’m speaking purely philosophically now (not campaigning for Huckabee), but if one were a practicing Christian and there was a sincere politician – a True Believer as it were – that got into politics would you not support him? Is your safe distance from these candidates really part of some inspired ideal or is it just cowering in the face of public opinion?
I’m speaking purely philosophically now (not campaigning for parochial public schools), but if you really believe that everyone should know about Jesus, wouldn’t you be happy that children were being taught – sincerely now – about Him in schools? I see, the schools might screw it up, or use it as leverage for some other not-very-Chirstlike agenda. Let’s not even try. Okay…
The whole power-under thing is intriguing. I’m all for it really. I’m all for reaching people wherever and however you can. That said, there’s a common flaw in this and every philosophy that seems to be present no matter how idealistic the leaders seem to be.
That flaw is money. It’s easy to pigeonhole the one side – the “right-wing”, “fundamentalists”, whatever you want to call them always get the rap for being too greedy.
No one seems to talk about the other side though. Even the most politically liberal Christians take pause on the subject of money. I hear that Jesus wouldn’t want to be taught about in schools. I hear that Jesus wouldn’t want to be spoken about in government. But Jesus WOULD want the government to be in charge of redistributing the money.
So we don’t want the faith to be associated in people’s minds with the countless and unspeakable atrocities that America commits every day (yes that was sarcasm). So we get as far away as we can from identifying as a “Christian Nation”. Great! Let’s tell the government to institute a flat tax and halt all activities that disproportionately tax the wealthy! Let’s get out there and handle the evangelism AND the giving ourselves!
“But…. oh” you say, “Geez man.. wait.. let’s not get crazy now, Bill! We can trust people to reach souls, but they can’t be trusted to give. Let’s um… let’s make an exception here. Let’s just let the government help us with just the money part. Let’s let them keep up the good and efficient work of distributing our money like Jesus would want, but discourage anyone mentioning the J-word in public. How’s that grab you?”
If you really want the government out of it, let’s get the government out of it!
Several of you have lost hope in me now. You can just imagine me sitting there counting my money and watching Fox News – taking the occasional break to go downtown and run over poor people with my car. Let me tell you I don’t get Fox News anymore and I’ve never run anyone over. I’m not against giving either. I give a fair amount, and (for now) I could certainly give more. I’m not heartless – I just don’t like inconsistency.
EPILOGUE
That is pretty unfocused. That could have really been two or three posts, but there you have it.
We are encouraged every Sunday to get out there and bring Christ to the people. I don’t bring my faith to work, excepting the rare occasion that someone asks and only then when I’m sure no “offendable ears” are listening. That is partially because we (the team, not me personally) have already had unpleasantness over that sort of thing, but mainly because in most work places it just isn’t welcome.
The way they talk, it seems like a lot of people at Church would pat me on the back for this – this keeping of Christ in his place. That sounds weird when you say it like that – almost blasphemous.
I also worry about making public posts about this because I might have to interview for a job before and atheist web-surfer someday. Is that weird? Should I just redefine this fearfulness so it reads like an ideal? Would it change the fact that minding what you put online is a very real concern in today’s economy?
So many questions, but I do know a few things:
According to our founding legal documents, the “Christian Nation” in a legal sense may very well be a myth.
The “Separation Clause” is a myth too.
8:53 am on February 11th, 2008 1
To worry about making public posts about Christianity because an Athiest might interview you is like saying Jews should not wear the Star of David around their neck either. I disagree with both. Church beliefs are separate from work (and school in my opinion). My current boss is a co-pastor of a church and my athiesm/agnosticism didn’t stop him from hiring me, nor was it an issue at all.
Because we are a nation that has religious freedom, each person or parent is responsible for teaching spiritualism/faith in a separate environment on the weekends. By teaching Jesus in school, why not teach all other faiths? Would you want your children going to a public school and being taught Athiesm? I feel the same about Christianity. School is not where it belongs (with the exception of faith-based private schools).
9:02 am on February 11th, 2008 2
With each person only getting 10 minutes to talk, how can you really be sure Huckabee is a “True” believer and the others aren’t? All candidates are going to say that they are Christian. To say otherwise would be political “suicide”. Only God and the candidate themselves knows if they are are “True” believer. To try and figure that out for sure would be a battle you would never win.
11:10 am on February 11th, 2008 3
Bill,
Well, you asked me to reply, so here goes.
Let me start by saying that I think you are TOTALLY on the RIGHT track with your questions and concerns. Second, and I’ve said this before, Pastor Donnie has challenged me (the church-Trinity Family) to re-evaluate my priorities. To do this I have listed the labels: Republican, Conservative, American, Christian, Evangelical, etc. And I have had to put them in proper order. So for me it looks like this: FIRST AND FOREMOST I am Christian. I am a follower of The Christ. EVERYTHING ELSE is distant. And that permeates all facets of my life; there is no area where Christ is off-limits. Next I am an American-I live in the greatest nation in the world. I am free, I have the ability to make money, I can influence government and the list goes on and on. Thirdly I am a Republican-I align myself closely with (most) the ideals of the Republican Party. And lastly I am a conservative-fiscally, some socially, etc. But I am a Christian first-so I have found myself changing some of my politics. I feel that the US is such a wealthy nation that the government should be able to pay (single-payer) for health care for all Americans. I understand church history so I am cautious of legislating Christian morality-no more crusades. And I also know what it is like when the church is drunk with power-it isn’t pretty.
So let’s talk about a few of your premises. I’ll post each premise individually…
(Premise #1 is next)
11:17 am on February 11th, 2008 4
Premise #1: Your “true believer” assumption. I am NOT questioning Huck’s profession of faith or commitment to Christ. HOWEVER, I DO question his methods and stands that he takes as a politician in the name of Jesus and in the name of the church. When Christians yell and shout and act they HAVE to ask themselves who are they hurting and who do they love? Who are they pushing away from Christ? Who are they attracting? Who are they serving? Quietly calling homosexuality a sin is completely biblical (IMO). This should be preached and taught to Christians. This should be understood among Christians as something that can hinder relationships (with Christ and with others). Loudly condemning homosexuals to hell in the public square and pushing for legislation that (appears) to hinder their rights as Americans or to continually identify them as an oppressed minority…well, I don’t think that is a rally cry that shows the love of Christ. Christ didn’t condemn the woman at the well. He approached her (which was socially unacceptable), he opened her eyes, and he offered salvation and forgiveness and then asked her to turn away from her sins. Can’t we do the same? Approach the socially (and religiously) unacceptable, offer love and forgiveness, and then offer teaching. To the illegal alien, to the homosexual, to the oppressed, to the elite, to those that live in sin, to those that are hurting, hungry, imprisoned, etc.
(Premise #2 coming up…)
11:19 am on February 11th, 2008 5
I believe that everyone should enter into a relationship with Christ. I believe that is the heart of God-that no one should perish, but have eternal life. I think Christ is best presented within personal relationships. I think schools should be teaching about every major religion, the basics, to offer understanding. But I don’t really think conversion happens in a public social studies class. I also think it should be OK for a student to carry a Bible, to pray and to chat with their peers and teachers about Christ-that should not be made illegal.
(Premise #3 just a few lines down…)
11:38 am on February 11th, 2008 6
Premise #3: Roles of government (I know I summed that all up). Ultimately it should ALWAYS be the role of the church to take care of the poor, the fatherless, the widowed, the sick, the homeless, and the imprisoned. What happens when the church fails, drops the ball or simply doesn’t have enough money to help everyone? Well, I feel if I am gonna pay taxes then I can choose programs that can help people. I simply think that the government can do more to meet basic health care, housing, and nutritional needs. Now let me say that I am “separating” proselytizing from serving people. In other words, my goal is to meet physical and emotional needs first and foremost (out of genuine care and concern), not to put any strings attached to hear a sermon or to be preached to. To show the love of Christ with no other objective. To be Christ. The command in the Bible is to go and feed the poor, to visit people in prison and to quench the needs of the thirsty. The people didn’t even recognize that it was Christ doing it! They just received the service that was being given to them and survived. Remember, (I feel) conversion happens in relationships.
(Premise #4..below…)
11:39 am on February 11th, 2008 7
Premise #4: Separation of Church and state. Simply put: A person’s faith should never be restricted within the government or public places. The government should always stay out of the affairs of the church. With the rarest of exceptions-if a religion breaks the law-kills, steals, etc. And of course the government should not favor one religion unequally over another to the point where they are adopting a state religion. Christianity should be taught in schools, along with Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hinduism-the major religions of the world. And just the basics. It is what I learned in elementary school, the Big 3, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, I learned the title of their God, the name of their prophet and some basic tenants of their faith. I remember being asked who the Christian prophet or person was in elementary school, I answered “God” and the teacher scolded me…Oh yeah, it was Jesus…the Trinity was not in the books.
(One more in the works)
12:24 pm on February 11th, 2008 8
Let me first say, geez Derin!
I believe I made several wrong impressions here:
I’m not overly worried about faith affecting my employment or I wouldn’t have posted. If the two came head to head somehow, I’d have to change jobs.
I don’t think any religion should be MANDATED in any schools. My main problem with the whole “separation” movement is that they work backwards.
Many diverse groups of people founded this country, and the establishment clause was to stop the government from forcing religion on them or anyone else. It has been twisted into a club to bludgeon all public displays of faith down to the municipal level. Despite the wailing and gnashing of the career whiners, the Ten Commandments on a courthouse does NOT constitute “shoving religion down your throat.” It reflects the people in that community. One of the glorious things about America is that there are thousands of these communities to choose from.
The point isn’t that we need religious schools, the point is that if a community in Montana somewhere WANTS to teach their children that way, their free exercise shouldn’t be restricted. The relevant part of the amendment is “Congress shall make no law.” Any law forcing religious teaching to STOP is more of a violation than anything.
Number two… I don’t know if Huckabee is a true believer or not. I don’t know that much about except he did a commercial with Chuck Norris which was very amusing.
By True Believer, I meant a hypothetical someone that you could KNOW is truly sincere. This is, as you pointed out, not really possible. The point is that the idea that public officials must not turn to their religion when making decisions is foolish. What are they supposed to base it on, YOUR religion?
What I have a problem with is when you hear about some judge overturning a verdict because a juror cited his religious texts. If you live in a community of faith, then a jury of your peers will have people of faith. Following your faith as you determine how to apply the law is exactly what you should do.
Atheism is the only act of faith currently being implemented by the courts. It’s easy to say religion has no place in the public square from that position.
If Congress forced atheism on Olathe schools, I’d protest.
If Olathe chose atheism for its schools, I’d move.
12:31 pm on February 11th, 2008 9
I think the theme here, for me, is that if the government is truly to stay out of it, then they should stay out of it.
The constitution also explicitly reserves to the States all rights not directly conferred to Congress. Let the communities be what they want to be. Congress shouldn’t be out there trying to homogenize our communities.
There is a reason I live in Kansas, and not California. The Californians are happy there, and I’ve no inclination join them. That’s the beauty of the United States.
12:37 pm on February 11th, 2008 10
Premise #5: The US is a Christian Nation or “let’s go back to the way things were”. This means so many things. I agree that many that came here originally came in the name of Christianity and seeking religious freedom or expansion. But many came here with warped intentions: Christopher Columbus to convert the heathens then to ship them back home to fight a war-Christians against Jews. Slavery in the name of Christ. Killing the savage Indians. And then there were the Puritans and the Anabaptists who just wanted to escape religious persecution. I hope I am getting all of my history right there. And I know this is where Donnie’s book comes in. So yeah, we have these built-in protections in the Constitution (Premise #4). But let’s be clear that the Christianity of yesteryear was not always good, accurate, educated nor Christ-like. And let’s not forget the secular shift that has taken foothold. Accept it, understand that the only way to go back is forcibly and in context of hostility and move on, become the minority, become the oppressed. It is the rightful place of Christians anyway! The Christian right served for a time, but now we have to clean up their mess.
Bill, I think that Christians in the past 30-40 years have been sold a lie. I think there has been some history revision (in response to the EEEEvil America revisionists). I think it is time to at least educate ourselves, read the books, understand history and its effects, study the new philosophies and re-evaluate our strategies in context to a changing culture.
Anyway, I’m done. I hope I get responses and criticisms and discussion.
-Derin-
12:39 pm on February 11th, 2008 11
I agree with your statements about Atheism in Olathe. I would feel the same way about them teaching Christianity (in Science class). The absense of Christian teachings doesn’t promote Atheism. If you take your kids to Church every Sunday, they should have a better understanding of Christianity than anything else they devote time to at school.
If Theology was taught as an elective class, I would be all for it and encourage my kid to take it. I do not agree with it being taught along side evolution in a science class.
The 10 commandments are a religious document—but they are also morality list that most people of any faith would agree with. I agree with you that putting them in a courthouse is a non-issue.
12:55 pm on February 11th, 2008 12
Darin: “Quietly calling homosexuality a sin is completely biblical (IMO). This should be preached and taught to Christians.”
Jeff: I completely disagree. If this is what the church has to preach, you can count me out. What if a person is born multi-sexed? Does the church decide which gender they should fall in love with? I believe the church has much more important things to teach.
This is one of the fundamental flaws with Christianity that keeps me away. By reading the Bible and becoming closer to God, you become the judge and jury for your peers and start making up your mind who will be going to hell by their sexual orientation, how they live their life, whether a woman wears jeans, how they raise their kids, how much money you put in the offering plate, etc.
3:18 pm on February 11th, 2008 13
Derin, if you want to be made fun of, you don’t have to ask me twice! That is what you meant right? I do like to both appreciate and make fun of your thorough responses.
It all comes down to mandates. I don’t think the federal government should require OR forbid any religious education. At the very highest, it should be a state issue.
3:38 pm on February 11th, 2008 14
“By reading the Bible and becoming closer to God, you become the judge and jury for your peers and start making up your mind who will be going to hell by their sexual orientation, how they live their life, whether a woman wears jeans, how they raise their kids, how much money you put in the offering plate, etc.”
I’m sure you’ve seen that, but it isn’t a rule. I think that if you see a person that does not know Christ and is sinning mightily, you need to focus on Christ first. If anyone is going to repent of anything, it’ll be on Christ’s authority – not mine.
Homosexuality isn’t the only unpopular issue either. Volumes have been written on tithing as well. The Bible does indeed mention it several times, but it also tells you that you can tithe your way right into Hell and recounts Jesus telling the pharisees “Yea, it’s great that you tithed and obeyed the law, but you miss the whole point if you keep being self-righteous jerks.”
I’m paraphrasing obviously – maybe even a little too flippantly – but you get the idea. People need to hear the truth, but you have made a grave error if you ran someone off from the Church by casting the “first stone.”
4:26 pm on February 12th, 2008 15
I must admit I didn’t read all of the comments. But Bill, I’m glad you read my blog. I know you’ll always have a thoughtful response.
I could lend you that book, Myth of a Christian Nation, if you’d like.
I’ve also had the Maxed Out DVD in my bag for months, meaning to give it to you at church. If you remind me, I’ll get it to you this Sunday.
8:01 pm on February 12th, 2008 16
I have a couple Hawkeye DVDs you can probably have back now, too. I believe I got them when we had dinner with you all the first time we went to TFN.
If you didn’t read that part, I did clear up that I don’t think the Huckabee is a True Believer that will lead us all to glory and honor. I don’t dislike the guy, but yea.. anyway. Looking forward to the movie this week!
8:17 am on February 13th, 2008 17
I think we can all blame Darin for people not reading all the comments!
10:23 pm on February 20th, 2008 18
If I could vote for any of the candidates that are still in it now-I probably woould not vote for Huckabee.
Why? He’s a Christian, so I should vote for a Christian right.
Well for starters, as a group, we evangelicals voted for Bush because he claimed to be a Chrsitian, and I must say I am not happy with the results.
Secondly, I think what most people call pro-life is very narrow. I am pro-life, so I am against abortion. However, because I am pro-life, I am also against unnecesary and unwarrented wars, and poverty, and walking over weaker countries so we can have their resources, and enviromental degradation, and homelessness, etc. These to me are all pro-life issues.
Also, I don’t think that Christains should seek to win the majority of political offices so we can force people to live our way of life. However, because the gov affects many issues of justice, I think we still have to be involved some how. I think we need to find a way to speak up about injustices without overpowering others. Find exactly how to do this is the challenge.
12:40 am on February 21st, 2008 19
You employ a connotation with words and phrases like “unwarranted wars”, “walking over weaker countries”, and “environmental degradation” that makes it impossible to disagree with you. Of course no one wants to degrade the environment. Rejecting the idea that humans have drastically changed the climate doesn’t mean I have contempt for the environment and want it destroyed.
Take pacifism. I certainly want to avoid a fight, but I sure wouldn’t call myself a pacifist. That would be rather disingenuous. It’s easy be a pacifist when the conflict is far way. How about when you are out for a walk some evening and someone attacks your wife or children? It’s not so easy then. Should I feel obligated to sit back and allow my family to be harmed? On the contrary, I feel obligated to zealously remove that person’s ability to cause harm.
12:44 am on February 21st, 2008 20
Regarding DarthBen’s first point:
I didn’t mean to imply a specific person with that true believer talk. I don’t think Christianity should be mandated, but I don’t think one should have to hide it if that is a part of your character and the people chose you.
It disgusts me when I hear about a case being thrown out of court because a juror consulted a Bible. You are entitled to a jury of your peers. Some of your peers are Christians. The idea that you should be forced to leave your belief at the door is foolishness. The idea that the Constitution somehow disallows this would be comical if so many people didn’t believe it.
9:41 am on February 21st, 2008 21
Well that’s exactly why I used those words. I used “environmental degradation” because I know many people don’t believe in global warming. However, I think it would be foolish to disregard the idea that humans can affect the environment. We certainly can on a local level. There’s only so much waste we can put into the earth, and only so many resources we can take from it. We’ve seen local environments be severely affected by humans. The question is if we can affect the environment on a global level to cause something like global warming-that question may be still up in the air, but I think if we can affect the environment on a local level, it would probably be possible on a global level.
I also used the words “unnecessary wars” because few people want them. However, by using those words I am implying that I think the war in Iraq was unnecessary.
However, whether or not someone wants to degrade the environment (which most people do not) or wants unnecessary wars (which most people do not) is not really the point. The point is whether they want something else so much that they are willing to degrade the environment and are willing to wage an unnecessary war to get it. For example, the average CEO of a corporation probably does not enjoy degrading the environment, however if that’s what it takes to make a profit s/he often will do so.
5:05 pm on February 22nd, 2008 22
DarthBen,
I know you mean well Ben, I know you…
I think your logic of not voting for Huackabee because he is a Christian and Bush is a Christian and you voted for him…Christians and Christianity had its political chance and so now let’s try something else-that logic is flawed, it is throwing all Christians in the same bucket!
I also echo Bill’s sentiments…I don’t want the US to be in an unwarranted war nor wage war against the environment nor inflict its freedom and liberty on weak, defenseless dictatorship counties that oppress their people.
I do want peace. And to achieve that sometimes leadership and governments that kill needs to be forcibly removed-this is the most pro-life and just thing that can be done.
-Derin-
8:15 pm on February 22nd, 2008 23
Derin I have no doubt that you want peace, and I have no doubt that you are pro-life, and I assume that you are referring to the Iraq war when you say that sometimes governments that kill need to be forcibly removed.
However, this war was may more complicated than that. The UN did not support us in this war because they said that Iraq did not pose that kind of a threat. Also Paul O’neil, a former member of one of Bush’s first cabinents, has come out and said that Bush wanted to invade Iraq way before 9-11, which is suspicious because the Bush admin. tried to link Iraq to the 9-11 attacks. Also, it has come out that the main reason we were ever interrested in attacking Iraq is because we tried to make an oil deal with Hussien and he refused. Now given, Hussein was no moral leader, but there was no warrent for this war. Now obviously we have to choose who we believe. Do we believe our gov, or people who have come out of the gov who are saying these things that I am referring too. However, Bush to me has proven to be most untrustworthy.
It is a myth taht removing a government through violence will establish peace-it may not be a myth that governments will ever get past, and it may not be myth that will be denied this side of Jesus returning, but it is a myth.
Hussien was not angel, but to me that fact was only an excuse to wage an unnecesary war that the UN did not want us to get into.
Also, if we want to remove governments who kill and oppress people-should we start with our own?
8:53 pm on February 22nd, 2008 24
Do pushups, DarthBen, and while you’re at it, move to Canada! HA! Derin, you are an honorary soldier for the day. You must shine at RISK, huh? I love ya
9:10 pm on February 22nd, 2008 25
We should ignore murder when the murderer isn’t a threat to us? Are we supposed to call out injustice or aren’t we? Did you protest the arrest of the beltway snipers because they were way over on the east coast?
I’ll tell you what is a myth. It is a myth that if we just hold hands long enough murdering types will stop their murdering.
You, DarthBen, and the rest of us are in a pretty sweet position over here. If you feel so embarrassed to be a part of this nation, at least it is one where you can do something about it. I can’t say the same for Iraq.
10:08 pm on February 22nd, 2008 26
I’m not suggesting that we should ignore murderers who are not a threat to us. I’m suggesting that we did not go over there to stop a murderer, we went over there because it was in our best interest in many many ways, because of resources, because it’s in the middle east, etc. We simply used the fact that Sudaam is not a moral leader as an excuse. We should be concerned about injustice that goes on around the world that does not affect us-but we do not. Why do we not go to other certian countries who have murderous governments?…Because there’s nothing in it for us.
The ultimate goal should not be to stop murderers (although that is important), the ultimate goal should be to get rid of murder-and we’re not going to accomplish that through war. Perhaps war is necesary at times. However, war does not ultimately lead to peace, therefore it should be used as the last option-which was not the case conceringing the war in Iraq in my opinion. War does not ultimately lead to peace-it may stop the fighting for a time, but eventually those who were defeated will rise up in violence again, or those who get trampled on under a world power will rise up in violence.
Were their benefits from us going to Iraq? Of course, it’s a good thing that Hussien is out of power-but whatever good side affects there are should not overshadow the issue of whether or not it was just for us to go to war in the first place.
You’re right Bill, holding our hands will probably not get rid of murderers or murder. And I don’ think we should hold our hands-we should seek avenues that lead to peace. And I don’t think that using force to disarm others is wrong-but we should be seeking for reconciliation when that is possible, not just the elimiination of the threat.
What is better, to be killed, or to become murderers ourselves? And what is our ultimate goal, to elimanate our enemies, or reconciliation.
My basic point that I think I’m getting at is that war does not lead to peace, so therefore it should be the last resort. And I’m having a hard time seeing how our war with Iraq was a last resort.
Finally, Bill your right, we do have it pretty cozy over here. And much of that is becuase of our hard work as a country. However, how much of that is because we use our power to exploit other countries for their resources.
And you may be right about us being able to do something about our country. However, I feel like this is becoming less and less true. There are so many things that go on in the government that we don’t know about because we’re the “lay people.” But shouldn’t we have a say in what goes in our government-in the people’s government. I feel less and less like we have a democracy. Ultimately I fear that the presidential candidates are all the same-they may have different views, but they all seem to be motivated by self interest.
10:40 pm on February 22nd, 2008 27
Derin,
I totally passed over something you wrote before so I wanted to respond to it.
You said,
“I think your logic of not voting for Huackabee because he is a Christian and Bush is a Christian and you voted for him…Christians and Christianity had its political chance and so now let’s try something else-that logic is flawed, it is throwing all Christians in the same bucket!”
Well I wasn’t trying to say (although I may have said it differently than I meant) that I will not vote for Huckabee because he’s a Christian. What I meant to say is that we should not get our hopes and think that he is going to turn this country around and lead it to Christ just because he’s a Christian, ans lets not assume that he’s the best candidate simply because he’s a Baptist minister. I don’t know how many people think this, but when Bush was elected, both times there seemed to be this idea among evangelicals that because he was a Christain he was going to save the country for Christ. And I’m saying that to whatever extent we beleived this, we should learn from it.
Right now I would not vote for Huckabee-not because he’s a Christian, but because his moral value radar seems to be too narrow. However, I still have some reserching to do.
10:44 pm on February 22nd, 2008 28
I just wanted to say that although I obvioulsy disagree with many of you guys quite a bit-I love all of you, and I’m glad to know you.
Also, tomorrow night we’re having a party to watch the Star Wars episode of Family guy. If any of you are fans of Family Guy feel free to come. (Although, if you’re not familiar with Family Guy…it’s not a kid’s show, so I wouldn’t recommend bringing your kids over, which I know unfortunately will probably eliminate the possbility of you guy’s coming, but if you can make it, sweet!)
11:16 pm on February 22nd, 2008 29
One vocal criticism of the was on terror is that you can’t declare war on a concept or method. We can only hope to contain terrorISM by dealing decisively with terrorISTS.
There are several perspectives that can be taken with the Iraq was depending on the conclusion you want to come to. Perhaps we should be dismayed that we never got Saddam sooner because his local atrocities weren’t a good enough excuse. Maybe the real tragedy is that we sat by so long and it took the added incentive of economics to get us to act?
My main point is we are not necessarily morally obligated to be reactive. If you see someone about to be stabbed, you don’t have to wait until the strike to try to stop it.
Regarding the Family Guy Star Wars, let me say (if you haven’t seen it already) that I am sure everyone will enjoy it. I’ve seen it and it is really good stuff!
3:39 pm on February 24th, 2008 30
Another criticism of the war on terrorism is that not only will it not contain terrorists, but that it will create more of them. I think this goes back to why would terrorists attack us in the first place. I don’t think I buy the “They hate us cause we’re free” argument. I’ve been reading more and more about things our government has done around the world to create enemies, like overthrowing governments because they are no in our best interest, and like abusing our power to get resources from other countries. I even read a quote from a speech that Bill Clinton gave to the UN saying that the US has the right to use its power to gain access to whatever resources it wants. Also, John Perkins has come out and written a book about being involved as what is nicknamed an “economic hit man,” basically saying that his job use to be to convince other countries to make deals with our corporations and/or the world bank that were not beneficial at all to those countries, and if those countries did not agree-then we would send jackals in to assassinate the leaders, and in some cases if that didn’t work, we would use military force. If this stuff is going on, which Perkins claims he was involved with this kind of business in several countries all around the world, then we are creating a dominating world empire, and it would be understandable why people are upset with us, or hate us enough to attack us. Besides what Perkins claims, the CIA has admitted that it has been involved in this kind of foreign policy.
If this stuff has been going on, and if we ignore it, then we are ignoring one of the bases for terrorism
The US gov has been more than reactive towards other countries that they feel pose a threat, however, the gov seems to be apathetic to countries that offer no incentive to help them.
It’s interesting that many church denominations view war from the just war theory-and that the Iraq war did not fullfill the requirements of the just war theory, yet most churches supported the war. This makes it look like churches talk about one thing and then live by another. I’m not sure off the top of my head if the Nazarene Church has anything in its manual about war or the just war theory though.
I see your point that we are not necessarily obligated to be reactive. And I think that wherever we have the ability to stop violence we should, however all the while seeking for a way to do it nonviolently if possible. Using violence to stop violence in one sense is preventing destruction, but in another sense it is affirming the same violence that we are trying to stop.
On a national level it is interesting to see how our gov has and will respond to other countries who they see as a threat. Even if we are working from a perspective of not waiting until someone else strikes-there was and still is no evidence that Iraq had the weapons that our gov claimed they did, and a gov study has come out that has said there is no evidence that Iran has the weapons that the Bush Admin. claims that they do. It will be interesting to see how our gov will deal with the Iran issue, but I hope that whatever lessons have been learned through our mistakes with Iraq will be applied to the issue with Iran.
5:25 pm on February 24th, 2008 31
I don’t think they hate us for our freedom, but I do think there is a lot of disdain for us simply for being on top and having what other people don’t have – notwithstanding our foreign policies or cultural excess. I mean to say that good-will wise, we’re behind the 8-ball to start.
I don’t think violence affirms violence at all. Imagine some petty crime such as a person – with no weapons – trying to jump you and take your wallet. Let’s say you manage to subdue them and call the police.
This affirmation philosophy says that you are no better than the criminal because you responded to his fists with your fists. I don’t believe that. I believe you both used the same tools. He used his to cause harm, and you used yours to PREVENT it.
On the continuum with “America can do no wrong” on one end and “Everything you read about America’s evil is true” on the other, I’m sure the truth is in the middle somewhere. I hear your concerns and they are valid.
As we address those; however, we also need to realize that in the world’s view there is no right way to do this. If we stay away from everyone else we are criticized. If we aid others, but not enough according to some third party we are criticized. Anything we do that might happen to benefit America AND the 2nd party will be criticized. And obviously predatory activity will be criticized. There will always be critics – even if we all emptied our surplus to foreign charity. It will never be enough until the mentality that others deserve what we have just because we have it goes away (I’m talking beyond necessities).
I’m not saying we shouldn’t help – not at all. We should and will do more. But imagine that one glorious day, all people have clean water and clothing, sustainable food and medicine, and local economies to employ them. If our standard of living here in the States is still higher than theirs, we’ll be drug through the mud for not doing more.
I don’t mean that we should aid others for the brownie points. We should aid others because there is a need. I understand giving humbly, and even anonymously. I prefer it personally. I DO mean that public (world) opinion will never be a suitable way to measure our effectiveness.
5:55 pm on February 24th, 2008 32
I think one of the hardest things for me is distinguishing between what I as a Christian should do, and what realistically a nation should do, and how we should go about bringing change in nations and governments. If my gov is doing wrong towards others, how do I respond to that. I think that trying to use politics to dominate others into living a different way won’t really solve anything, but then how should I respond? How do I stick up for people who are people who are being dominated by powers without trying to be dominating myself? I think that maybe that’s my biggest problem with violence-that it is usually used as a means to dominate others.
In response to what you said about a robber trying to steal a wallet and me defending myself-I see your point there. But what if it’s not as black and white as that. I mean-we all think that we are the most responsible persons or countries to own weapons. But when we look at the issue with Iran right now, our gov is basically saying that it’s okay for us to have weapons of mass destruction to defend ourselves but not for other countries to have them to defend their selves. But of course we think we are responsible enough to have them, right?
Somewhat relating to that-I read a quote by Jimmy Carter that said, “We cannot have it both ways-we can’t be the largest manufacturer of weapons and the biggest champion for peace.”
I also see your point that certain peoples will always be unhappy with us no matter what. However, at this point in history, I think much of that unhappiness is warrented when we consider the gap there is between how much America consumes of the world’s resources, and because of how we obtain some of those resources. At some point, if we do provide a livable life for everyone and some are still unhappy with us-then at least we can take pride that we have provided what all people deserve. Until then we have little reason to take such pride-not so much on a gov level anyway-but as the church of Christ is living out his mission, at least we can be proud of what we’re doing-and I’ve never been more proud of the church that I attend than I am with Trinity Family.
6:45 pm on February 24th, 2008 33
A good friend of mine currently serving in the army once told me this regarding owning a gun: “…it should either be loaded under your pillow or left at the store.”
I have no business owning a gun. I don’t have experience firing one (not a pistol anyway), I’m not trained, and I certainly haven’t been educated on the psychological judgment and aftermath issues that coincide with actually using one.
But I don’t think that guns should be outlawed.
I’m much more comfortable with, say, the UK having nukes than Iran.
6:50 pm on February 24th, 2008 34
I’ve been very happy with TFN as well. I was a little shocked to see how long we’ve been going there (off and on at first I’m sure). I’m glad all this discussion is so welcome.
This morning Donnie expressed some concern that he hadn’t blogged about anything that made me mad lately.
He promised to do better!
12:03 am on February 25th, 2008 35
At some point when someone is taking your wallet, good old animal instinct kicks in. You are programmed with self preservation and instincts to protect your family.
If someone is trying to cause me harm, label me what you want. If I am able, I will be throwing that gentleman a beating with whatever God happens to put next to me (fist, tree limb, rock, etc.).
You don’t have to have shooting skills to own a gun. If someone is breaking into your house, shoot in his/her general direction and chances are good that they will stop breaking in.
10:58 pm on February 25th, 2008 36
I understand what our instincts are. I don’t know exactly how I’d respond to someone who was trying to steal my wallet, or breaking into my house, but I think that what I struggle with the most is this:
As a Christian, how do passages like Jesus telling his followers to turn the other cheek when they are struck, and to give someone our cloak if they take our coat, and to go the extra mile (which I don’t see as commands to be passive doormats, but instead to be a non-violent way of standing up for one’s self), or the passage where Jesus said that his followers should not just love their friends, but their enemies as well, and where Jesus tells them that they have to pick up their cross to follow him. And the fact that the writers of the rest of the New Testament, Paul, John, Peter-all tell their audience to follow in Jesus’ example of living by self sacrifice, of being willing to suffer rather than doing harm…How should these passages affect how I respond to a situation like someone robbing me or beating me?
I totally understand what you wrote earlier about using violence as a tool, and how it can be used for good or for harm. And in a sense I agree with that, it makes sense. But I don’t see that kind of teaching in the New Testament-the kind of teaching that encourages followers to use violence for the cause of peace and justice. Instead it seems to discourage followers from using violence altogether.
So how should my response to being robbed be formed by the NT?
This reminds me of a true story I read a while ago. A lady was living by herself in a house, and she woke up in the middle of the night and saw a strange man standing in her room. She didn’t know if he intended to rob her or rape her, but instead of screaming she decided to talk. She asked him what time it was. He said he didn’t know cause his watch was broken. She asked him how he had gotten in, and he told her he had broken the kitchen window. She expressed how much that would cost to fix. They talked for a while, and then she asked him to leave, but he said he did not have any place to stay. So she made a place for him to sleep on her couch in the living room. The next morning he ate breakfast with her and left.
Perhaps this kind of reaction is unrealistic, I don’t know, but there is something incredibly beautiful to me about this story. And it reminds of Donnie’s message on Sunday that sometimes what we’re called to do may look insane to others.
8:51 pm on February 27th, 2008 37
I don’t continually ask myself “What would Jesus do?”—probably because I am not a Christian. But I do know many Christians that have many weapons at home and wouldn’t hesitate to shoot at an intruder.
Those passages seem to me like you should think of others before yourself and try to rationalize why they are acting that way rather than retaliating with raw emotion. However, I don’t think it was meant to say not to defend yourself.
I agree with Donny about looking insane to others. Any time you feel strongly about something and take a stand (pro-life, gun control, animal rights, etc.) you polarize a group somewhere. I am sure some group somewhere thinks that non-Christians are insane.
5:31 pm on March 4th, 2008 38
Wow, I just now read through all of this. Glad my blog post could prompt such great discussion.
Bill, let’s switch my Hawkeye DVD’s for your Maxed Out DVD’s, I forgot I’d lent those to you.
I think the best line of the whole discussion was when Ben wrote, “Another criticism of the war on terrorism is that not only will it not contain terrorists, but that it will create more of them.”
I must say I agree with that. When Western countries took over the middle East after WWI and began imposing our will and our boundaries on them, they started hating us. I realize my historical theory may have holes, but this makes sense to me.
My theory for stopping terrorism is this: Insanely protect the borders for one generation and the terrorism will stop. If we remove our military bases from Muslim holy ground and stop believing we MUST have unrestricted access to oil that isn’t even ours, the poeple in the middle east will eventually stop hating us. If we quit oppressing them, they’ll stop hating us.
There was a picture of a young Iraqi boy of about 8 on the cover of Newsweek awhile ago, he was holding an machine gun. The headline said, “the next generation of Jihadists.” Unfortunately, our oppressive military presence is creating another generation of “haters.”
4:08 pm on March 5th, 2008 39
I’ve seen pictures of 8 year old Iraqi boys filled with glee at the site of an American soldier, too. Not on the cover of any American media, mind you, but they are out there.
Many Iraqis are happy we got rid of Saddam.
Many Iraqis are angry we are in their country.
We went to rid them of an oppressor.
We went to protect our oil interests.
Reducing our presence in the middle east will deter some terrorists.
Reducing our presence in the middle east will embolden some terrorists.
These are not mutually exclusive statements, and they are ALL true to varying degrees. It is a very complex situation, obviously.
What is not a complex issue, in my opinion, is that violence is justified sometimes. Sometimes there isn’t time to talk.
When a child reaches for a hot stove, we grab their hand or slap it away. We talk later.
When a man raises his fist to a child, we likewise put a stop to the behavior and discuss it afterward.
You have heard the old adage “There are no atheists in fox-holes.” Crudely adapted, it might read like this: “There are no pacifists when you’re getting your ass kicked.”
There may be one or two – just as there were probably staunch atheists in a foxhole or two – but they are few and I doubt any of them commented in this thread.
5:52 pm on March 5th, 2008 40
But I think there is still the issue-how are we supposed to react to getting our asses kicked-according to the New Testament. Jesus was a pacifist when he was getting his ass kicked, and it seems that his followers are called to his same way of self sacrafice. Putting national policy to the side, because nations are likely never going to stop using violence to fight violence, how I am as a Christian called to react to getting my ass kicked.
There have been more than one or two people who have been pacifists while getting their asses kicked, and there movements have been some of the most powerful movements.
Also, there are verying degrees of violence-I don’t imagine anyone objecting to stopping a kid from touching a hot stove, but this is much different than stopping someone from doing something by killing them.
I think there are degrees of violence that are justified-but as a Christian I don’t see how killing fits in with loving my enemy, I don’t see how I could be loving my enemy by killing them.
8:08 pm on March 5th, 2008 41
Soemthing else I was thinking about:
I think something perhaps we can agree on is that we cannot base our decisions on how other people percieve-although it is vitally important to be aware of this and to learn from it. No matter what we do-some people are still going to be angry with us, we cannot control this, all we can control is whether we do what’s right.
Something you said was (paraphrasing here) Many People are glad that we are over there and many people are not. This is a good point. And I think that in general the people that are happy with us being over there are people who wanted Sadaam out of power, and the people who do not want us over there are people we percieve as enemies and who percieve us as enemies.
I think this is where one of the distinguishing marks of Jesus teachings comes in (although he is not the only one to talk this way)-and that is that we cannot just protect someone by getting rid of the enemy-but that we are called to love the enemy as well. The natural tendency is to protect the innocent and get rid of the enemy, and while it is a noble cause to want to protect the innocent, Jesus kingdom asks us to do more than just eliminate the enemy.