A lot of the time when I tell people that I am not among the horde planning on voting for Senator Obama, I am greeted with a quizzical expression. Apparently, the fact that I come across as mildly well-informed and somewhat well-intentioned doesn't equate in their minds with voting for Senator McCain. So as to alleviate some of their disequilibrium, I thought I'd offer some of the reasons I have for my irrational choice.
For one thing, I just don't get it. I'll grant anyone that he's a charming speaker, but if a pleasant persona were the criteria for the Presidency we'd all be voting for Tom Hanks and be done with it. Beyond this, I'm just not seeing what sets him apart from the rest of the gang. His policies, when he isn't off writing yet another autobiography and shows up to vote, are a part of the same Left-wing as a whole gaggle of others. He is a consistent Left-winger who votes with the Left-wing and hangs out with an even more Left-wing. I'm a conservative, ergo, I don't want him for the job.
I can understand the Left in America liking him, considering that he is one of them, but I don't get what the Center sees in this guy. What bothers me about so many of these Centrists is that they don't seem to know what they see in him either. They tell me that he'll bring the change we need to Washington. When I ask them to tell me what part of his record demonstrates that he even can bring about this change or that it is the change we need, they come up short on specifics. Now we can't be too hard on them. It's not their fault that he's done so little.
I'm told they want him in the White House because he understands their values. Really? How do you know that? He says so in his speeches? Call me crazy, but isn't that kind of what politicians are supposed to do? It's not like there's someone out there saying that you should elect him because he doesn't feel your pain. I haven't seen anything in what he's done to support all his pretty rhetoric, and no one who supports him has told me much either.
I'm not quite sure how to handle those whose first justification for supporting my Senator is that anything will be better than what we have now. Am I supposed to take that comment seriously? You think anyone would be better? If so, why don't you vote for me? I'm different! Aside from the fact that I won't be old enough until April, you'd be crazy to vote for someone so unqualified as me for the Presidency no matter how nice a guy you thought I was.
I am amazed about one thing concerning Obama. Apparently, it is impossible to have a valid criticism about him. It seems that anytime anyone brings up a point where he looks bad it turns out that that person is all about destructive politics. What an amazing coincidence! Obama can't be held accountable for going to a racist church for 20 years, but the unsolicited endorsement of an anti-Catholic pastor says something disturbing about McCain. When his supporters say spiteful things about the GOP candidates it's because they are passionate, but when angry words come from the Right, then they are just being hateful.
Now my final excuse for avoiding logic is one that a lot of his conservative supporters seem to want to push to the periphery. They tell me Evangelicals, like myself, need to show our independence as a group from the GOP by voting as a group for the Dems. They tell me that we need to get beyond single-issue voting choice and examine the whole range of issues.
Fair enough on the surface, but tell me this. If a candidate had consistently voted to maintain the privileges of companies willfully responsible for deaths of huge numbers of children, how would this affect your vote? If the police or military were systematically using kids as target practice and seemed to favor doing so with minorities, would you say this was the way to go? Senator Obama has consistently supported such a scheme that has killed not 4,000 or 40,000 but 40,000,000 plus. Is this the change you can believe in? Is this your hope? If this is not a single issue worth making or breaking your support, what would it take?
I don't want him for the job because he is spectacularly unqualified for the position, I don't think his policies are well-founded, and he is promising more than I see he has reason to vouch for. My question for the Centrist is this: What is it in Senator Obama's policies and record (and I mean record, not rhetoric) that distinguishes him from the rest of the crowd? Disagree with me if you want. If you're convinced he's the man for the job, then more power to you. If you agree with his voting record, then you should vote for someone who agrees with you. We ALL want a better world. Who's has the better chance of moving towards that right now?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Finding Yourself at Church
Like most American church kids, I grew up going to Wednesday night church each week. For much of this time it was all an unmitigated misery as we were compelled to participate in choir activities and then rebuked for not displaying the proper enthusiasm. Granted, there were plenty of us who somehow enjoyed spending the evening singing songs when we could have been playing hide-and-seek or other pleasant diversions, but I just thought those folks were weird.
Needless to say I was greatly pleased when we finally reached the age when we were deemed worthy of activities more interesting than becoming cannon fodder for off-key “show off to your parents” performances. One of the first times where I recall my own individuality being taken into consideration was when they gave us a “Spiritual Gifts” test. For those who don’t know, these tests are basically personality tests that help you figure out what sort of things you are best at or interested in. Armed with this knowledge you can then know how your particular skill set can contribute to the overall community. I can spend my life looking up obscure points of historical interest while my friend Sarah Catherine can continue to enjoying singing as much as she did when we were in choir together twenty-five years ago.
On the one hand, this whole approach makes a whole lot of sense. Taking these sorts of tests helps you distill out from your own desires and the expectations of others what kind of role you can play in the church as you grow up. This is an integral part of the Christian message. Any group of people will have a mix of gifts within it that each will be necessary for healthy growth and life and none of these gifts can be seen as fundamentally greater or lesser than another since they all depend on one another. To put it fancily, what is functionally hierarchical is ontologically egalitarian. (Big words are fun!)
On the other hand, there are some ways in which this focus on an individual’s own interests and practical abilities is open to a peculiarly American form of misunderstanding. We Americans are a very practical people. We are very good at getting things done. It might not be the right thing all the time, but we sure are going to find a way to do it, dammit! Our focus on functionality and the bottom line is one of the key things, for good or ill, that has made us so influential in the world.
In addition to this we are incurable romantics. We believe wholeheartedly that deep down in our hearts we can just know what we need to do. If I have a longing to do this or that, then surely this is what God wants me to do. We have trouble with the idea that it could ever be a good thing to do something as our life’s work that does not resonate with something deep within. Our love for the individual’s quest to find himself in the world leads us to pay attention internal impressions and the practical ability to do given task.
I begin to get antsy when I wonder how consistent our connection between interest/skills and calling is with examples of calling as seen in the Bible. We tend to seek for ourselves and suggest to others that their proper role for God in this life can be found by looking to our practical abilities and within our hearts at what we most enjoy doing. How often in the many biblical accounts of someone being called to an office or even a temporary role is that person’s practical qualifications or even desire to perform the thing in question even mentioned?
The focus in the Bible is much more on the incompetence and unwilling nature of the “hero” than on his ability and eagerness. Even when, with our 20/20 hindsight, we can look back and see how a Moses or a Peter was able to accomplish some great deed for God, is there any mention or real expectation at the time of their calling that they could even do the thing asked of them? Is there any suggestion that an Abraham or an Amos enjoyed the tasks given to them? Or that they had always felt the call towards it? If these things are not the priority in the Bible, then should we really put so much focus on them ourselves?
Needless to say I was greatly pleased when we finally reached the age when we were deemed worthy of activities more interesting than becoming cannon fodder for off-key “show off to your parents” performances. One of the first times where I recall my own individuality being taken into consideration was when they gave us a “Spiritual Gifts” test. For those who don’t know, these tests are basically personality tests that help you figure out what sort of things you are best at or interested in. Armed with this knowledge you can then know how your particular skill set can contribute to the overall community. I can spend my life looking up obscure points of historical interest while my friend Sarah Catherine can continue to enjoying singing as much as she did when we were in choir together twenty-five years ago.
On the one hand, this whole approach makes a whole lot of sense. Taking these sorts of tests helps you distill out from your own desires and the expectations of others what kind of role you can play in the church as you grow up. This is an integral part of the Christian message. Any group of people will have a mix of gifts within it that each will be necessary for healthy growth and life and none of these gifts can be seen as fundamentally greater or lesser than another since they all depend on one another. To put it fancily, what is functionally hierarchical is ontologically egalitarian. (Big words are fun!)
On the other hand, there are some ways in which this focus on an individual’s own interests and practical abilities is open to a peculiarly American form of misunderstanding. We Americans are a very practical people. We are very good at getting things done. It might not be the right thing all the time, but we sure are going to find a way to do it, dammit! Our focus on functionality and the bottom line is one of the key things, for good or ill, that has made us so influential in the world.
In addition to this we are incurable romantics. We believe wholeheartedly that deep down in our hearts we can just know what we need to do. If I have a longing to do this or that, then surely this is what God wants me to do. We have trouble with the idea that it could ever be a good thing to do something as our life’s work that does not resonate with something deep within. Our love for the individual’s quest to find himself in the world leads us to pay attention internal impressions and the practical ability to do given task.
I begin to get antsy when I wonder how consistent our connection between interest/skills and calling is with examples of calling as seen in the Bible. We tend to seek for ourselves and suggest to others that their proper role for God in this life can be found by looking to our practical abilities and within our hearts at what we most enjoy doing. How often in the many biblical accounts of someone being called to an office or even a temporary role is that person’s practical qualifications or even desire to perform the thing in question even mentioned?
The focus in the Bible is much more on the incompetence and unwilling nature of the “hero” than on his ability and eagerness. Even when, with our 20/20 hindsight, we can look back and see how a Moses or a Peter was able to accomplish some great deed for God, is there any mention or real expectation at the time of their calling that they could even do the thing asked of them? Is there any suggestion that an Abraham or an Amos enjoyed the tasks given to them? Or that they had always felt the call towards it? If these things are not the priority in the Bible, then should we really put so much focus on them ourselves?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A Souring Sensation
When I was growing up in Nashville the people living next to our house were rabid fans of the University of Tennessee. As anyone who’s met a UT fan can assure you, there is something about such fans that can go well beyond mere mania. My neighbors were so incredibly excited about their boys in orange that they have forever turned me against my native state’s most prominent college team. Having their fight song Rocky Top screamed at you is somehow not endearing.
It’s not as though I now intellectually believe that there is something wrong with the Volunteers. They are neither more nor less moral a sports franchise than any of the other “amateur” athletes. But after years of their garish insistence on the superiority of all things that lovely shade of orange I cannot emotionally bring myself to side with them. The obnoxiousness of that advocacy has forever soured UT in my mind.
Years later I encountered another sort of fan. This kind is not nearly so annoying but still manages to turn my allegiance away from the focus of their team-loyalty. It’s like this. Have you ever been watching a game with some friends where you go into it not caring who wins? You could be just as easily persuaded to go along with your friends as to root to the other guy. Yet the more you listen to your buds, the more you want the other guy to win.
I remember one particular time watching a college basketball game. Neither team was “mine” so I was content (at first) at least not to cheer against my friends. Tragically, my resilience was not strong enough to withstand the temptation. By the end of the game I was actively going for the other team. Unlike my UT fanatics these friends weren’t throwing their team colors in my face or even pressuring me to join them.
The problem this time was the unhinged irrationality coming from people who I could otherwise count on for their solid sensibility. Every time a ref would make a call in their favor was “about time!” since it was obviously only their due. Every time that same ref made a call against their team it was just as obviously a bad call flowing from the ref’s bias. My otherwise rational friends were sincerely convinced that the powers that be were actively working to prevent their team from winning.
From my neutral perspective I found this baffling. Despite their insistence to the contrary there simply was no greater amount of calls going against their team than those going for them. I simply could not bring myself to support their guys when they had such ephemeral reasons for doing so. If going for that team left my friends bereft of their faculties I didn’t think that was the course for me.
This sort of counter reaction spills out from sporting events into the real world combat of politics. Jogging through my neighborhood I have repeatedly come across a van that I really wish wasn’t there. Despite being several hundred miles north of the Mason-Dixon Line this vehicle sports a collection of Confederate flags. Whatever positive connotations the Rebel flag might have in some people’s minds there is a far more common negative feeling associated with it thanks to the boys in the KKK. For most Americans this flag is connected with ignorance and hatred.
If this were all the van was emblazoned with then it would simply be a matter of either a racist or someone unaware that everyone around him thinks he is a racist. Unfortunately for my political sympathies, this guy also has bumper stickers supporting the party and some of the particular candidates that I usually go for. I am sorely tempted to scrape off the pro-Republican stickers since I don’t want the people in this largely Hispanic neighborhood to think that to be conservative is to be racist. This guy’s obnoxiousness, just as with the UT fans, would be enough to keep me from voting his way had I not my own reasons for going for the GOP.
This souring sensation also explains part of my opposition to my Senator’s quest for the Presidency. Like with my otherwise reasonable sports fan friends, I am disturbed by the nature of some of my friends support for Obama. It is not so much that they give me reasons for doing so that I then disagree with as much as it is as they offer so little reason for supporting him in the first place.
I have heard all sorts of reasons why he should get the top job, but none of them has any specific substance to them. All I hear are platitudes about how great a communicator he is, or what a great moment it would be to have an African-American in the White House or how we all need to believe in hope. No one goes into any detail about how his words of hope and change are going be translated from rhetoric into reality. No one seems to think its important that they can’t cite anything he has done in the past as proof of what he can and will do in the future.
People talk about how he is not a part of the DC political machine, but they don’t notice that he’s been in thick with the Chicago machine. (I hope I don’t have to explain how Chicago stands in terms of political sanctity.) People talk about how he is above partisan politics and will be his own man, yet they fail to mention that his voting record shows him voting as entirely allied with one party. People say anything will be better than what we have now, but they don’t explain how this golden age is to be achieved.
A friend of mine who was for the Senator long before it was popular to do so was talking to me back at Christmas. With glowing excitement he told me of a mass message he received from the campaign. Obama, his wife, and their children were shown sitting by a warm fire. After a few holiday greetings from the candidate, the two kids then in turn said, “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays.”
My friend was so enthusiastic about the cleverness of the message that for a moment I thought I’d missed something. I thought that surely my friend was not being so carried away by something no more clever than found on a greeting card. But that was it. There was nothing else. Like anyone else infatuated he had seen something amazing in the innocuous.
I can fully understand not wanting to vote for the Republicans. If I thought there was a worthwhile alternative who could actually get elected I just might do the same thing. What I do not understand is the enthusiasm of Obama’s fans. He is indeed charming and great at giving speeches that convey all sorts of happy feelings. He has a knack for getting you to want to please him. However, I’d like more reason to vote for someone to be the most powerful man in the world more substantial than a slightly more sophisticated version of “He’s just so dreamy!”
It’s not as though I now intellectually believe that there is something wrong with the Volunteers. They are neither more nor less moral a sports franchise than any of the other “amateur” athletes. But after years of their garish insistence on the superiority of all things that lovely shade of orange I cannot emotionally bring myself to side with them. The obnoxiousness of that advocacy has forever soured UT in my mind.
Years later I encountered another sort of fan. This kind is not nearly so annoying but still manages to turn my allegiance away from the focus of their team-loyalty. It’s like this. Have you ever been watching a game with some friends where you go into it not caring who wins? You could be just as easily persuaded to go along with your friends as to root to the other guy. Yet the more you listen to your buds, the more you want the other guy to win.
I remember one particular time watching a college basketball game. Neither team was “mine” so I was content (at first) at least not to cheer against my friends. Tragically, my resilience was not strong enough to withstand the temptation. By the end of the game I was actively going for the other team. Unlike my UT fanatics these friends weren’t throwing their team colors in my face or even pressuring me to join them.
The problem this time was the unhinged irrationality coming from people who I could otherwise count on for their solid sensibility. Every time a ref would make a call in their favor was “about time!” since it was obviously only their due. Every time that same ref made a call against their team it was just as obviously a bad call flowing from the ref’s bias. My otherwise rational friends were sincerely convinced that the powers that be were actively working to prevent their team from winning.
From my neutral perspective I found this baffling. Despite their insistence to the contrary there simply was no greater amount of calls going against their team than those going for them. I simply could not bring myself to support their guys when they had such ephemeral reasons for doing so. If going for that team left my friends bereft of their faculties I didn’t think that was the course for me.
This sort of counter reaction spills out from sporting events into the real world combat of politics. Jogging through my neighborhood I have repeatedly come across a van that I really wish wasn’t there. Despite being several hundred miles north of the Mason-Dixon Line this vehicle sports a collection of Confederate flags. Whatever positive connotations the Rebel flag might have in some people’s minds there is a far more common negative feeling associated with it thanks to the boys in the KKK. For most Americans this flag is connected with ignorance and hatred.
If this were all the van was emblazoned with then it would simply be a matter of either a racist or someone unaware that everyone around him thinks he is a racist. Unfortunately for my political sympathies, this guy also has bumper stickers supporting the party and some of the particular candidates that I usually go for. I am sorely tempted to scrape off the pro-Republican stickers since I don’t want the people in this largely Hispanic neighborhood to think that to be conservative is to be racist. This guy’s obnoxiousness, just as with the UT fans, would be enough to keep me from voting his way had I not my own reasons for going for the GOP.
This souring sensation also explains part of my opposition to my Senator’s quest for the Presidency. Like with my otherwise reasonable sports fan friends, I am disturbed by the nature of some of my friends support for Obama. It is not so much that they give me reasons for doing so that I then disagree with as much as it is as they offer so little reason for supporting him in the first place.
I have heard all sorts of reasons why he should get the top job, but none of them has any specific substance to them. All I hear are platitudes about how great a communicator he is, or what a great moment it would be to have an African-American in the White House or how we all need to believe in hope. No one goes into any detail about how his words of hope and change are going be translated from rhetoric into reality. No one seems to think its important that they can’t cite anything he has done in the past as proof of what he can and will do in the future.
People talk about how he is not a part of the DC political machine, but they don’t notice that he’s been in thick with the Chicago machine. (I hope I don’t have to explain how Chicago stands in terms of political sanctity.) People talk about how he is above partisan politics and will be his own man, yet they fail to mention that his voting record shows him voting as entirely allied with one party. People say anything will be better than what we have now, but they don’t explain how this golden age is to be achieved.
A friend of mine who was for the Senator long before it was popular to do so was talking to me back at Christmas. With glowing excitement he told me of a mass message he received from the campaign. Obama, his wife, and their children were shown sitting by a warm fire. After a few holiday greetings from the candidate, the two kids then in turn said, “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays.”
My friend was so enthusiastic about the cleverness of the message that for a moment I thought I’d missed something. I thought that surely my friend was not being so carried away by something no more clever than found on a greeting card. But that was it. There was nothing else. Like anyone else infatuated he had seen something amazing in the innocuous.
I can fully understand not wanting to vote for the Republicans. If I thought there was a worthwhile alternative who could actually get elected I just might do the same thing. What I do not understand is the enthusiasm of Obama’s fans. He is indeed charming and great at giving speeches that convey all sorts of happy feelings. He has a knack for getting you to want to please him. However, I’d like more reason to vote for someone to be the most powerful man in the world more substantial than a slightly more sophisticated version of “He’s just so dreamy!”
Friday, May 30, 2008
Love Your Neighbor
“When I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, and honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is.”
– Martin Luther
War causes conflict. While it is obviously true that war itself is conflict, it is ironically true that war, as a concept, causes incredible conflict. Few issues cause people in the church to get more agitated than questions of war and peace. For some, there are few ideas more reprehensible than the suggestion that anyone could knowingly seek another’s death regardless of the circumstances. For others, it is just as disgusting to propose that mortal injustice be allowed to progress unhindered. To the Pacifist a “Just War Theory” makes about as much sense as a “Just Rape Theory.” To his opponent Pacifism is nothing less than complicity with evil through neglect.
While it might be earnestly hoped by all that the subject of war would simply be a matter for historians, violent conflict has a nasty habit of intruding its way into the present. A few minutes in any bookstore will reveal that war has been a part of history as long as histories have been written. A few minutes in a newspaper will likewise inform anyone that battle does not seem to be a passing fad. War is far too common a human practice for the church to maintain some kind of respectful neutrality.
If the church is going to be the church then she must establish her positions based on what God’s word says about this issue. With such a central issues that cuts to the core of justice, humanity, and love we cannot simply rely on our fallen dispositions to tell us where to go. Whatever logical or pragmatic reasons can be marshaled by either side of this debate ultimately account for nothing if the Bible does not speak in accord with that position.
As nice and straight-forward as that might sound, finding what the Bible teaches in this matter is much more complicated. There are people who believe the Bible who are on either side of this issue. There are those for whom Pacifism is the fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible that the lion will lie down with the lamb and Christ's first coming has changed everything. On the opposite end are those who would argue that the Just War perspective takes the Bible seriously since it does not place a false dichotomy between Israel and the church or forget that Christ has not yet returned.
It would be helpful if somewhere in the book of Hezekiah or in III Peter we could find a list of circumstances under which war was allowed or perhaps where it stated in no uncertain terms that war is never allowed. Since there is no such verse we are left to infer from what is said what God would say to his church. While this can seem quite intimidating there is a potential short-cut to the truth. Since Pacifism is necessarily absolutist, any exception to a total prohibition on warfare in the Bible can be its Achilles' Heel. That is to say, one cannot be a half-Pacifist. If it can be shown that the Bible does not condemn war in all situations, then the debate has moved from Pacifism vs. Just War into an in-house debate within Just War Doctrine about whether this or that war is in fact just. Pacifism could fail by a simple process of elimination
Granted, this is a negative argument in that we’re looking for a passage where something does not happen, but the point still stands that if there is any place where the Bible does not prohibit war entirely then Pacifism cannot then be said to be biblical. Putting aside the Old Testament for a moment since many Pacifists would reasonably object that the wars of ancient Israel do not apply to Christianity, are there any places where the New Testament does not condemn war wholeheartedly? Or, are there any places where soldiers or a government’s use of lethal force is not treated as sinful?
In Luke 3 John the Baptist is asked by a series of people how they can properly repent as he is calling them to do. Some average Joe’s are told to practice generosity. Tax collectors are told to stop taking more than they are allowed to collect. Some soldiers also come to the prophet to ask his counsel. If the Pacifist position is correct, then this would be a perfect place for God to speak into the lives of these men (and to us as well) to turn them from their entirely wicked profession. Yet the man whom Jesus said was greater than any other born of women tells them only to stop oppressing people and be content with their pay. This is hardly a solid rebuke of their job choice.
Later on in Acts 10 we find the dramatic first inclusion of Westerners into the church with the conversion a Roman soldier named Cornelius. This man had already been follower of God, but in this passage the Apostle Peter brings the message of Christ. Once again, if the Pacifist position is the biblical view then here was a perfect moment to hear that the arrival of Christ had so transformed the situation that while soldiers were a part of the Old Covenant there was no longer any place for them. Yet Peter says none of these things.
None of these soldiers in the gospel or in Acts are shown as men like the Pharisees who needed to change their hearts or like the tax collectors who needed to change their jobs. Whatever sins they might have been guilty of there is no mention here that what they do for a living is incompatible in and of itself with the biblical message. Prostitutes, idolaters, fornicators and all sorts of other sinners are called upon to repent of their actions. Soldiers are never issued such an order.
Later on in the epistles we find both Peter and Paul addressing the place of the state in human society. In contrast to the Pacifist position, not only do the Apostles not condemn the government for using lethal force, they call such a state the minister of God. In I Peter 3 we are told that as Christians we are to be subject to the state as it is sent by God to punish evil. Peter offers no side-bar to tell us "except when they use force." Likewise in Romans 13 Paul specifically states that part of the government's role in being God’s minister is that it “bears the sword.” You don’t use swords to gently chide someone. Swords kill. If Pacifism is biblical then this passage makes no sense.
I have no illusions that this little essay will spell an end to this question. Christians have been debating Pacifism vs. Just War since the time of the early church so I’m quite sure there is a way of explaining away the lack of comments in the passages mentioned here. However, the question then must be asked as to why such a lack needs to be explained away in the first place. If Pacifism is biblical, then why, among the many times that biblical writers spoke to or about soldiers or a government’s use of lethal force did no one tell them to stop? If war is sinful at all times and there is no place for it in Christ’s kingdom, then why did none of the inspired writers feel it necessary to tell anyone about it?
War is dreadful. There is no question about that. But just as the Fall of Adam has brought in disease, and God has raised up doctors to keep it from running amuck, so has the Fall brought in chaos to human society and God has likewise raised up the state as his minister to prevent our more tragic impulses from running the tables. To stand for justice in the face of wickedness by taking up the sword is not contrary to loving my neighbor but its fulfillment.
– Martin Luther
War causes conflict. While it is obviously true that war itself is conflict, it is ironically true that war, as a concept, causes incredible conflict. Few issues cause people in the church to get more agitated than questions of war and peace. For some, there are few ideas more reprehensible than the suggestion that anyone could knowingly seek another’s death regardless of the circumstances. For others, it is just as disgusting to propose that mortal injustice be allowed to progress unhindered. To the Pacifist a “Just War Theory” makes about as much sense as a “Just Rape Theory.” To his opponent Pacifism is nothing less than complicity with evil through neglect.
While it might be earnestly hoped by all that the subject of war would simply be a matter for historians, violent conflict has a nasty habit of intruding its way into the present. A few minutes in any bookstore will reveal that war has been a part of history as long as histories have been written. A few minutes in a newspaper will likewise inform anyone that battle does not seem to be a passing fad. War is far too common a human practice for the church to maintain some kind of respectful neutrality.
If the church is going to be the church then she must establish her positions based on what God’s word says about this issue. With such a central issues that cuts to the core of justice, humanity, and love we cannot simply rely on our fallen dispositions to tell us where to go. Whatever logical or pragmatic reasons can be marshaled by either side of this debate ultimately account for nothing if the Bible does not speak in accord with that position.
As nice and straight-forward as that might sound, finding what the Bible teaches in this matter is much more complicated. There are people who believe the Bible who are on either side of this issue. There are those for whom Pacifism is the fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible that the lion will lie down with the lamb and Christ's first coming has changed everything. On the opposite end are those who would argue that the Just War perspective takes the Bible seriously since it does not place a false dichotomy between Israel and the church or forget that Christ has not yet returned.
It would be helpful if somewhere in the book of Hezekiah or in III Peter we could find a list of circumstances under which war was allowed or perhaps where it stated in no uncertain terms that war is never allowed. Since there is no such verse we are left to infer from what is said what God would say to his church. While this can seem quite intimidating there is a potential short-cut to the truth. Since Pacifism is necessarily absolutist, any exception to a total prohibition on warfare in the Bible can be its Achilles' Heel. That is to say, one cannot be a half-Pacifist. If it can be shown that the Bible does not condemn war in all situations, then the debate has moved from Pacifism vs. Just War into an in-house debate within Just War Doctrine about whether this or that war is in fact just. Pacifism could fail by a simple process of elimination
Granted, this is a negative argument in that we’re looking for a passage where something does not happen, but the point still stands that if there is any place where the Bible does not prohibit war entirely then Pacifism cannot then be said to be biblical. Putting aside the Old Testament for a moment since many Pacifists would reasonably object that the wars of ancient Israel do not apply to Christianity, are there any places where the New Testament does not condemn war wholeheartedly? Or, are there any places where soldiers or a government’s use of lethal force is not treated as sinful?
In Luke 3 John the Baptist is asked by a series of people how they can properly repent as he is calling them to do. Some average Joe’s are told to practice generosity. Tax collectors are told to stop taking more than they are allowed to collect. Some soldiers also come to the prophet to ask his counsel. If the Pacifist position is correct, then this would be a perfect place for God to speak into the lives of these men (and to us as well) to turn them from their entirely wicked profession. Yet the man whom Jesus said was greater than any other born of women tells them only to stop oppressing people and be content with their pay. This is hardly a solid rebuke of their job choice.
Later on in Acts 10 we find the dramatic first inclusion of Westerners into the church with the conversion a Roman soldier named Cornelius. This man had already been follower of God, but in this passage the Apostle Peter brings the message of Christ. Once again, if the Pacifist position is the biblical view then here was a perfect moment to hear that the arrival of Christ had so transformed the situation that while soldiers were a part of the Old Covenant there was no longer any place for them. Yet Peter says none of these things.
None of these soldiers in the gospel or in Acts are shown as men like the Pharisees who needed to change their hearts or like the tax collectors who needed to change their jobs. Whatever sins they might have been guilty of there is no mention here that what they do for a living is incompatible in and of itself with the biblical message. Prostitutes, idolaters, fornicators and all sorts of other sinners are called upon to repent of their actions. Soldiers are never issued such an order.
Later on in the epistles we find both Peter and Paul addressing the place of the state in human society. In contrast to the Pacifist position, not only do the Apostles not condemn the government for using lethal force, they call such a state the minister of God. In I Peter 3 we are told that as Christians we are to be subject to the state as it is sent by God to punish evil. Peter offers no side-bar to tell us "except when they use force." Likewise in Romans 13 Paul specifically states that part of the government's role in being God’s minister is that it “bears the sword.” You don’t use swords to gently chide someone. Swords kill. If Pacifism is biblical then this passage makes no sense.
I have no illusions that this little essay will spell an end to this question. Christians have been debating Pacifism vs. Just War since the time of the early church so I’m quite sure there is a way of explaining away the lack of comments in the passages mentioned here. However, the question then must be asked as to why such a lack needs to be explained away in the first place. If Pacifism is biblical, then why, among the many times that biblical writers spoke to or about soldiers or a government’s use of lethal force did no one tell them to stop? If war is sinful at all times and there is no place for it in Christ’s kingdom, then why did none of the inspired writers feel it necessary to tell anyone about it?
War is dreadful. There is no question about that. But just as the Fall of Adam has brought in disease, and God has raised up doctors to keep it from running amuck, so has the Fall brought in chaos to human society and God has likewise raised up the state as his minister to prevent our more tragic impulses from running the tables. To stand for justice in the face of wickedness by taking up the sword is not contrary to loving my neighbor but its fulfillment.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Auto-Compassion
I’m sure you’ve been in this position. It's rush hour or some other heavy time on the road, and you need to cut into traffic. Maybe you’re trying to enter the main flow from a parking lot or it’s that you’re in the north bound lane and you need to cross the SUV infested south bound lane to get to your destination. All you want is for some kind soul to see your predicament and give you the space to get through. Particularly if you are running late already the anxiety of being stuck and the relief at being let through are palpable. When a sympathetic driver finally does slow up to let you through you are able to send a genuinely grateful wave and smile to your savior.
Now let’s spin things around a bit and say that you’re not the one trying to get across traffic but the one in the position to help. You can see the stricken face of your fellow commuter, and you fully understand his plight because it was just yesterday that you were trying to do the very same thing. With mercy on your mind you slow up and let the distraught soul cut through your lane full of the knowledge that a little sacrifice on your part has helped out with another’s day immensely. The wave and smile you get in return is more than enough to drown out the sounds of ungrateful honking from those behind you less interested in compassion. Despite their impatience, you know you’ve done the right thing.
One more time let’s change the perspective. This time you are not the driver in need of help, nor the gracious commuter who gives the help. This time you are the guy stuck in traffic behind this sweet affair who gets the short end of the generosity stick. Just like the person cutting across traffic, you have places to be. Perhaps like the first person you too are running late. While you sympathize with situation you’re not too certain how it is that the one person’s need outweighs your own. Maybe you are one of those who lets out a not so subtle honk of displeasure, and the smug smile on the face of the benefactor does not then raise in you thoughts of mercy or compassion. The plans of yourself and the dozens of others similarly trapped in line are being held up for the convenience of one and the self-satisfaction of another as two or even three lanes of traffic are held up long enough for the single car to make it across.
Like I said, there is not a one among us who hasn’t been in each of these places. Sometimes there is just no way to get where we need to be without doing some serious Frogger reenactments, and sometimes we are the one stuck with the consequences of the Good Samaritans among us. If we are one of these two then we can only play with the hand we are dealt. Our decisions at that point are dependent upon others. However, if we are the second sort of person, then we are deciding for the rest where the line between compassion and functionality should run.
While I applaud the desire to help the person in need, I have to wonder if when we reach out like that who it is that we are thinking of. If our desire is to help others get where they need to go, then how much are we paying attention to those who are impeded by our own good works? By what standard are we deciding that helping the person we can see is worth hurting those we can’t see? Sure, we all feel great when we are able to see that smile of gratitude on the face of those we help, but what about the frustration we cause to those now inconvenienced? Particularly when we feel righteous indignation when we hear the honks of those less merciful and understanding, are we motivated by the pleasure we get from “doing the right thing” or by actually working for the common good? In our driving habits, in our daily lives, and in our political choices, how often is our determination centered not so much upon the actual good accomplished, but upon the short-term feeling of enlightenment and superiority found in the easy good work of being nice rather than the hard choices that often come with doing the real right thing?
Now let’s spin things around a bit and say that you’re not the one trying to get across traffic but the one in the position to help. You can see the stricken face of your fellow commuter, and you fully understand his plight because it was just yesterday that you were trying to do the very same thing. With mercy on your mind you slow up and let the distraught soul cut through your lane full of the knowledge that a little sacrifice on your part has helped out with another’s day immensely. The wave and smile you get in return is more than enough to drown out the sounds of ungrateful honking from those behind you less interested in compassion. Despite their impatience, you know you’ve done the right thing.
One more time let’s change the perspective. This time you are not the driver in need of help, nor the gracious commuter who gives the help. This time you are the guy stuck in traffic behind this sweet affair who gets the short end of the generosity stick. Just like the person cutting across traffic, you have places to be. Perhaps like the first person you too are running late. While you sympathize with situation you’re not too certain how it is that the one person’s need outweighs your own. Maybe you are one of those who lets out a not so subtle honk of displeasure, and the smug smile on the face of the benefactor does not then raise in you thoughts of mercy or compassion. The plans of yourself and the dozens of others similarly trapped in line are being held up for the convenience of one and the self-satisfaction of another as two or even three lanes of traffic are held up long enough for the single car to make it across.
Like I said, there is not a one among us who hasn’t been in each of these places. Sometimes there is just no way to get where we need to be without doing some serious Frogger reenactments, and sometimes we are the one stuck with the consequences of the Good Samaritans among us. If we are one of these two then we can only play with the hand we are dealt. Our decisions at that point are dependent upon others. However, if we are the second sort of person, then we are deciding for the rest where the line between compassion and functionality should run.
While I applaud the desire to help the person in need, I have to wonder if when we reach out like that who it is that we are thinking of. If our desire is to help others get where they need to go, then how much are we paying attention to those who are impeded by our own good works? By what standard are we deciding that helping the person we can see is worth hurting those we can’t see? Sure, we all feel great when we are able to see that smile of gratitude on the face of those we help, but what about the frustration we cause to those now inconvenienced? Particularly when we feel righteous indignation when we hear the honks of those less merciful and understanding, are we motivated by the pleasure we get from “doing the right thing” or by actually working for the common good? In our driving habits, in our daily lives, and in our political choices, how often is our determination centered not so much upon the actual good accomplished, but upon the short-term feeling of enlightenment and superiority found in the easy good work of being nice rather than the hard choices that often come with doing the real right thing?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Senatorial Choices
The other day in class one of my professors was talking about the religious consequences of the American Revolution. Like any of the rest of us I knew that when the Founding Fathers established the new government with the US Constitution they made sure that there would be no National Church to which everyone would be compelled to belong. Not only this, but there would be no tax money going support otherwise struggling organizations.
What I hadn’t thought of was how this would encourage all sorts of religious diversity. Think of it like this. When everyone has to go to a particular church, the pastor is going to get paid no matter who shows up so there is little incentive for the leaders of that group to tailor their message or presentation to suit the desires or needs of the people in the pews. However, once the First Amendment was enacted your American Everyman or woman could go to whatever church, synagogue, or matinee movie they felt like. If ministers wanted people to come to their church they would have to be offering something that the people wanted to hear.
Every Sunday my wife and I put this freedom into effect. We get up earlier than we’d otherwise have to so that we can travel the half-hour across Chicago to go to the church of our choice. Now there are a lot of options for us that are a whole lot closer to where we live. We go to all the extra effort because we can find at our church those things that we want to hear. Thanks to the religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution we are able to live according to our own choice.
I say all this because apparently my Senator is not aware that this freedom exists. He seems to be under the impression that you cannot choose where you go to church. Just this morning he gave a beautiful speech in which he responded at length to the many questions arising from the unusual sermons of his former pastor. I truly mean that it was a beautiful speech. The man is a master of his craft. Senator Obama’s craft is, like that of any other politician, is to tap into the emotional undercurrents of his audience and carry them along with the vision he lays out.
Today the vision he hoped to impart was that while his longtime spiritual mentor had indeed said some drastic things, the Senator strongly disapproved. In the midst of some specific criticisms, Senator Obama refused to completely abandon his longtime friend whom he said was “like family.” To illustrate his reasoning he told the audience of his white grandmother. He said he knew she loved him dearly, but at the same time it caused him pain when she occasionally used ethnic slurs or confessed to fearing black men. Just as he could not deny his grandmother simply because she sometimes said regrettable things, he, for the same reason, could not now abandon his pastor.
Now this was powerful rhetoric. The Senator deftly connected with his audience by getting us all to consider how many family members or friends we have that go around saying things that we really wish they hadn’t. Anyone reasonable listening is forced to concede that they wouldn’t kick granny to the curb no matter how loony she might sound sometimes. If we think it’s okay that we continue to associate with those who “transgress” taboos, then we have to grant the same consideration to the candidate.
However, before we all jump on the Obandwagon, let’s think about this a minute. Senator Obama has gotten things a little bit confused. He has confused the nature of his relationship with his grandmother with the one he has with his pastor. His grandmother is his grandmother because she is his mother’s mother. His pastor is his pastor, however, because Senator Obama chose him.
As the candidate suggests we all put up with all sorts of nonsense from those around us. From our families we don’t really have much choice. We don’t get to decide who we spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with. Sometimes we are lucky in this respect and sometimes . . . not so lucky. Yet even in this sacred space there are limits to what we will tolerate. If Cousin Luigi shows up on Turkey Day and starts ranting about how “the Jews” are out to get him most of us are going to be hoping that he doesn’t get invited next year.
The same principle goes for our friends or other social relationships. The only difference is we have a choice when it comes to them. We have an acceptable level of disagreement within which we will tolerate, but beyond which we’ll cut off the relationship. Each person’s line is going to be in a different place, but once it’s crossed we will go our own way. For most people this applies to our use of religious freedom.
Senator Obama has said that Rev. Wright is like family to him. If this were literally the case then his association could be excused. As it is, he has used the same religious freedom that I use each Sunday to go to the church of his choice. If I were to show up one Sunday morning and my pastor were to launch into openly political advocacy, as Rev. Wright has of late, I would seriously question my continuing attendance. If he were to shout to the cheering crowd, calling on God to damn America, as Rev. Wright has done, I would never darken their door again.
Of all the churches among what must be the hundreds available in the Chicagoland area, Obama has chosen one whose beliefs are drastically inconsistent with the vast majority of the American electorate. He says this is not something we need to be concerned about. He wants us to believe that the pastor who ministered to him for a decade or more does not represent his views. He wants us to believe that just as we put up with the unfortunate remarks of our friends and families, he puts up his mentor’s raging against Israel and America for the same reason he continued to love his grandmother. Apparently, he also wants us to believe that his pastor’s desire that “God Damn America!” is an acceptable disagreement. Somehow I am not comforted.
What I hadn’t thought of was how this would encourage all sorts of religious diversity. Think of it like this. When everyone has to go to a particular church, the pastor is going to get paid no matter who shows up so there is little incentive for the leaders of that group to tailor their message or presentation to suit the desires or needs of the people in the pews. However, once the First Amendment was enacted your American Everyman or woman could go to whatever church, synagogue, or matinee movie they felt like. If ministers wanted people to come to their church they would have to be offering something that the people wanted to hear.
Every Sunday my wife and I put this freedom into effect. We get up earlier than we’d otherwise have to so that we can travel the half-hour across Chicago to go to the church of our choice. Now there are a lot of options for us that are a whole lot closer to where we live. We go to all the extra effort because we can find at our church those things that we want to hear. Thanks to the religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution we are able to live according to our own choice.
I say all this because apparently my Senator is not aware that this freedom exists. He seems to be under the impression that you cannot choose where you go to church. Just this morning he gave a beautiful speech in which he responded at length to the many questions arising from the unusual sermons of his former pastor. I truly mean that it was a beautiful speech. The man is a master of his craft. Senator Obama’s craft is, like that of any other politician, is to tap into the emotional undercurrents of his audience and carry them along with the vision he lays out.
Today the vision he hoped to impart was that while his longtime spiritual mentor had indeed said some drastic things, the Senator strongly disapproved. In the midst of some specific criticisms, Senator Obama refused to completely abandon his longtime friend whom he said was “like family.” To illustrate his reasoning he told the audience of his white grandmother. He said he knew she loved him dearly, but at the same time it caused him pain when she occasionally used ethnic slurs or confessed to fearing black men. Just as he could not deny his grandmother simply because she sometimes said regrettable things, he, for the same reason, could not now abandon his pastor.
Now this was powerful rhetoric. The Senator deftly connected with his audience by getting us all to consider how many family members or friends we have that go around saying things that we really wish they hadn’t. Anyone reasonable listening is forced to concede that they wouldn’t kick granny to the curb no matter how loony she might sound sometimes. If we think it’s okay that we continue to associate with those who “transgress” taboos, then we have to grant the same consideration to the candidate.
However, before we all jump on the Obandwagon, let’s think about this a minute. Senator Obama has gotten things a little bit confused. He has confused the nature of his relationship with his grandmother with the one he has with his pastor. His grandmother is his grandmother because she is his mother’s mother. His pastor is his pastor, however, because Senator Obama chose him.
As the candidate suggests we all put up with all sorts of nonsense from those around us. From our families we don’t really have much choice. We don’t get to decide who we spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with. Sometimes we are lucky in this respect and sometimes . . . not so lucky. Yet even in this sacred space there are limits to what we will tolerate. If Cousin Luigi shows up on Turkey Day and starts ranting about how “the Jews” are out to get him most of us are going to be hoping that he doesn’t get invited next year.
The same principle goes for our friends or other social relationships. The only difference is we have a choice when it comes to them. We have an acceptable level of disagreement within which we will tolerate, but beyond which we’ll cut off the relationship. Each person’s line is going to be in a different place, but once it’s crossed we will go our own way. For most people this applies to our use of religious freedom.
Senator Obama has said that Rev. Wright is like family to him. If this were literally the case then his association could be excused. As it is, he has used the same religious freedom that I use each Sunday to go to the church of his choice. If I were to show up one Sunday morning and my pastor were to launch into openly political advocacy, as Rev. Wright has of late, I would seriously question my continuing attendance. If he were to shout to the cheering crowd, calling on God to damn America, as Rev. Wright has done, I would never darken their door again.
Of all the churches among what must be the hundreds available in the Chicagoland area, Obama has chosen one whose beliefs are drastically inconsistent with the vast majority of the American electorate. He says this is not something we need to be concerned about. He wants us to believe that the pastor who ministered to him for a decade or more does not represent his views. He wants us to believe that just as we put up with the unfortunate remarks of our friends and families, he puts up his mentor’s raging against Israel and America for the same reason he continued to love his grandmother. Apparently, he also wants us to believe that his pastor’s desire that “God Damn America!” is an acceptable disagreement. Somehow I am not comforted.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Vote for Hope!!!
Good Morning,
My name is Joe Bamah, and I’d like to be your airline pilot for this flight. Now I know there are a lot you out there who aren’t too happy with the way previous pilots have been flying us around. I know you’ve been hoping for a new way of flying. I am here because I too believe we can change the very way airline flights are done.
I know there are a lot of cynical people out there who want to scare you by saying that someone with more experience flying planes should be the pilot, but I ask you, what has all their years up there in the cockpit done for them? Has it meant that your plane has arrived on time? There are those out there without hope. They say that my flight simulator “experience” isn’t enough. But has their “experience” given you flights free from turbulence?
I offer you hope for change you can believe in. I haven’t been contaminated by the hours of association with the comforts of the captain’s seat. I haven’t had my hope drained by countless take-offs and landings. I won’t be held captive by their so-called laws of aeronautics. I will fly us through beautiful skies with the smoothness made possible by a complete lack of experience.
Vote for Joe Bamah. I am not a pilot so you can trust me to fly.
My name is Joe Bamah, and I’d like to be your airline pilot for this flight. Now I know there are a lot you out there who aren’t too happy with the way previous pilots have been flying us around. I know you’ve been hoping for a new way of flying. I am here because I too believe we can change the very way airline flights are done.
I know there are a lot of cynical people out there who want to scare you by saying that someone with more experience flying planes should be the pilot, but I ask you, what has all their years up there in the cockpit done for them? Has it meant that your plane has arrived on time? There are those out there without hope. They say that my flight simulator “experience” isn’t enough. But has their “experience” given you flights free from turbulence?
I offer you hope for change you can believe in. I haven’t been contaminated by the hours of association with the comforts of the captain’s seat. I haven’t had my hope drained by countless take-offs and landings. I won’t be held captive by their so-called laws of aeronautics. I will fly us through beautiful skies with the smoothness made possible by a complete lack of experience.
Vote for Joe Bamah. I am not a pilot so you can trust me to fly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)