I have been listening to a course-on-CD on Dante's Comedia (the trio of epic poems about the poet's journey thru Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven - Inferno/Hell is the most famous) and a though that seems to have been Dante's has been hitting me hard. Especially when I cross-reference with some stuff from C.S. Lewis.
But before I explain, let me give the other side of the argument. It lead me to appreciate my side much more. In college, the physics department one day had a visit from the head of the Biology department. She is a very intelligent and well-read person, and a Christian of very similar background to me. We had a discussion that day on how she reconciles her Christian faith with the emphasis that biology places on Evolution (specifically macro-evolution). I expected her to respond with something about "theistic evolution" (God working thru the macro-evolutionary process) or "intelligent design" (the current buzzword for creationism) or "deism" (the idea that God generally lets natural processes work out His will). Instead, she proclaimed her belief that the evolution/creation debate was a result of "the pollution of Christianity by Greek thought." She believed that Christ's preaching was a purely Hebrew philosophy, and that Paul had caused many problems by bringing in the ideas of the Greek philosophers. She claimed that generally Hebrew thinkers - even modern Jewish thinkers - have no problem with Evolution, because they do not demand literalism from Genesis. Thus, "pure Christianity" would have no problem with Evolution.
I don't want to get into the Evolution side of the debate. But what I want to highlight is this person's idea that Christianity must work hard to avoid being "polluted" by other lines of thought. Her position is specifically focussed on the Greek philosophical tradition, but it would be equally applicable to lines of thought brought to Christianity by Eastern thinkers, European thinkers, etc. This seems to me to be an error that fails to take into account God's absolute control over His creation (as indicated in both the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek ones). If God is the god of both Israel and the whole world - in fact if He is capable of creating the whole cosmos - then He is certainly one who will be minding this world, and orchestrating the various lines of thought and illumination to best effect. Certain peoples, based on their historical experience, would logically be more open to certain trains of thought. The Hebrews were a people always in the middle of the fertile crescent, placed between Egypt and Mesopatamia, and thus always in the middle of wars between two great powers. Thus, they are a people who will have much time to ponder the all-powerful nature of God and His soverignty in their lives, and also to learn how to live in both peacetime and war. The Greeks were a people who had their own archipelago isolated from the majority of other people groups. Thus, they had time to meditate on the nature of things in relative peace (of course, they still made their own wars between city-states). Thus, they would be a people to have time to consider the ideals of philosophy, not worried about when the next rampaging army might come thru. The Egyptians were a people largely isolated between the deserts and the fertile Nile delta, with land and sea routes to other lands. Thus, they would be a people with time to consider the nature of things without much fear of invasion, but also in a way that opened them up to many ideas from many different lands. Bringing together Israel and Egypt allowed for one set of scriptures to be produced - the Old Testament - as the Hebrews came to understand God not only thru their own unique experiences but also by contrasting them against the thoughts of another powerful people.
Would Israel have fully understood the draw of idols on a population, had they not seen Egypt where every wall was plastered with history/mythology of one god or another, one pharoah or another? Would they have ever written down the scriptures into a durable form if they had not met up with the Eyptians as a people who felt it important to write down everything in order to ensure the static nature of their own culture? The very man who initiated the scriptures (Moses) was trained in Egyptian schools, steeped in their philosophies and methodologies. These do not seem like "pollutions" of Hebrew culture, but rather the influences that allowed the children of Abraham to have an identity separate from that of other Semitic peoples.
Likewise, the union of Greek and Hebrew thought allowed for the production of the New Testament scriptures, and was a way for God to use the ideas that He allowed to germinate in Greece and Rome for their own purposes. Would we have been able to fully understand who Christ was without the ideas of Plato? His discussion of forms and ideas, allow us to understand that every physical thing is a reminder/image/iteration of a higher principle. Thus, we understand what Paul is saying when he talks about Jesus as "He is the image of the invisible God". Likewise, the Greek ideas brought us the idea of the "Logos" (English translation "Word") as an organizing principle that brought order out of chaos during the process of creation. So that when John the apostle says, "In the beginning was the Word" in referring to Christ, we understand that it is not just a statement of existence but telling us that Jesus was also active in the creation. A very person of God himself. "Pure" pre-Greek Hebrew thought would not have come up with these on their own. They lacked the right environment to produce thinkers and methodologies that alow these kinds of thoughts.
Where does this intersect with Dante? Dante was a child of the Middle Ages, and as such was steeped in both a rich biblical tradition and a rich tradition of the classics (i.e. Greek and Roman literature). He used the images of classical Greek - not just the philosophers, but the pagan characters like Odysseus/Ullysses - to illustrate many Christian ideas of virtue and vice. He used a pagan poet - Virgil - as a guide to Hell and Purgatory, because he understood the ideas behind the structures of justice and redemption, even though Virgil never knew Christ. The union of the two traditions allows for a richer product than could be produced by the one alone.
C.S. Lewis once said about God that He "takes what do you better than you meant it." He was talking about individuals here - saying that a sinner's selfish request to God to save him from the flames is taken as a God-centered offer to serve the King of Kings - but you can see from his own work (especially that of the Narnia stories) that the same principle can be applied to the products of societies. Narnia is made richer by the images of witches taken from British/Germanic stories, the images of fantastic creatures taken from Greco-Roman mythology, and the images of nyads/dryads taken from Norse legends. My handbell choir teacher in college once said that it was the duty of artists to "redeem every method of expression and use it to glorify God." This is very much what we are seeing in Dante, and Lewis, and even in the way Paul and John make use of the pagan philosophers.
We even see this process continuing to unfold in our own time. Consider the case of "passive resistance." Jesus demonstrated it as a political tool on the cross (even as the same cross was being used for a more purely spiritual work.) The early apostles practiced it earnestly and most died horribly - though in expressions of passivity - even while the Church grew massively around them. Eventually, it was largely forgotten as a political tool as Rome became a Christian Empire under Constantine and the religion became common throughout Europe. But later it was picked up by Mohatma Gandhi in India. He combined it with Indian thoughts and experiences, and produced a revolution in the nation which allowed the ousting of British rule without the shedding of blood. Then this same line was picked back up by Martin Luther King, Jr. in America and used as a political tool for the betterment of black Americans, against a very nation that considered itself "Christian." An idea is taken, combined with non-Christian (but good) ideas, and comes back to us strengthened and useful for the ends that God has for it.
Christianity is founded upon one Truth - Christ and Him crucified for our sins - but it is open to the ideas of the outside world, so long as they do not demand denial of the one Truth.
Just a little end-of-the-year musings for no apparent reason. Well, okay, the reason is pretty apparent.
Do you ever wonder about the structure of the world, versus the structure of the world that "They" tell you should be in place. Let's follow the logic:
1. One must eat to live.
2. In order to eat, one must have money. (Or some plants/animals to pluck, milk, shoot, grill, etc. Not my way.)
3. In order to have money, one must have a job.
4. In order to have a job, one must spend most of ones time away from home, family, friends, etc. doing tasks which generally one would not do if someone else were not paying us to do it.
So, in order to live, one must spend most of one's time away from those one loves.
But "They" tell you a different tale:
1. One must spend as much time with family and friends as possible in order to live well.
2. Jobs tend to take one away from family and friends.
3. "No one ever said on his death bed, "I wish I had spent more time in the office."
So, in order to live well, one must avoid work as much as possible to maximize time with family and friends.
So, we live on the edge of a knife, working enough to live and provide which working little enough to maximize relationships. Fall off the knife's edge in one direction and you may live with a lot of cash, but won't care about living. Fall off the edge in the other direction and you will enjoy your time on earth… but won't have a whole lot of it.
I dunno. The "live to work or work to live" thing has been bothering me for some time. People like Roger Ebert (not the greatest proponent of this way of thinking, but the last one I read) say that you should find a job you love, so that you are earning money for doing the stuff you'd do anyway. Others - we all know them - see your job as your primary identity and thus that which defines your life (and therefore your legacy). And still others like to say that your job is just a way to put food on the table and allow you to do "what you really want to do." None of these seem satisfying to me.
Ebert's idea is all well and good, but the reason most people get paid to do something is BECAUSE it is a job that won't get done unless someone pays for it. I generally like my job as a business analyst. It exercises my creative aspect I thinking out new solutions, exercises my writing talents in producing specs, and exercises my technical talents in keeping me in the computing world. But if my employer didn't pay me to do it, I wouldn't be out writing specs or analyzing how business processes work. It is the rare person who is doing something they love and has someone walk up behind them and offer them cash to keep doing it.
The Job-Identity idea is very popular nowadays. (And I guess it always had been. As far back as the founding of the country, dinner party conversations in novels ALWAYS begin with "So, what do you do for a living?") People define their lives by their jobs. Working 8 hours a day in the office, bringing work home to do at night, hanging on their cell phones or e-mail late into the night and early in the morning, and every conversation is a chance to advance that identity. But it seems to me that this is foolish for a very simple reason. Your job is not "yours." We all have an employer who "owns" the job and can end it at any time. If you are a normal schlub, the boss is a literal person. If you are a business owner, your boss is the customers and the economy. If you are a minister (by which I mean, one who ministers whether religiously or not) then your boss is those who come to you for help. If they stop coming, your job ends. Thus, if your job is who you are, then YOU can suddenly cease to exist at any moment.
The Job-As-An-Enabler idea is very popular among a different set. Those for whom hobbies define them. They work all day, so they can come home at night and work on model trains, or thrash on their boards, or watch movies. The problem with this, of course, is that jobs have a funny tendency to grow with time. The man who spent 5 hours a day in high school in the convenience store spends 8 hours a day after high school, then spends 12 hours a day when he needs to make car payments, then spends 14 hours a day when he needs to buy a house, and suddenly between working and sleeping there is no time for "something else." I know there are those rare folks who decide to truly live for their hobbies, who make a career out of sleeping on other people's floors and bumming a dollar here and a dollar there from friends. But these are very rare, and in my experience are not any happier than the ones with a job. They simply are more easily bored, because of the mountains of free time.
So what is the proper role of your job in your life? Or perhaps the better question is, what is the proper role of your life? Must a life have meaning outside of service to God, family, and society? If not, does that mean only an exhausted man is a truly meaningful man? One who gives all of himself to one or all of this triumverate? If so, does the meaning come from ones actions or ones identity? God gives us all "meaning" and "worth" through His love. And yet, we still must work out our faith with "fear and trembling."
I do not yet have a complete answer. And probably will not for a while. But my favorite image of our lives that seems closest to what I can see darkly is a scene from C.S. Lewis's novel, PERELANDRA. The hero (Ransom) finds himself on a world of water, where even the islands are just rafts floating on a great sea. He tries to fight against the waves that toss and turn him this way and that, until finally he winds up exhausted on one of the floating islands. He discovers one of the natives there, and speaks with her about what he has seen and experienced. She responds (heavily paraphrased) "But that is how life is. Our job is to accept the next wave coming and enjoy it. Not to look back and try to have the last wave again, or to stop the wave that is coming. God does not send bad waves to us. Even if sometimes they are terrifying to behold."
Concerning Genocide in General and the Situation in Sudan in Particular
The following is a debate conducted through e-mail by Nomad and myself over the course of several weeks. Please feel free to leave us feedback and comments in the section at the bottom. We would love to hear your thoughts on this important topic.
Ward,
I have been thinking a lot about your article on "genocide" and the political necessities and realities of it, that you posted to Mod-BLog, and it has raised a lot of questions in my mind. I was wondering if you might like to chat about it via e-mail. We should probably save the e-mails in case it becomes something worth posting to Mod-Blog.
I guess to start off the discussion, let me speak thusly,
You state rather unequivocally in your earlier posting that you believe our government is absolutely hypocritical when it comes to dealing with genocide. You felt that Bush I ignored Rwanda until it was too late, Clinton ignored Bosnia until it was too late, and now Bush II is ignoring Sudan too long. You criticize their political rhetoric where they say there are "acts of genocide" or "indications of genocide" rather than just admitting that the people in an area are performing genocide. Thus, you indict the speakers for waffling rather than acting boldly. The clear implication - never stated in pure text - is that stopping genocide in any and all contexts is a fundamental moral imperative. And that every second we allow these kinds of acts to continue, we as a national are sinning.
Is this your belief? If so, I have some other questions:
1) How do you differentiate genocide from tribal hatreds and warfare? For
instance, if the two people groups A and B have been at war for as long as
their is recorded history, with the stated goal of destroying the other tribe,
is this genocide? Should the U.N. intervene? Or is this an internal conflict
which should be allowed to play itself out?
2) Are there cases where genocide is morally justifiable? I realize just saying
that is weird, but I mean it seriously. Ignoring, of course, the Israeli
entrance into ancient Palestine where God commanded them to destroy whole
tribes, are there times when genocide is a no more morally problematic than war
is generally? (And yes, I know I am talking to a man who has pacifistic
tendencies.) For instance, let us take the case of early America. In some parts
of the nation, when settlers moved out into parts of the land, they came across
tribes absolutely dedicated to the annihilation of the white invader. In
response, the U.S. government sent out the army who would reduce said tribe to
a very small number, who would then be assimilated into U.S. culture, sent to a
reservation, or sent off to join a more peaceful culture among other native
Americans.
3) Is there a moral imperative for society to act to end every case of potential
or attempted genocide? Should there be a U.N. quick-response team, for example,
dedicated to this mission? Or is there a logical threshold beyond which we
are compelled to act, instead and what kind of a threshold would it be? I think
of Africa and wonder if we truly intervened in every attempted genocide, if
we would have to essentially conquer the continent and hold it in an imperial
fashion.
I guess that is enough for now. This time, yes, I think I am open to a treatise if you want to write one. There was just something about your last article that did not feel right to me, and I want to work out what it was... Or whether it was just the pangs of a guilty conscience trying to deny the truth. I doubt it is the latter, but I am certainly not immune.
Okay, I'll bite =)
Yes, I strongly believe that we are hypocrites in dealing with genocide. This is often caused by political expiedience and not by any "evil" in the American system. We are simply not an especially outward looking society. So, we tend to see problems arise only once they become larger than they should. And yes, we are hypocritical in refusing to call genocide exactly what it is even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I believe that we do this because virtually every human believes that the systematic murder of an entire people group is unacceptable. If we dance around calling it full-out genocide then we can avoid having to act on it if it isn't politically "smart." So yes, I also believe that as the world's only superpower, it is our responsibility to at the very least step in and take leadership in stopping the wholesale slaughter of innocents. I do believe it to be a moral imperative. It need not always come to our own military involvement. It can be through organizing the African nations to fight this evil or through political power, or sometimes through our own military involvement (although this last option should indeed be the very last option. One of my biggest problems with Kosovo was that we dropped bombs upon an entire nation to stop the evil of a small group of men. It seems that a political, or at least more sensitive military option, was possible.) The point is that we do have a moral imperative to act in some constructive way.
So to the differentiation of tribal wars and genocide, the line is probably not as clear as I would like for it to be. However, if two tribes are fighting each other then it is not genocide. It is war. War is horrible (I know, hardly a shocker from someone who considers himself a pacifist) but it does happen. We should encourage an atmosphere that promotes less violence and more political discourse. However, assuming that both tribes have weapons and warriors, then it is war and not genocide. Genocide is the acting of one group in power to wipe the earth rid of another group who is helpless and without the ability or power to defend itself. As I said, we should encourage a peaceful resolution and action might be appropriate but it is still fundamentally different from genocide. Genocide is never a legitimate option. Realizing that the struggle against Native Americans is marked with horrible acts of cruelty and American arrogance, I still say that it was not genocide. True, we did have better weapons. But the Native Americans were a warlike culture who took up arms against us and caused considerable casualties to the American settlers as well. This was a war. Those who paint it as a genocide do not have a grasp of the situation as it was between the Native Americans and the settlers. In addition, the goal was never (and this is debatable but I believe it to be true) to wipe the Native Americans off the face of the earth. Our policy during this time, while clearly misguided, made attempts to relocated Native Americans and so on. And some settlers certainly sought the end of the Native Americans, but it was not our policy and again, we were at war with the Native Americans and they fought back plenty. The irony is that if, as America's critics claim, the goal was genocide against Native Americans, then we certainly could have fulfilled that goal. There is every reason to believe that we had the ability to destroy utterly this warlike group of cultures but we did not. Instead, we have a large Native American population with us today and they enjoy the benefits (money, healthcare, ect) of our culture even while they in many cases own land within the US.
As for the UN, it has sadly proven itself inept at dealing with genocide. The UN Oil-For-Food Program with Iraq, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, etc. They are as guilty as America is. Unless a unit was put together that would have legitimate power to act in cases of genocide, I see little benefit to come from the UN. I wouldn't be opposed to a quick-response team as you suggested. But considering that many of the nations responsible for so much of the genocide and bloodshed we see are members of the UN, it makes me wonder how effective it would be. I almost would prefer to see a new coalition come together made up of countries that would act immediately and swiftly. The rules for admittance would have to be much more strict then the UN as to not let offenders in. Of course, this is a fantasy that will never come to be. So be it. But I still believe that an organization that allows Syria to serve as its human rights chair lacks the moral authority to act. As to Africa, I agree and I don't want to have to invade the entire country. But that is where my suggestion earlier comes in. Built an African force ready to respond. Train them in fighting genocide and rebel movements and give them logistical support. But let the Africans fight for the future of their country. This would be my ultimate goal, to prepare Africa to lead itself. But until the time comes when those countries are ready, I see little option aside from having the world lead the way with moral clarity and purpose.
By His Grace,
Ward
Ward,
Okay, you set out your beliefs fairly well, and if I might repeat the highlights as I understand them ('cuz otherwise I could be arguing with an invisible man I named Ward who has no relation to you):
1. Genocide is never morally justifiable.
2. There is a moral imperative for strong nations (or at least the USA) to act
to stop genocide.
3. Genocide is defined SPECIFICALLY as a strong group seeking the systematic
annihilation of a smaller group who is unarmed. The same motivation between
two armed groups is just war.
4. The U.N. is useless and should be discarded, or at least bypassed in dealing
with important issues.
5. It is preferable for local peoples to deal with moral problems, so you would
support the creation of local militias (for lack of a better word) to fight
genocide on each continent.
I am willing to accept #3 out of hand, as it seems like a common sense approach. However, you should be aware that it opens itself up to a very simple response from isolationists. If we simply arm all people groups, then genocide can not happen. But you know this would mean War would be a lot more common. Course, then there is a certain strand of American thought which is friendly to this.
There was a saying in the Old West: "God made all men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal." (Colt being the inventor of the colt revolver, of course.)
#4 seems to be pretty much a no-brainer at this point. The reason we use the U.N. is not because it does anything well. It is because any other option tends to be worse. And, of course, because they meet in New York so it is embarrassing for the USA to host the UN and then totally ignore them. I am personally very uncomfortable about any organization that declares itself a world government for practical and religious reasons, anyway, but that is neither here nor there.
#5 seems to me to be problematical, but only on a practical level. (1) Your example was to create a quick-response unit of Africans to deal with African genocides. Problem is, most people in Africa are tribal due to their history, and thus accepting of tribal conflict and have much genocide in their own history. Thus it is hard to imagine finding enough people to staff such a force, who would be genuinely against the activity in all circumstances. But still, local solutions to local problems is generally a laudable goal, so I can let this one go.
#1 and #2 are the ones that somehow are a problem for me. I can not yet clearly enunciate in my own mind my problem with #1. I guess it has something to do with images from LOTR, from the book of Revelation in scripture, and etc. If we had the power to destroy all demons in a moment, would it be morally-indefensible to do it? If we were faced with an enemy like the Uruk-hai, would it be morally-repugnant to hunt them as far as we could? But then, these are not human images and perhaps that is the difference. The imago dei that indwells all of us, and may or may not indwell fantasy creatures or the angels, holy or fallen.
For #2, I have a major problem with your assertion. Basically, as I understand the point, it is that it is not only the proper role of a Superpower to act as the world's policeman but that IT IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE. That upon becoming the most powerful nation, we immediately gain responsibility beyond not misusing that power. I guess your view is very Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility." And that responsibility is not simply to avoid hurting others, but also to go out of your way to keep them from hurt. While I think in some ways that can be a laudable sentiment, it can also have a LOT of bad consequences. Which I guess goes back to the proper role of nations, and of governments.
Nations exist as a union of sovereign peoples, allied under a single government
(or multiple single governments in our case) for common support, protection, and economic cooperation. The USA was formed from the British colonies so that (1) we could govern ourselves and deal with colonial concerns properly (local solutions to local problem again), (2) to provide for a common defense against hostile tribes and nations, and (3) to form an independent capitalistic economy within the colonies. And these roles of nationhood naturally govern the base roles of government. Nowhere in there is an imperative to intervene in the affairs of others, except as it relates back to the defense, economic well-being, and unity of the nation. Any role of government/nationhood beyond these three roles are surplus. Supporting the arts: surplus (though argued to be part of supporting economy and maintaining unity). Building roads: surplus (except as they aid in economic growth). Copyright law: surplus (except as it aids economic growth). Etc.
I suppose the other problem I have is with the notion that just because I can do a thing - even a good thing - that I must do it. And that in every case it is a sin NOT to do it. Just because the USA is capable of feeding all of Africa out of her granaries, does that imply that we have a responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry in Africa? I would say no. Both for reasons of higher goods (it is better to not make the continent dependent upon foreign aid to survive day-to-day) and reasons of simple practicality (how do we pay for the transport, who pays the farmers for the grain, how do we ensure the food reaches down to the masses, etc.)
Okay, that is probably enough for a first shot. I want to write more, but I think that would be overdoing it for an e-mail conversation. Let me know what you think of my thoughts. And realize I am dealing on a philosophical/political level. I am not doubting much of what you say on a personal level, as something Christ might demand of me personally.
- Nomad
Nomad,
I believe you have mostly accurately reflected what I was saying in your five
point summation. I would like to clarify for #5 however. It is preferable yes,
but not always possible. It would require training and discipline and cost. It would also require investment in the human side of Africa. That continent has to stop seeing itself as millions of tribes if the violence is ever truly going to end. This goes well into my next point...
I understand your idea and that is why I am so heavy on the idea of promoting
and teaching peaceful resolutions and political answers rather than armed violence
against those who have a different tribal or ethnic background. Without trying to sound arrogant, I feel that quiet frankly much of the Arab world and Africa are living in the Middle Ages still. This attitude must be ground out and we must lead with an example of civility and we must encourage the growing up of these cultures. I realize that this is a massive project of societal engineering but I believe that it is the only way to permanently come to a peaceful solution. As long as we continue to say "oh, they're just barbarians" and treat them as such, there is little incentive for an African or Middle Eastern ruler to desire a more mature relationship with the rest of the world. We can't say "look at those horrible people committing savage acts!" and ignore it. If we want Africa to grow then we have to invest the world into Africa and visa versa. The same goes for the Middle East. Isolationism as an ideal must die if we are to thrive in this world. And I am all for cutting it off and working to ensure that it never again becomes an American held ideology. And I'm not talking about any kind of colonial system or about exporting America. I'm taking about us leading the way by acting to protect the weak and educate those who hate in ignorance.
As for the problems with #1 and #2, you are correct that they are not human
beings. But, think of the Uruk-hai. They are a group bent on the extermination of mankind. Yet mankind is able to fight against them. This is a war and both sides are within their "legal" rights to defend themselves. Now, if the point came where one side could not fight and the other continued to hunt and murder them, it has become genocide. Of course, for the killing Uruk-hai it would never come to genocide because they are a convenient villain that is pure evil and hate and so they would never stop the fight. We do not see those sorts of enemies on earth. Even Hitler was human and, as you pointed out, had the imago dei which signifies him as one of God's children. Certainly not one of his adopted and saved children, but a child of God in the universal sense just the same.
As to your concern on #2 specifically, no not the world's policemen. It's not our duty to tell other countries how to run their affairs and it's not our job to mediate "legal" conflicts. But, as you said, arguing from a sort of Spider-Man argument there is a huge burden of responsibility placed upon us. But the Bible also tells us that to those who is given much, much more is expected. (Luke 12:48) And I do argue that the responsibility is indeed not to simply refrain from hurting others but to actively work towards helping. Indeed, the past is full of failed attempts at this. I would argue that this is because in the cases we have seen in our lifetime(as noted previous examples) we waited to act until there was no other possible course to take. If we, as a community, were more active in education and fighting against this kind of evil, then we would encounter it before it grew to the explosive levels that we have seen. This goes back to my argument against isolationism and goes into your next idea about the nationstate. We cannot continue to believe that what happens "over there" won't have an impact on us someday. We've continued to accept this lie for generations and every time it comes back to haunt us. We must realize that what happens in a tiny African country affects the rest of the world.
I would like to take a moment to refute your assertion about the role of the nation. True, in our free society that is what a nation does and we are a sovereign people reflected in that. However, in many Arab and African "nations" this is not the case. There are no freely elected leaders, no self rule, no freedom, and no protection if you dare to speak against the rulers. These people do no enjoy the same idea of a nation as we do and they certainly don't enjoy the amenities we do as a result of it. So yes, if a nation is working properly (a fair chosen leader, freedom for people, needs being met, etc) then I agree. However, this is rarely the case in the part of the world we are talking about. The 10/40 window is a hotbed of despots and oppressed people's groups. Yet, we call these groupings "nations." So we either need to redefine what a nation is or we need to work to topple these frauds calling themselves nations (and benefiting from that title) and institute change.
Now we get to the final point you make. Yes, we are called to do a thing if we can. Luke 12 reminds us of that. We, as the superpower of the world, have the power (politically, socially, and militarily) to stand up to evil. That means we have the responsibility to do it as well. Not only as a nation that confesses a belief in God but as a nation that confesses allegiance to the ideal that all men were created free by that God, it is our responsibility to act to stop suffering where we can. The programs we use must be measured and well thought out but they must be there. We must not cause more suffering than we are trying to ease and we must always be fair, compassionate, and merciful. But we must act. To not do so is to squander the power we have on ourselves in a selfish manner. Do we have the responsibility to ensure that on one goes hungry in Africa? Yes. The nationstate is a man-made institution and not a God ordained tool. So, if we have resources that are being wasted (as any farmer can tell you there are) and it is not getting to the starving Africans because of the idea of a "nation" then it is our responsibility to put the
"nation" idea in second place behind the idea of helping our fellow human beings. We're humans before we're Americans. The nations do not need to become dependent on us. We help them get onto their feet and we teach them. We refuse the idea that we are their saviors. We don't just give them food, we teach them how to grow and raise their own. We use our considerable scientific research ability to develop foods that can grow in places they cannot right now. We give the seeds to Africans and let them grow the crop and teach them how to harvest and then we leave. There is no need for continued dependence.
Will this affect the economy for a while? Sure. But imagine how different the world would be if every mouth could be fed? If every child learned to read and write and do math? I believe it's possible. Yes, Christ said that the poor would be with us till the end. But I don't believe that he meant it as "they will be with you because I will make them be." But instead he pointed out that our selfish natures will continue to focus only inward. It's an observation on humanity that is too clearly becoming true, but that doesn't mean it has to be the case. If every American sacrificed a couple of meals a year or served to help in some poor country, think how different our world would be? So what if our economy was hurt for a generation or two? So what if we had to go without for a while? The sacrifices we make would pay off ten fold in the future as we painted a happier world with the power we've been given.
I realize that's a tad off of genocide =) But I still believe that the idea is the same. We can't afford to be selfish anymore if we actually want the world to be a better place. We have to be willing to sacrifice something if we really want progress.
By His Grace
Ward
Ward,
Some good thoughts, though I think we are again clarifying some fundamentally different viewpoints between us. (Darn it, can't I simply agree with you one time! Oh, wait, we both like Star Wars! I feel much better now. ;-) I don't think I have time to address every point, but I think I'll hit a few highpoints in my problem with your last e-mail.
First, the nationstate. There are a number of theories for the proper role/foundation of a nationstate. The theory that I used is the one we used to found this nation, and which gives rise to our ideals of democracy, freedom, self-determination, and respect for other nations. Namely, the theory that every human being is a sovereign agent, and that we voluntarily (though not necessarily consciously) give up our perfect sovereignty to our government in order to form "a more perfect union." This theory is in NO WAY broken in monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, etc. The theory simply goes that anyone who is not actively rebelling against the dominant ruler has given up more of their freedoms to that ruler, in return for having fewer responsibilities to society. In a dictatorship, for example, one needs not be as educated as in a democracy, because competition can be closely controlled and your role precisely defined. Why learn how to read and write, if your role is ordained to.
Second, you state that the nation is a man-made institution. Technically true, but I am not sure that it does not rise out of something inherent in human nature. There are very few humans who survive truly alone, or even in tiny tribes. Most only survive as part of a nation, even a small nation. Plus, it must be noted God did say to Abraham "I will make you a great nation." Though I know it can be argued that this nation is not what we would call a nationstate today.
Third, I am uncomfortable with your statement that (1) most of the Third World lives "in the dark ages" and (2) that the West must "grind out those attitudes." (I note it is ironic for a pacifist to use the term "ground out" as the image invoked is a highly violent one.) Here is the problem. We have already agreed that local problems require local solutions. So why should the solution that Europeans have worked out necessarily be the solution for Africans or south Americans? For example, a two-house legislative branch, balanced by a single executive in a branch, balanced by a large judicial branch has worked amazingly well for Americans. Should we therefore impose this upon England? No way! There, a two-house legislative branch pretty much runs everything, with no independent executive and courts fully under the control the legislature. At the same time, this solution would not work here. If these two very specific solutions work in two places separated by only about 200 years, what about peoples and cultures separated by 100, 10,000, or ever 100,000 (depending on your opinion of dating methods)?
Fourth (is it #4, I lost track, we'll guess fourth :-) I have to wonder about applying Luke 12, spoken to individuals to whole nations. There is personal morality and there is national morality, and two are not always the same thing. If I kill you, except in self defense, it is murder. If the state kills you, it may not be so. The state may be pursuing justice (capital punishment), prosecuting a war, or doing other things. Likewise, while it is required of me that I give a tithe to the church, there is no such requirement of thestate, especially in a nation like ours with explicit separation of church and state. I realize these are simplistic examples, but I think they make the point. Equating what is demanded of a person is not always, or even often, the same thing demanded of an individual.
Fifth, as to the "Feed the poor" choice, I think your ideals are noble, but the pragmatics are all out of whack. It is the same kind of thinking which lead, while I was at [college], some idiots (not calling you an idiot, just them) to declare a "homeless vigil" where everyone was supposed to sleep out under the stars one night in the quad to "raise awareness." Nice idea, but in the end they accomplished nothing for the poor and just had a party on the quad. We are not dealing with Africa (or Asian countries or Balkan countries also starving or being persecuted) as individuals to individual, but as nations to nations. Or at least as large groups to large groups. The only way to ensure if we sent bread over to a place, to ensure it goes to orphans and widows and NOT to warlords, is to deploy an army to make it happen. Especially since most hunger is NOT a natural condition, but one enforced by dictatorships to enhance their power. During the 80s - during the "We Are the World" - we tried a number of methods for getting food to needy peoples. Lots of money was raised, lots of food was packaged up and sent, and guess what? It wound up rotting on the docks, or feeding/enriching the powerful because the national leadership did not care about the people, and actually DESIRED the condition of famine because it left no one with the strength to revolt.
Anyway, ultimately, it IS these kinds of things which will bring about a world government. Being a wacko evangelical nutcase, I tend to think it will be the instrument of the Antichrist. But I know you disagree. About the "instrument of the Antichrist" part. ;-) But it will come. The only way to accomplish some of these humanitarian goals, is to conquer peoples. But of course the thing is, conquering is exactly what humanitarians do NOT want to happen, because it requires the shedding of blood, or the forcing of people to do that which is contrary to their local customs, morals, or culture. We will destroy whole cultures (some would say "commit cultural genocide") in order to accomplish the goal of a full belly.
Tag. ;-)
- Nomad
Nomad,
Sigh. We were so close to agreeing for a moment. =) But I don't know if I could disagree more with most of what you said in your last message. Where to begin?
On the nationstate issue, I totally disagree. The idea of a nation is a group that has come together for a common goal, I agree. The whole idea that a nation is for the "collective good" is based on the fact that those under the influence of the nation have the choice. They either directly or through elected means choose who will pursue their "good." In a dictatorship, power is taken (usually by force) from the masses and given to either one person or an elite few people. This is a breakdown of the nation. When people living under a ruler have no say in the direction of that nation's course, it is not a properly functioning nation. Your argument would hold more water if you found a nation where the people have voluntarily given up their rights in order for a dictator to direct their lives for them. But that situation (as far as I'm aware) does not exist. Dictatorships and theocracies almost universally take power and keep the people down with it. It's not a choice for the people of Cuba to live under Castro. He has ensured that they have no effective tools to oust him and the retribution for attempting such an act is swift and brutal. Cubans did not decide en masse "Hey, we'd like to not have to think. We'd like to be illiterate and poor." No, they are forced into that situation because they're power has been stripped away. So, the idea that we can consider a dictatorship a working nation in the sense that America enjoys nationhood is not plausible.
I do agree that there is some inherent need in man to be with others. We're social creatures. However, that does not have to translate to "This is my area and that's yours, now don't come into mine!" We can have the community that man requires without divided masses of land.
For the record, I didn't say that the Third World lives in the "Dark Ages."
I said the "Middle Ages." I realize that they are the same period but the wordings have significant meaning and they are totally different in aim. To say the Dark Ages implies certain highly negative connotations. I choose the Middle Ages to express that developmentally, they are about 600 years behind the West. This is not a "they're savages beyond hope" statement, but an observation that is fairly supportable. The state of current Islam is very similar to the state of Christianity during the Middle Ages. This affects the rulership of those countries as well, which run much like Middle Age monarchies. This isn't because Islam is horrible, but because it is about 600 years younger than Christianity.
About the pacifism and "grounding out." Sigh. Why must we assume the worst about pacifism? I realize that many (especially in Europe) have used this ideal to be lazy. They say, "We're pacifists, we don't fight." Or they claim to be "neutral." Like you can be neutral when dealing with evil? To me, pacifism is the realization that 99.8% of conflicts could be avoided by reasoned individuals. Therefore, armed conflict should be the absolute last option. Because of this insistence on coming to a non-violent solution, the pacifist must be all the more committed to working harder than anyone else to use the political and social might to fight evil. Pacifism doesn't mean, "I don't want to deal with this." It means, "I will fight with every ounce of my being to come to a non-violent end to this situation if there is one present and I will not end fighting (in a non-violent sense) for this cause. Pacifism requires more work and more dedication than war because you have to be totally invested in it. Also, if violent conflict becomes the only option, the pacifist must accept the brokenness of humanity and accept that cost. So, being a pacifist is not a wimpy ideal. It is a strong principle being made to look bad by some euro-wimps. Now to the "grounding out." As I have just explained, I believe that evil and suffering must be exactly that. Ground out, destroyed, and never let to fester and grow. Again, my dedication to finding a non-violent solution requires me to fight evil all the harder and all the earlier. To spot hot-spots before they explode will allow us to mediate peaceful solutions and to use minimal force if it is deemed necessary to use force at all. My view is not, "Let's not worry about evil." No, my view is, "I must fight evil with all the my power so that it does not grow into the sometimes necessary evil of war."
As for the idea of forcing a form of government onto people, I'm not sure where you got that. I never implied that it was my belief. I've said that we should go and help them. Feed them, teach them to govern themselves, etc. That doesn't require that we force anything of our own systems on them. I was actually clear to state the opposite, that we cannot export America to these people. We teach them the principles of standing for themselves and self-rule. But we let them decide how to implement that. I am confidant that once they are taught the ideals, the practical parts will fall into place just as they did in our country.
Getting to your "personal" and "national" morality. This will come to no surprise to you as we have discussed this previously, but I totally disagree. I find no Biblical support for your idea. Nowhere do I see anything that tells me that I won't be responsible for what my nation does. And I find no examples of Jesus saying that there is a difference between national and personal morality. If you live in one of these dictatorships as we were speaking of earlier, then I buy your argument. But if you live in a representative government, the responsibility is our own. Your argue seems to say, for example, that we're not responsible in God's eyes for what the President does. Or that we aren't responsible for the lives taken by our government through capital punishment because we didn't kill those people. I disagree. The President is responsible for his decisions and is Congress, but we elected those officials. We put them in power. We had the choice to choose who would make the decisions for our country. Therefore, we share implicit responsibility for what they do in the world. Just as we elected officials that support the death penalty. Therefore, we are responsible for the death penalty and the lives taken with it. In a representative system, I believe God will hold all responsible for the decisions of that nation. I believe that America has done more good than bad in this world. I am happy to live in a society where I can say that. But God will still weigh us based on the decisions that we were complacent in through our voting. So, I believe Luke 12 is a good example, but that is because I reject your dualistic view of morality.
Now see, the people at [college] were...How can I say this delicately? Stupid. Yeah, that works. This is exactly the kind of hippie-turned-yuppie mentality passed onto our generation by our parents. "We gotta do something! Let's have a sleepout to feel for the poor!" No, this is dumb. It flies in the face of the stands I would take. I"m not talking about some kind of "feel good" exercise that makes me feel solidarity with the poor. I'm talking about every single American taking even just a year to go to some other place and work and slave and give of ourselves to make the world a better place. Token displays are useless in my world.
As to the sending of the food. We're not talking about reasoned individuals running these militias and so the pacifist is forced to concede that for the time being at least, talking will not cut it. However, once we have inroads, we can teach. Education will help raise a new generation to resist the desire and urge to fight. It will also take away the reasons. Most of the violence in Africa right now comes about because rebels feel neglected or starved. By raising the standard of living even just a little, we can eradicate these class warfare hostilities. The man who can eat is less likely to kill for food. The man who can have medicine is less likely to kill for a cure for his disease. We're still talking on different levels here. I'm talking about a massive moment by the wealthy of the world to help in real ways the suffering. You're comparing what I'm saying to token displays of college students. I'm saying, let's get up and go do something. Anything is better than what we're doing now; nothing.
One world government is not something I'm concerned about honestly. I don't think any of what I'm advocating would really lead to that sort of set-up. I'm just talking about bringing resources to the masses of suffering people being held down by tyrant's. And I'm talking about bringing justice to those being raped, murdered, etc by roving bands of thugs that have no concept of something better. There is no need to change customs or morals. Violence is not a custom or moral value. It is an abhoration. We can lift these people up to a level of understanding without stripping away their identity. I would argue that you seem to view them rather negatively if you believe that education and food will change their customs and moral values just because it might end violence. Africa should stay as Africa, but its people should be fed, free, and capable of choosing their own course.
Now you're it =)
By His Grace
Ward
Ward,
First, apologies for the "Dark Ages"/"Middle Ages" confusion.
Honestly, I skimmed thru your letter to find the exact wording you used, and couldn't find it. (One of the dangers of reading all of this stuff on the tiny screen of my Palm Phone.) So I grabbed the one that seemed to fit. No rhetorical shadings intended, and I think if you review I did not use the "Dark Ages" nomenclature in a perjorative sense. (Hey, I got to use nomenclature, rhetoric, and perjorative all in one sentence! My middle school vocabulary teacher would be SO proud!)
Second, I think I should observe that we are approaching a lot of this from radically different viewpoints, and that should just be noted clearly. On the nation-state issue, specifically, I am using standard philosophical traditions in my definitions and whatnot. Exactly the ones which were used by social scientists and economists and political theorists from Plato's time up to at least the American Founding Fathers. You are using a more "hands-on" approach. So some of our confusion may be applying the same words different ways and a matter of interpretation.
Third, on the "grinding out" thing, I was really just noting that your rhetoric was a violent image, while your point was a violence-free ideal. It was just ironic, and I found it funny. No offense intended.
Now that the peacemaking part is done, let me just say your assertion that "violence is an aberration, not the norm" amazed me. (Again I could not find your original quote exactly, sorry, though I should note you cleverly misspelled "aberration" as "abhorration" implying that it is not only not-the-norm, but to-be-hated which was a pretty cool rhetorical trick.) I do not understand how anyone who has studied scripture, history, philosophy, or just seen a bunch of third-graders fighting over the last cookie can come to this conclusion. (To be clear, I am speaking of post-Fall humanity. The nature of humanity prior to the exit from Eden and/or the nature of humanity in the eternal state are outside the scope of our discussion.) Humans are inherently selfish, and selfishness is always about getting what *I* want. The process of civilization is all about overcoming this inherent nature, and providing solutions to problems which (1) are better in the long term, and (2) which provide for the most good for the greatest number. But leaving humans in a natural state, and you get violence because violence is the quickest way to "what I want." There is almost always someone weaker than you to take from, just as there is always someone stronger to take it from you. Look at any place left to its own devices without a strong religious backbone, strong cultural heritage, and a decent economic system, and what do you have? War. Pure and simple. The reason that the "gospel is foolishness to men" is because it turns this on its head, and asks us to act contrary to our human natures. Give, rather than receive. Serve, rather than be served. Surrender, rather than rule. This is a high ideal precisely because it is AGAINST what we naturally do. The reason that violence is no longer the "norm" in American is because of a strong Christian heritage, backed by a strong philosophical heritage from the Greeks, and strengthened by a long-term history which reinforces the lessons of religion and philosophy. The natural state, as observed by Swift, is "nasty, brutish, and short." It is only in developed places (developed by civilization or redeveloped by Christ) that peace can reign.
Please, note this does NOT diminish the pacifist. It actually raises him up higher, as a true follower after Christ and one who is MOST working against the fallen nature of Man. That some use pacifism as an excuse for cowardice is not an argument against, nor did I ever say so. Actually, I still feel a powerful way to change the Middle East would be to teach more about Ghandi in the public schools of Iraq and elsewhere. Allow the Muslims to see that there are non-violent ways to fight, which are even more effective... At least where there is a free press.
My objection to your "universal service" idea is not philosophical so much as it is practical, and I will not comment further upon it. Right now, the way you have expressed it, it comes across very much like the college idiots - "We have to do SOMETHING," "Anything is better than this." Rather than debate the good of universal service, I will ask you - if you want to further that part of the discussion - to provide some practical ideas as to how it would work:
1. Would it be enforced by government decree, or be a social movement?
2. What kinds of service projects would you call for, specifically?
3. How would you ensure that these "service projects" were truly in
the public interest?
4. How would you disseminate these ideals into the greater culture?
On the subject of nationhood, we are arguing at cross purposes. I am positing that a nation is a collection of people arranged for a general purpose - that purpose being the Big Three I mentioned in my last two e-mails. *ALL* nations accomplish these goals: USA, Cuba, Soviet Russia, Roman Empire, etc. This does not mean every individual consciously assented to the current system. Even here in America, I never had a chance to "un-ratify" the constitution if I considered it to be a bad document. I never had a choice whether to change the government, in the sense that I was never really qualified to run for major office (skills-wise, and looks-wise) or have a chance to revise laws, etc. But I have assented to this government by NOT REBELLING. As have all peoples who live under a repressive regime, who are not in active or covert rebellion against that regime. You are arguing, as I understand you, that these other nations "are not nations in all ways that we understand the U.S.A. to be a collective of peoples with legal rights." (That is a paraphrase, not a quote.) That is absolutely true. But the lack of legally recognized rights no more invalidates natural rights, than the inability of the Supreme Court to recognize a fetus as a person makes it not a person. Likewise, I am talking about the generally-understood nature of a nations-state, and you are talking about a just and fair nation-state as organized generally in the West. So we should probably reboot that conversation before continuing along it.
Anyway, now that I have responded all of your non-genocide-related issues... Where were we? ;-)
Oh! I think the main genocide-related issue was whether personal morality and national morality can be separated, and I think this is probably the crux of the matter for both of us. I say that what is good for the individual and what is good for the nation can be VERY different.
Please note, I do NOT mean by this that individuals are not judged as part of a nation. On the contrary, this is part of the basis for differentiation between national and personal morality, and judgment. For Israel, Nineveh (i.e. Babylonian empire), Jericho, etc., God judged the WHOLE NATION for a national guilt, even though individuals may have existed within the nation were not guilty. When Israel grumbled against God, chances are there were some who did not. The village idiot unable to understand, the quietly faithful man who trusted in Moses, etc. But since these ones did not separate themselves from the nation, they were judged. Likewise, when God blesses Israel (or Egypt or Nineveh or etc.) he blesses the nation. When Jonah was sent to Nineveh to prophesy its destruction, the nation repented and God relented. Did this mean literally every man, woman, and child stopped sinning and admitted guilt? No. It meant that the leadership proclaimed repentance and took symbolic steps, and a reasonable representation of the people followed suit. I suspect there were still some idol-sellers who were quite upset, just as they were in Paul's day when he slowed the selling of Artemis statues.
So, let us look at this from a current perspective. We were attacked as a nation on 9/11 by the terrorists. Did this mean that we would have been morally justified in individually getting into planes, boats, etc. en masse, invading Afghanistan, and murdering Taliban by force, for allowing Bin Laden to attack us? Of course not!!! "Eye for an eye" is not something that can be practiced individually without, as Ghandi said, "the whole world going blind." But bring the state into it, and it is very different. The state organizing an army, sending it to Afghanistan, and using the army as the long arm of justice can be morally justified by the Doctrine of the Just War (Thomas Aquinas). (I am not arguing there may not have been a pacifistic option, just that this option is also morally justifiable.) Or let us take an example which is not opposed to pacifistic views,
inherently. If there are two of us in a town, Ward and Nomad, and Ward is rich while Nomad is poor, am I justified morally to take from Ward to feed Nomad? No!!!
Whether I am Nomad or I am Ward, I am not morally justified in stealing. But if Nomad and Ward are in the same town, and the town council decides to tax Ward and give food stamps to Mark, this is entirely morally justified. This is a function of the nation or the state in balancing the rights and needs of the populace.
So we take this same idea to Sudan. Let us posit that genocide (defined as a strong majority attempting to wipe out a small, defenseless minority) is occurring there. Let us further posit that the USA has the power to end this condition, thru military might (most likely - i.e. peacekeepers), diplomatic pressure, or economic sanctions. Does this necessarily lead to a moral imperative for the USA to immediately act to stop what is happening in Sudan?
Individual level:
1.If I were a policeman and saw an unarmed man getting beaten up by a thug with a
bat, it would be my job to act. (Agent of the state, using his power to end
violence)
2.If it were Christ, he might interpose himself between the thug and the innocent,
taking the beating upon himself. Or at least dress down the thug with strong
language designed to leave no room for the thug to not be persuaded. Whichever
would work. (Redeemer using his power to stand in the place of someone else.)
3.If I were a doctor, there would be a moral imperative for me to act and bandage
the wounds as best I could. (Person who has accepted a precise societal role and
taken an oath, acts to fulfill that oath.)
National level:
1.Is America really the world's policeman? What uber-state (or other agency) has
given American the state-like power to step in and mediate disputes?
2.Is America a redeemer for the world, or a collective dedicated to caring for its
own people, who is only justified in acting in "the national interest"?
If the latter, is intervening in Sudan, which might further inflame Islamic
fundamentalists against us and further alienating our allies, really in "the
national interest"?
3.Has America taken an oath to protect the world, or at least the oppressed, thus
making intervention in Sudan part of fulfilling our oath?
I would say that the personal motivations in the former, simply don't work for the latter national level. We are not the world's policeman (despite theorists to the contrary). We are not a redeemer for the world. And intervening in Sudan, on a purely "national interest" level, is probably something many Americans would oppose. For example, if Bush sent peacekeepers today and we were hit by terrorists tomorrow, do you not think John Kerry, Ralph Nader, Howard Phillips, Pat Buchanan, etc. would charge that there was a cause-and-effect? And would they not be right? And America has NOT taken an oath to protect the world. Just its allies.
If there is a moral imperative to intervene in Sudan (and to give away the ending, I suspect there is) it has to come from somewhere else. In my ever-so-humble opinion, of course. ;-)
Tag! :-)
- Nomad
Nomad,
No problem at all on any of the misunderstandings of meanings. I just want to be sure that we are clear on the vocabulary we use and its meaning since, as you pointed out, we are coming from different places. About the view as violence and "aberration" and "abhorration" well yes I can be a bit trixy I suppose =) But I still hold my point that violence is both. True, it is a part of fallen human nature, but that does not make it the norm. Very few people actually commit violence against others and even fewer people will actually ever take another life (at least intentionally.) If violence and murder came so naturally to us, then why would militaries throughout history need to condition soldiers to kill the opponents? If violence is so natural, then why do we need to demonize our enemies? America even needed to use horrible propaganda to drill it into our young men that it was right to kill Germans. Hitler had to use propaganda to incite his people to kill Jews. He even needed to convince them that the Jews, gays, gypsies, blacks, etc were not really human. It is true that humans can turn violent, especially in a mob setting. But I believe that history supports my belief that most people will chose to not commit violence against others in most circumstances. Therefore, I hold that violence is not a norm but the product of specific circumstances.
As to how this comes to be, I agree that it is through civilization supporting the laws of the Bible and applying those laws in reasoned ways that help us to be better humans. The irony to me is that this is exactly what I am saying we need for Africa and you are disagreeing with me. My argument is that we need to help Africans and Arabs understand that a society is stronger than one man. We are better when we are accountable. Unless we intervene and equip the third-world to deal with these issues, the violence and brutality will continue.
Concerning the universal service, I'm not saying "anything is better than this." I'm say "let's get a good plan and do it because it will be better than this." Here are my thoughts about your four points:
1.It would be a part of citizenship. If you want to become a citizen to (what I consider to be) the greatest nation on earth, then you must spend a year serving those who are suffering. Every child born an American would also take part in this before citizenship was fully granted. They would be a citizen as they are born here, but after a certain year (say the 18th birthday) to maintain their citizenship it would be required that they spend a year in service. After that, if they choose to go onto college or work or stay helping, it is fine either way.
2.Education, construction, medical work. Basically, the same kind of work missionaries do now.
3.If you're building homes for the homeless, feeding the starving, educating the future leaders, etc.
4.I believe that kindness and service are contagious. The people who we have helped will remember what was done for them. Sure, some will never lift a finger to help another but many will. And they will have a much more positive view of the US.
Concerning the nation-state, you still don't see my point. True, you never got to take part in the Constitutional process, but you can leave. You have the freedom to move to another country and live however you want. You can't compare yourself to someone suffering in North Korea. We have basic freedoms that people there have never known. You might consider both the US and North Korean to be nations, but they have virtually nothing in common. Therefore, to ratify both as a nation seems to leave us with very little left of what it means to be a nation. More importantly, it seems morally reprehensible to me.
While I understand your separation of national/individual morality and agree with the way you have explained it, I will find myself disagreeing with your conclusion. Not even all of it, mind you. But some of it. I would say that if there was a non-violent way of successfully dealing with the two invaded countries mentioned, then we are morally accountable for the lives lost as a result of those invasions. Even if it was the government who authorized it and so on. If there was no other way to avoid conflict, then you and I would be at agreement. However, I remain unconvinced that there was no other method for pursuing our goals. History might prove this to be the case, and if so, then I'll be grateful. But, if history proves that we were wrong, then I also believe that we will be judged accordingly for that. But this is getting slighly off topic so I will get off of my soapbox and get to Sudan. That is, after all, what started this entire topic.
In response to your first question, does America have a moral imperative, Yes. And, I agree with all three observations about the individuals. Now, on to the national level....
1. In response to the issue of being the world's policemen, I simply don't see it. Being the world's policemen would mean that we went to Sudan and told people how to drive, what hours to work, etc. We are talking about the slaughter of up to millions of lives. I know that anyone who leans remotely right has this deep fear that we are going to get stretched around the world helping everyone else and we'll end up part of the one-world government, etc. But we're talking about a whole lot of innocent people who no one will stand up for. You better believe that we had better do SOMETHING to help or God will judge us.
2. In response to America as redeemer, no. But we do have the moral imperative to protect those we are capable of protecting. True, we might inflame Islam. But think of the millions of saved lives. The way to beat militant Islam is to turn the world against them. Right now, they are turning the world against us. We must reverse this and anything that proves to the world that we care and desire to help is a plus. As to the issue of America as "collective." I certainly hope not. We must never forget that we are humans first and Americans second (at best.) For those of us who claim God as our savior, we had better be Americans third or fourth.
3. No, no oath and I don't think it's necessary. Just mandatory service for citizenship ;-)
By His Grace,
Ward
P.S. I think there are other ways aside from the one world government. I like
the idea of a world full of Christians.
[[About the view as violence and "aberration" and "abhorration", well yes I can be a bit trixy I suppose =) But I still hold my point that violence is both. True, it is a part of fallen human nature, but that does not make it the norm. Very few people actually commit violence against others and even fewer people will actually ever take another life (at least intentionally.) If violence and murder came so naturally to us, then why would militaries throughout history need to condition soldiers to kill the opponents? If violence is so natural, then why do we need to demonize our enemies?]]
Sigh. You just don't see what I see, but maybe that is where we are standing. Let me first reiterate that I feel the view that "violence is an aberration" is a COMPLETE falsehood and ignores the bulk of human history. Judging human nature from our current state is like judging ice cream from the state you find it in when it is served to you in a cone with sprinkles on top. That is not its "natural state" - being a liquid mess on the floor is its "natural state." But we put a lot of effort into ensuring that this is NOT the state you find it in when it is served to you.
Why do militaries throughout history have to induce soldiers to kill? Why do they have to demonize enemies? Because of two factors.
1. We seem to have an innate sense that the killing of humans is wrong. From a Christian standpoint, I'd give credit to a moral instinct or conscience. From an evolutionary standpoint, I'd credit our herd instinct which recognizes that the death of one animal like us implies that we may be the next one to die. Same way that dogs avoid other dead dogs, though they will kill one if instinct requires it.
2. Because the process of civilization works SO HARD to install into us that hurting others and killing others is wrong. We spend the first 18 years of life instilling empathy, compassion, and fighting self-centeredness. So when one enters the army, we have to work VERY HARD to remove some of these conditions, while leaving enough of them in place for an out-of-work soldier to not be a threat to society.
And demonization of enemies does the same thing for society at large. For years we tell folks "mind your own business" and "be nice to others." Then when war comes, we have to find strong and compelling reasons to overcome these two simple rules of civilization. If you want proof that violence is in our nature, spend some time with a 2 year old. They know only a few things: what they want right then, who their friends are, and who the authority in the room is. A 2 year old (and this continues until at least 8 or so, longer in kids from a dysfunctional family who are NOT taught our civilizing values) sees a toy and knows they want it. The attempt to procure the toy. If the toy is in the hand of an unknown person, they will attempt to grab it and even push and hit the other kid to procure it. If it is in the hand of a friend, they might ask for it, but still will attempt to procure the toy without any thought for the physical well-being of the other. What can stop this process? The word of the authority in the room. Why? Because the authority figure can exercise physical force to enforce their directives including (depending on the family) physical removal of the child to another room or spanking.
If you want further proof that violence is a part of us, check out people who have had some trauma which lessen the ability of life lessons to control our nature. Alcohol Syndrome babies do not have the ability to control their impulses, so they generally become violent offenders at an early age. Autistic children tend to become violent whenever their expectations are not met. Seriously mentally traumatized people tend to either completely withdraw from the world, or become violent in their opposition to it.
[[But I believe that history supports my belief that most people will chose to not commit violence against others in most circumstances. Therefore, I hold that violence is not a norm but the product of specific circumstances.]]
But the history of Man *IS* a history of violence, war, and murder. Did anyone have to teach Cain how to murder? Is it a coincidence that tribal warfare was endemic in all places man has lived prior to the establishment of a larger overlord, as in the case of Egypt? Is it a coincidence that even in higher societies, fundamental change is almost always accomplished with violent revolution and revolt? Is the American Revolution a sign that the British Monarchy and Founding Fathers were somehow mentally deficient? No. Man is violent by his fallen nature, because violence is always about the ending of empathy and the focus on selfishness. And these are the two key components of Sin, and Sin is our nature.
Can you find any period of history not embued with violence? The "Pax Romana" was enforced with violence all along its borders, and with endemic violence in its culture (gladiators, etc.) The "Pax Americana" (our current state of history) is enforced by applied violence amidst naturally violent places such as the Balkans, the Middle East, etc.
Out of curiosity, can you provide a single verse from scripture - or even emergent doctrine - which supports the idea that violence is alien to our fallen nature
[[...The irony to me is that this is exactly what I am saying we need for Africa and you are disagreeing with me. My argument is that we need to help Africans and Arabs understand that a society is stronger than one man....]]
I am not exactly arguing the ideal of yours. I am arguing the practicality and finding a lot of internal contradiction in your views. Oh, and Africans and Arabs understand that "society is stronger than one man." There is still a lot of trouble establishing that "society" for them is larger than their own tribe, but they understand this. But there is a sense that establishing their own forms of society (tribal identity, Islam, etc.) are justifiable reasons to use violence. And they feel that society can not be strong until these forms are established for all people within their influence.
[[Concerning the universal service, here are my thoughts about your four points:
1. It would be a part of citizenship…
2. Education, construction, medical work...
3. If you're building homes for the homeless, feeding the starving,educating the future leaders, etc.
4. I believe that kindness and service are contagious...]]
Okay, I have a better idea now of what you are thinking. This kind of ideal (though he felt it was universal MILITARY service) was an idea in Robert Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS (the book). It has some interesting ideas, but it fails several tests of practicality and even philosophical integrity.
1. You are completely changing the definition of "citizen" under this model. As a matter of fact, since citizenship is now dependent upon some governing body who decides your service is "self-service" or "other-service" you are potentially creating an underclass who can not reach citizenship. And also ironically, you are essentially guaranteeing an upper-class ruled society, because it is only the rich who can afford to leave their family for a year to perform this kind of service. I can anticipate the reaction - well, provide a government stipend for those who serve - but this only serves to strengthen the power of that governing body. Let me give you one simple example. Let us say you choose to serve overseas at a planned parenthood clinic, to help single mothers in Russia. You come back and face a panel of pro-lifers who decide that your service for PP was a political statement and not service. Suddenly, you are up a creek without citizenship. Anyway, you see both the practical (government power) and philosophical (denying the poor) issues.
2. OK. How do you differentiate? I go overseas to build a church. Can this count, considering separation of church and state? I go overseas to build a church for LDS. Can this count, considering LDS is considered a cult over there? I go overseas and serve as an educator at an Islamic Madrassah teaching reading, writing, and radical Islam. Does that count?
3. Same as #2.
4. I do not believe kindness and service are contagious. They do provide some pleasure to those who serve, but even they need to carefully guard their hearts and minds against greed, self-service, etc to stay in the service. If I help you, it may give you an incentive to help someone else. But that does not necessarily translate into society at large. There are plenty of people willing to take, take, take, unto infinity... And perhaps after a while decide that your gifts are really their entitlements.
But overall, these really do not relate to genocide. And I agree that your "Universal Service" idea is a nice one. I just do not feel it can be enforced generally without hurting people. This is more the kind of thing that like the Great Awakening, needs to be a movement. A voluntary action to change society and the world.
[[Concerning the nation-state, you still don't see my point....You might consider both the US and North Korea to be nations, but they have virtually nothing in common. Therefore, to ratify both as a nation seems to leave us with very little left of what it means to be a nation.]]
No, I see your point. I just think it is not relevant to my original argument. I am talking about the basic definition of a nation-state. You are talking about the definition of a JUST nation-state. I am reading from the classical playbook (written by men as comfortable with monarchy as with democracy) and you are reading from a modern liberal (not in the right-left sense) playbook. We have to stop this one now, as we have degenerated to the point of looking at a purple, polka-dotted car and debating whether it can really be called "a car" since 99.999999% of people would hate such a vehicle and would thus call it "an eyesore" instead.
[[In response to your first question, does America have a moral imperative, Yes.]]
Well, I'm glad that is resolved then. Oh, wait. ;-)
[[1) In response to the issue of being the world's policemen, I simply don't see it. Being the world's policemen would mean...We are talking about the slaughter of up to millions of lives....But we're talking about a whole lot of innocent people who no one will stand up for. You better believe that we had better do SOMETHING to help or God will judge us. ]] The definition of "the world's police" you use again shows ignorance of the general meaning of the term. The way it was originally used (Teddy Roosevelt?) and continues to be used is NOT to mean "We will enforce and oversee every law they enact." It means, "We will intervene when something occurs which offends us and is contrary to international law."
Still, I take it that you DO feel that America as "policeman-who-only-acts-to-protect-against-the-slaughter-of-innocents" has a moral imperative to act.
Personally, I reject the idea of America as the world's policeman even in the watered down form that is indicated here. It implies that we have a specific authority from somewhere that we lack. We do not have a special moral authority. See Hiroshima (though I support that). See Slavery. See many other things. However, I do see America as something somewhat similar. We are the world's superhero (for now). We do not have special authority, but only special power. This does not give us a Spider-Man style IMPERATIVE to act, but it gives us a freedom to act. But IF WE DO ACT it must be in the pursuit of good acts. I think isolationists are right in a moral sense. We are permitted to be the priest in the Good Samaritan who passed by. But God prefers us to act like the Samaritan, who did good but knew he might get beaten or stoned by a Jewish mob for touching a pureblood. And we must be prepared, because in doing good, we eventually WILL be stoned for it. The world is NOT just.
[[2) In response to America as redeemer, no. But we do have the moral imperative to protect those we are capable of protecting. True, we might inflame Islam...]]
I am having a hard time here. Your argument is weak, but I have some agreement on your end conclusions. Inflaming Islam is not the little thing you make it out to be here, and it is not a case where "the world" would appreciate our intervening in Sudan. If "the world" were in agreement here, then the U.N. would be acting instead of passing vague resolutions and referring the matter to a committee. If the U.S. intervenes in Sudan, it is SPECIFICALLY to end war of Islam against non-Islam. That will CONFIRM the charges raised by Al-Qaeda to much of the Islamic world. That will lead to more recruits and more bloodshed. Personally, I don't care about that. But that means a whole lot more innocent lives lost, and it seems like you would say we would be held personally responsible for that.
Personally, I do not see us as a Redeemer, as a nation. Individually, we Christians should be pushing for action and perhaps even going over ourselves to stand between the victims and the persecutors. And I tend to think national action WILL only make things worse on the world stage. But again, as the world's Superhero, we can not act if we are not willing to take the lumps. And if we act here, it should be quickly to stand between the victims and their enemies.
[[3) No, no oath and I don't think it's necessary. Just mandatory service for citizenship ;-) ]] Cute, Marie, cute.
[[P.S. I think there are other ways aside from the one world government. I like the idea of a world full of Christians. ]]
That's right, you are an Amillenislist, who believes that Christianity is WAXING and not WANING. I think very differently. Even so, the last time the world was "full of Christians" (prior to the rise of atheism and communism, let's say 1600 to 1800) it wasn't so wonderful of a world. Millions professing the name of Christ, does not mean millions acting in His interests or the interests of others. Then again, I am sure that just gets us back into a debate over terms, and whether the world was really "full of Christians" if Islam still held the Middle East. So, to sum up the discussion so far:
1. We agree on the end. Sudan should be protected, and America should act.
2. We completely disagree on why, how, etc.
I think I will let you have the last word in the next e-mail, since I kind of started this thing. Then we can post this discussion to Mod-Blog. Have you decided where you want to put it? I still think "Essays on Faith" is the best place.
- Nomad
Nomad,
Yes, I have to agree that we should probably wind this down. I think we've gotten about as divergent as we can here and we've gotten down to the absolute nuts and bolts of the differences in our world-view and theology.
Again, I totally disagree with your conclusions about violence. The acts of violence are almost always perpetrated by a leader or government dragging the citizens of that grouping (rather a nation or tribe) into war. The fact that we have seen much violence in the history of the world does not prove to me that violence is natural to man. It proves to me that people can be controlled and used for violent means by the few who are capable of imagining horrible things. I will still insist that your average citizen, even on a tribal level, would have trouble killing unless they are conditioned that it is the right response. They might fight and hurt another, but the impulse to kill is not natural. As to dealing with people who suffer injuries, I feel that point strengthens my argument. After all, they became violent after something happened to damage their brain. But we could argue on that as well, I'm sure =)
I think the bulk of our head-butting here comes from the understanding of our
world. For me, I accept the Wesleyan ideal that the imago dei did not die after the fall. We are truly fallen and wretched but we still have the spark of God within us and that spark works despite our fallen nature. When God finds us, it is through that image of himself in us that he works. Therefore, even in our fallen nature, there is still something good within us. It might be buried deep, but it is there. It would take far too long to go into a theological discourse on this. But if you're interested, I would recommend simply reading some of Wesley's writings. He is meticulous with his research and he pulls his ideas heavily from Paul and can back them up well.
I'm familiar with Heinlein's book. Thankfully, I read it before I saw that wretched movie. I would disagree with your idea of citizenship. We already have a system that all non-natural born people have to go through for citizenship. I don't see any problem with requiring people born within our borders to go through a process as well.
As to the issue of creating classes, no. There can be no exceptions. Everyone goes or they do not become a citizen of the country. No amount of money or political power can get someone out of serving. I realize that there is a lot of politics involved, but while I'm dreaming, I'm going to dream big. As for what is acceptable, we enlarge the naturalization department and set up the most basic rules of what is acceptable and what is not in aid work. I couldn't care less what a pro-life group thinks if I went to Russia and worked at Planned Parenthood. The issue shouldn't be a political one. (Dreaming big)
Concerning #4, I think we simple see things differently again. I do believe that it is contagious. I believe that if we help the world, the people of the world will help themselves and each other.
Concerning the nation-state, yes it's not particularly helping with the debate about genocide and I've spent more time writing about that then I have the issue at hand. So, truce.
As to the "world's police", no it doesn't show my ignorance of it because I understand exactly what it, and you, mean. However, I'm rejecting it because I honestly believe that it is a stupid analogy and it belittles the spirit of what we're doing. It is nearly universally used in a condescending manner (I'm not accusing you of that right now) that belittles the heart and soul of those who want to help somehow. It seems to be a cheap attack from the Right in our country to demean the efforts that are being made. As I said, we're talking about a lot of lives, this isn't a policing action. It's a social program.
Actually, we've found a small bit of agreement. I don't believe that America has any kind of authority in the legal defined sense that should require other nations to see things our way. However, I believe we have the responsibility to act because of the resources we have been blessed with. I have no problem with being stoned if it's because I have helped even just one person in this world.
As to inflaming radical Islam, in the grand scheme of God's creation I do believe it to be a small thing. Especially in comparison to helping save lives. As to the rest of the world. They see us with the anger they do now because we have failed to act. Time and time again, we have failed to act on behalf of the suffering. Then we point the finger and say "oh those poor African savages, too bad." Then we go back to sitting in our recliner in our air conditioned houses with our cold tea and our 200 channels of nothing but garbage on. Then, just maybe, our President will decide that we should get involved by carpet bombing their nation. That's why the world is angry with us. We do nothing until it's too late and then we do the wrong thing. Our country, and our people, can do so much more.
Again, I point out that I am opposed to military action. I believe that violence should be the absolute last choice. Yet, we have let things get to that point. If we had thought forward and reached out to help in peaceful ways (which is what I'm really calling for here, after all) then we wouldn't be in these situations having to choose between the lesser of two evils. That's the whole crux of what I'm saying. If we act peacefully and compassionately now, we can change the world and maybe cut off the next generation of massacres before it starts.
I do believe that world full of Christians would look very different then it did in the 1600's when much of the world was not Christian. Europe suffered from what we now call "group-think" and failed to see the diversity and beauty in all of God's creation. Therefore, the "Christianity" of that Europe is not what I would be referring to. Instead, I see a world where everyone worships God in peace and understanding because we're not limited to such a narrow concept of what it means to worship God. My personal experience has been that meeting Christians different from yourself expands your horizons. I know that the Russian Christians I meant in my time there made most American Christians look like pale frauds in comparison. A true Christian world would look very different from anything we've seen before.
So yes, thanks for letting me have the last word =) I think we've covered lots of ground and it's been fun.
So, I finally saw Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. This movie, the most hyped movie of the year before Michael Moore belly-flopped onto the screen, has already had so much written about it that I wondered if I will say anything new. After having seen it, I think maybe I will. After all that I had heard, seen, and read...I left the theater wondering what all the fuss was about. Let's look at the movie point by point and see why it was so controversial for no apparent reason:
1)It's about Jesus - This is an obvious strike against it from Hollywood since it doesn't portray Christ as a pot-smoker, a sexual deviant, or a total nut. In tinsletown, it's only okay to show Jesus if you show him as someone who should be ridiculed. I hardly think that Christians in America are persecuted in any large scale, let's drop looney conspiracy theories right now. But there can be no doubt that Hollywood is one of the most unfriendly places to Christians in our nation. I don't believe that the stars hate us all that much. It's more of the fact that I think most of them have never met a normal, everyday Christian. Therefore, their understanding of what we believe is tainted by what they think we believe. We also have to deal with the fact that Christ's message is not particularly friendly to blind ambition, power seeking, and lust for both riches and people. These are all staples in the Hollywood landscape.
2)The Message - So much has been made by critic after critic about how wrong it is to make a movie about Jesus and only show the last twelve hours of his life. They argue that this gives a skewed perspective on what Christ taught. Have they watched the movie? Nearly half of the film is flashbacks to Christ's life. The Sermon on the Mount is shown, the Last Supper is shown, Jesus and Mary's relationship is shown, the Garden Prayer is shown. Several of these scenes capture the very essence of what Christ came to teach us. To argue that this movie misses his message for the sake of violence is absurd and reflects an absolute lack of knowledge on the part of the reviewers.
3)It Will Renew Anti-Semitism - Give it a break. I love to watch Band of Brothers and I enjoy Schindler's List. Does that make me want to go kill Germans? Of course not. This is the most ignorant and plainly stupid arugments made yet. I realize that Christians and Jews have had a rough relationship at times. However, to argue that this movie will cause Christians and others to committ acts of violance against Jews is patently rediculous. Jesus was a Jew and he was betrayed by Jews. It's that simple, the Jewish leadership wanted him dead and they got their way. Does this make all Jews bad? No. Does this mean Jews are to blame for the death of Christ? No more so than the Romans or any other person who has ever sinned and made it necessary for God to sacrifice his son for our sakes. I believe that the campaign to press this issue was started by anti-religious bigots who thought they could stir up a hornet's nest. I have also never seen so shocked as I was when I saw how many film critics are actually ancient history majors out of work. I can't count on my fingers and toes the number of times one critic or another has argued how how historically accurate the portrayal of Pilate was. How much do we know about this figure? Not a whole lot. We know he hated his placement, we know that his wife was a Christian, we know that he let the crowd decide about Jesus' fate, and we know that he was eventually called back to Rome and replaced in Israel. Aside from those scant facts, we know virtually nothing about him. So feel free to disregard other information that you hear from historical "experts" hiding as film critics.
4)The Violence - This was really the reason I stayed away as long as I did from the movie. I hate violence, especially realistic violence. I had heard over and over about how over-the-top the violence was and how sickening the movie became. Andrew Sullivan called it "pornographic." Just as I was most hesitant to see the movie becuase of this, after having sat through the film I am most dumbfounded at how critics over-reacted to this film. The infamous torture scene that was supposed to make you sick to the stomach lasted less then ten minutes! Don't misunderstand, it was disturbing and it was horrible to imagine. However, there is little in the scene that can be argued. It's a known fact that the Romans were cruel to people they viewed as criminals. Honestly, you can be sure that the real life beating of a criminal would have been much worse. They often did not make it to the cross, but instead died during the torture. Sure, Jesus is shown as bloody and is not particularly pleasant to look at. I'm sure it was a lot worse in his sandals, so let's get over it. This movie was reviled for its violence by some of the same critics who loved Kill Bill becuase of how "gritty" and "realistic" its own violence was. I suppose as long as you're Quintin Terrantino, it's okay to make over-the-top violence and call it entertainment. Otherwise, violence for the point of actually trying to make a point is horrible.
With all that said, there were scenes of the movie I didn't like. I thought the scene when Jesus was pierced was particularly disturbing. There is no indication that blood and water sprayed. The entire point of that narrative is to indicate that Christ was dead and had been for some time. The water and blood would have trickled down his side since there would have been no blood pressure to spew the mix out. Particularly strange was the Roman taking a bath in the mix. Likewise disturbing and un-neccesary was the crow plucking out the theif's eye. This makes God look petty and is completely useless.
Aside from those few moments and maybe one or two other small events that I can't even recall, I felt that the movie did a great job reflecting the price that Christ had to pay for all of mankind. If you don't believe, that is your choice. But it does not meant that the movie is horrible. Even from a purely cinematic perspective, the film is head and shoulders above any other Jesus film yet. Mel Gibson deserves praise just for being willing to actually make a movie about Jesus and not make it appear like a documentary. He has directed a film that makes Jesus, as well as those around him, look human. I hope this opens the door to many more excellent films by and about Christian topics.
