Jeff over at my four walls took this picture… wowza. Go check out Lucas’ site, pretty great stuff all around, not to mention he takes the time to take great pictures like this. What if we called the pastor and gently informed him that there is heresy on their church signage? I’m sure they’d like to know!

Part III: Spiritual Values and International Relations
When Did Jesus Become Pro-War?
Chapter 9 - Dangerous Religion
The Theology of Empire

In this chapter Wallis takes on US imperialism, or as some put it our ambition for empire. Not since Rome has a nation Lorded it over others as America does today. Add to this ambition language about God and we have a problem.
The language about empire isn’t even being hidden these days, Wallis quotes William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard; “If people want to say we’re an impoerial power, fine.” Kristol among others view the current situation as ripe for US empire, where their vision of “an American peace” is based on “unquestioned U.S. military preeminence” (p. 138).

Wallis says that it is “imperative, in their view, for the United States to ‘accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles.’ And, they warn, ‘The failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an end.’ That, indeed is empire.” Wallis quotes Kristol again who says, “Well, what’s wrong with dominance, in the service of sound principles and high ideals?”

Well Kristol… there was this guy. He was from the Middle East, lived about 2000 years ago… was the son of the living God… you know, all that. Well one day he was talking to his followers (of whom there are a few billion today), and he said… “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared… You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Luke 10:39-45

So apparently the son of the living God doesn’t see power in the same way Kristol does. But I suppose people disagree. I’m just glad that none of Jesus’ followers are proposing that Kristol’s views are Christian views…

…and then there was George W. Bush.

Bush apparently is blind (or indifferent) to the kind world that results from this America-centered peace, where what’s good for the world is defined by what’s good for us. So “US interests” become the higest authority in the world. And let’s be totally honest… “US interests” often mean supporting dictatorships and facist regimes because they help suppress Unions and that helps Nike make some sneakers at a very very low cost. And that might just mean that this “American way of life” of buying Nikes cheaper than we might otherwise will continue… but I’ll take more expensive gas and sneakers over raping the rest of the world any day.

And while my cynicism about Bush grows daily, Wallis is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, saying, “I don’t doubt that George W. Bush’s faith is sincere and deeply held. The real question is the content and meaning of that faith and how it impacts his administration’s domestic and foriegn policies.” While Bush talks about God a LOT, where does it effect his foriegn policy? Wallis conintues… “The real theological question about George W. Bush was whether he would make the pilgramage from being essentially a self-help Methodist to a social-reform Methodist… Would Bush’s God of the twelve-step program also become the God who required social justice and challenged the status quo of the wealthy and powerful, the God of whom the biblical prophets spoke?”

Short answer… not yet, that’s for sure.

Wallis says, “The self-help Methodist slowly became a messianic Calvinist, promoting America’s mission to “rid the world of evil.”

I think that Wallis’ paragraph treatment of Bush’s “God of the 12-step program” let him off way to easy. Folks… listen to the man. What has Bush ever said about God that couldn’t be some generalized “higher power” that you’ll find in any AA meeting? Where is the specific, peculiar faith of Christianity? And is it any surprise that the majority of conservative Christians don’t pick up on this? Many if not most Christians in America today traded in the Christian faith for American Civil Religion a long time ago, so Bush’s bland relgious rhetoric that never challenges the GOP status quo, and always pays homage to “America, Freedom and Liberty” never raises an eyebrow among the religious right.

While the neo-cons, Bush included, have some crooked post-modern symptoms (the truth is defined as what benefits their cause, they don’t have to surpress dissent they just attack the foundation of anything that would criticise them), they show their modernist mindset in the absolute refusal to link any foriegn policy with the fundamentalist faith they proclaim. Bush can be against abortion because of his “deeply held faith,” but the war in Iraq has nothing to do with God or Christianity, it’s about bigger things, like “freedom, liberty and oil.” And at least they’re smart enough to know that this war could never be called anything remotely close to Christian… but they show that this private/public dichotomy is stronger than ever. Now this honestly probably has more to do with getting votes than anything else, as they see the so-called “private” issues as easy ways to turn out voters, while requiring very very little of them policy-wise.

Now… what the Bushies won’t do (call this war an expression of their submission to Jesus Christ), all to many Christians will do for them (Jean Elshtain, Richard Land, etc.).

Language

A lot of people rightly point out the unfamiliarity with scripture that many Democrats like Gore and Dean seem to have when they stuck their feet in their mouths trying to look good for the evangelicals (ps-I think Kerry was very eloquent however), their error was just plain ignorance, whereas Bush’s has been deliberate mutilation.

In his state of the union address “Bush said, ‘The need is great. Yet there’s power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.’ But that’s not what the song is about. The hymn says there is ‘power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb.’ The Evangelical hymn is about the power of Christ in salvation, not the power of the American people, or any people, or any country. (p. 142)”

Wallis continues, at Ellis Island Bush said, “This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind….That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it.” Wallis points out that the “last two sentances are straight out of John’s gospel….But again, the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God and the light of Christ. It’s not about America and its values. Even his favorite hymn, ‘A Charge to Keep,’ speaks of that charge as ‘a God to glorify,’ not to ‘do everything we can to protect the American homeland,’ as Bush has named our charge to keep. Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again of confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more an American civil religion than Chrisitan faith.”

oh there’s more…

On page 143 Wallis says, “to fail to speak of evil in the world today is to engage in bad theology. But to speak of ‘them’ being evil and ‘us’ being good, that evil is all out there and that in the warfare between good and evil others are either with us or against us, is also bad theology. Unfortunately, it has become the Bush theology.” For this alone, Christians in Americ
a should have been all over Bush. The idea that we are good and that good is on our side seems to me to fly in the face of all serious theology, and any denomonation… even the Southern Baptists are quick to tell you that you are not good, but are a sinner, evil and in need of redemption. This defining good as where we stand (and where we will stand tomorrow if we so choose to move) is quite idolatrous. Not to mention that it is GOD who rids the world of evil, not us (I’m guessing that even the Left Behind series, those books that most of you have seen fit only to use to clean up household spills… says that much).

And they call pacifists heretics! Pshaw!

After almost a week in Indy for General Assembly Kara’s coming back… well at least in a day and a half she is. I can’t wait. And who could? Look at her, she is the essence of cuteness.

Just found this old picture of me and some friends at the beach my Sophomore year at college. Good times. Ocean Beach, I’ve still got the sticker on the car!

Well I’ve decided to go with Blogger so that I might have better integration with my site, and you the masses will find it easier to comment on my main site, etc.

You’ll also note that my site has a new look… are you noting this? NOTE ALREADY!

Part III: Spiritual Values and International Relations
When Did Jesus Become Pro-War?
Chapter 8 - Not a Just War
The Mistake of Iraq

Wallis relates something that archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams said while they were on a panel together. Williams said (quoting psychologist Abraham Maslow), “When all you have is hammers, everything looks like a nail.”

*ding!*

Ummm, did the light just go off for anyone else? Is it any wonder that the reaction of the US is most often violence, and seldom peace? It might have something to do with the 460+ BILLION dollars we give the Pentagon this year. It might have something to do with the “Defense Industry” (more properly known as the Mechanized Death & Destruction Industry) making more and more bombs.

Perhaps we suffer from being driven by our possessions. The US has built and spent untold billions on warfare, is it any wonder that we go to war so often? I think the tail is wagging the dog on this one. And the proportion of our spending on warfare compared to the next largest military budget (Russia $18 billion) is insane.

We live in an extremely wealthy society obsessed with security, so it’s easy for some to justify spending this much. It’s downright demonic, but easy to understand. So the paradigm our government operates within is one where defense contractors have lobbyists on Capitol Hill so that Republicans and Democrats alike buy into their world. Our government gives more money to the Pentagon than anything else. I can’t imagine any illustration being more accurate than Williams’, “When all you have is hammers, everything looks like a nail.”

How can we as the church be a witness to the sin of militarism in our country? How do we rightly speak truth to power, that this is wrong and an offense to God? Wallis points out that with the exception of the American Southern Baptists, every world church body that spoke out in reference to the war in Iraq concluded that this was not a “just war.” That kind of unity is unheard of in modern times. Other than “Jesus is Lord,” I’m not sure all the churches could agree on any one thing. Even that would be tough with the Unitarians and all.

That all these churches stated that the war would be “unjust” really poses a challenge to the individual Christian who finds it in their own authority to deem the Iraqi war a just one. That the average “just war” Christian has never once picked up Augustine or Aquinas in the first place is also a huge issue. This is yet another case of the State co-opting Christian language. When Christians say “Just War” we are referring to a VERY SPECIFIC set of rules and limits, all of which must be met in order to engage in what we would call a “just war.” But the state, and office holders use the language of Just War to evoke the religious “warm fuzzies” in the majority of the Christian population, who are all to eager to turn a blind eye to the pillaging of our language. So it seems (to many) that the invasion of Iraq was “just” in the Christian sense because George Bush said it was “just,” and he must mean the same thing as Aquinas right?

Wallis brings up the fact that the war to invade Iraq was also illegal. Members of the UN may only go to war in self-defense following an armed attack. Preemptive war by one state against another is not permitted by either law or doctrine. For those really ready to embrace the so called “Bush doctrine” of preemptive war, take a moment and think. You would make your enemies blameless for your own murder. If ever there were countries threatened by a “possible attack” it is Syria, Iran and North Korea. And yet, I don’t particularly feel like getting bombed today, just because my country may very well one day attack any of these countries. In the same way, the over 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants who were killed in Iraq should never have been killed because someone in Washington “had a gut feeling.”

A little exercise if you will… who has retained their moral integrity in these two examples?

1. A pastor in a South-central Los Angeles neighborhood is shot and killed in the crossfire of bullets between gangs, while trying to drag a wounded child to safety.
2. Several police officers shoot an intoxicated homeless man multiple times from a safe distance, as he stumbles towards them with a branch.

If the US was trying to support democracy in Iraq and find nonviolent ways of ousting Saddam Hussein, but somehow we were attacked by his government, or perhaps he lashed out at one of our allies in the area we would retain the moral integrity in example no. 1. People might die, but not at our hands. Wallis says on page 123, “It is indeed a good thing that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over. But that worthy goal should and could have been accomplished, over time, in much better ways than a preemptive and largely unilateral war that has proved to be both unnecessary and unjust. Iraq is now a huge mess with no clear U.S. exit strategy in sight and is likely to remain so for a very long time.”

Instead because the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq from day one, and because the American public was so scared by 9/11 that they would believe that the moon is made of cardboard if you told them it would keep them safe, our country chose option no. 2. In option no. 2, people are guaranteed to die, and on a national scale, we’re talking about Tens of THOUSANDS. They’re guaranteed to die, because they’re dying at our hands. Our country has clearly made the choice that we prefer having the blood of the innocent on our hands to suffering ourselves.

There is no model for Martyrdom in America. It is a concept beyond us. If someone is killed when they shouldn’t be, our only responses are to lie about who they were, because we can’t bring ourselves to think that someone would be killed without a reason (Thus those killed on 9/11 become “heroes,” rather than needlessly murdered). OR we exploit their memory to silence others and get our way; see GOP.

The Christian body knows what Martyrdom is. We call it the most honorable way to die. We are free to say such insane things because our Lord and Savior has defeated death and promises that his faithful will share in his resurrection.

Part III: Spiritual Values and International Relations
When Did Jesus Become Pro-War?
Chapter 7 - Be Not Afraid
A Moral Response to Terrorism

The Public Relations arm of the US foreign policy is founded on one thing. Fear.

It is ironic to me that a people who define themselves and supposedly draw their identity and hope from one specific day in history, (namely the day that God defeated any power of death by raising Jesus from the dead) are all too often the ones who buy into this culture of fear, and desire “security” (which is a euphemism for militarism) the most.

Wallis rightly points out that the war against Iraq was based entirely on fear, and it has now been proven time and time again; not on fact. Wallis quotes Thomas Merton, “the root of war is fear.” And this is surely the case, as the US has not found it necessary to go to war against Saudi Arabia which is certianly not a democracy and does have ties to militant terrorist groups, nor has it deemed war with Israel necessary, as they continuely bulldoze Palestinian houses (regardless of the presence of people) in land they have invaded and stolen. If ties to terrorism, or outright systematic opression were really the reasons for going to war, the scope would be much larger. It just so happens that these were convienent ways to scare the US public who was justifiably fearful of terrorist attack, and also incredibly ignorant about terrorism and foriegn states. Fear + Ignorance = an easy public to persuade. With a media that was more excited about war-time ratings and advertisement revenue than with questioning the appaling case for war… well we were pretty much in for it.

Wallis says on page 88, “fear can cause us to give up important things, to accept other things that violate our own best values, and even to do terrible things to other people.” For an in depth look at how governments use fear to create a percieved need for “security,” and thereby get a blank check on using violence, even against their own people for the purposes of “security” see Torture and Eucharist by William Cavanaugh.

Wallis goes on to cite another unChristian reaction of the US public to terrorism. He says, “instead of accepting the vulnerability that most of the rest of the world already lives with, and even learning from it, we seem to want something nobody can give us–to erase our vulnerability. We want it to just go away. If the governement says more wars can do that, many people will say fine.” And yet vulnerability, not security is at the heart of the gospel. Did Jesus have bodyguards? Anyone today saying the things he said would probably want them. As a comedian said out the other day on Comedy Central, “I’m all for peace, but I’m not saying we can ALL get along. Because I don’t want to die. You preach that kind of peace and you’ll get killed. MLK Jr. *bam*, Gandhi *bam*, Jesus… *bam, bam, bam*” And yet that’s the life Jesus led. A life of total vulnerability. If I remember corectly, we aren’t higher than our master… we need to reclaim vulnerability, not security as a Christian virtue.

Wallis says that “when a government offers to take away our vulnerability, it borders on idolatry.” He said it!

Deny them their victory.

This phrase was often used by salesmen in order to guilt us into buying their product. “Don’t let the terrorists win, buy Cheetos” was almost surely heard somewhere in America in 2001. “The Terrorists” even became an excuse for us to indulge in our excess and sinfulness so that “they” might not win. Thinking about buying a gas-sipping honda? Why not buy a Suburban and get 26″ rims to put on it instead? You don’t want the terrorists to win do you? Stanley Hauerwas wrote a great piece on this shortly after 9/11. In it he says of the terrorists, “their willingness to die stands in stark contrast to a politics that asks of its members in response to September 11 to shop.”

In contrast with this kind of “don’t let them win” thinking, Wallis proposes that the right response is transformation, not sticking our heads in the sand. It was in his words, a teachable moment. A time to examine who we are. There were two paths to take after 9/11, Wallis says, one was demanding that those responsible for the attacks were brough to justice and tried for their crimes. This path also encouraged introspection amidst the “realness of life and the things that matter” that many felt in the wake of 9/11. This was a time for us to see our blind spots, to become a more just society to become a better nation for the rest of the world. The other path would answer suffering with more suffering. It would accuse introspection of treason, and of siding with those who attacked us. To put it in Al Franken’s words, this kind of patriotism is the way a 3 year-old loves mommy, not the mature love of a spouse. And so the US government at least, has chosen the 2nd path… On page 95 Wallis says, “Bombing the children of Kabul and Baghdad created utter glee among the Osama bin Ladens of the world, who finnally are able to raise the armies of terror they’ve always dreamed of. It also deprived [the United States] of the moral high ground…”

but the people in this country, ESPECIALLY the Christians, still can choose the first path

Once again, ericisrad has made me aware of another cool “theology quiz” here.

Well I’m glad that I turned up 96% Neo Orthodox since I’m going to the Ekklesia Project conference next month. Now I know I belong

Here’s an article I really enjoyed.

A revelation for the makers of Revelations
by Jason Byassee

Revelations is a new NBC miniseries designed to tap into the lucrative market of end-times belief—demonstrated by the success of the Left Behind novels. Actor Bill Pullman plays a Harvard scientist whose skepticism, be assured, will gradually be worn down by a Roman Catholic nun who believes signs of the “end of days” are upon us. That Pullman’s child has been murdered by the Antichrist and that another now-comatose child is channeling his daughter’s spirit while quoting the Bible in Latin from her hospital bed will, no doubt, help wear away his skepticism.

Since network television is new to making shows that deal sympathetically with religious themes, I thought they could use the following pointers.

Notes to the makers of Revelations:

1. It’s Revelation. Not Revelations. It’s singular, not plural. That’s because it’s the one revelation of Jesus Christ. Really. I looked it up. People who say “Revelations” show they don’t know what they’re talking about. I know you’ve already spent massively advertising this misnomer, and it’s a common mistake, but it’s still dumb, so please fix it.

2. Jesus hasn’t come back for 20 centuries. Sorry to be so obvious here, but someone seems to have convinced you that the “end of days” is really near this time. You’re not the first to think this, but everyone who ever has, has been wrong. Like when believers sold their stuff and expected the apocalypse at the turn of the first millennium - the year 1000. Or when someone wrote 88 Reasons the Rapture Will Happen in 1988. Or the Y2K nonsense. Trust us on this; we in the church have been waiting for Jesus to come “soon” for quite some time.

3. The New Testament was written in Greek. So when your lightening-struck brain-dead little girl starts “quoting scripture” and doing so in Latin, the aura created by the use of a dead language is punctured a bit by the fact that it’s the wrong language she uses.

4. Catholics don’t really believe in the rapture. I know you needed Catholics around to interpret the Latin-speaking brain-dead miracle-girl, but the Catholic Church, if pinned down, would be happy to tell you that the rapture is a heresy. Also most Catholic priests don’t speak or hear Latin much anymore. And most nuns don’t wear habits. Pre-Vatican II Catholicism makes for good costumes, but it makes your show look silly also.

5. Doctors and nurses don’t really hope for patients to die so they can “harvest” their organs. All the Schiavo excitement might have you believe that impugning hard-working medical professionals will be good for ratings, but when little girls speak, even if it’s scripture in Latin, doctors aren’t generally eager to cut their organs out. This isn’t really a religious observation, but I think I can make it safely all the same.

6. When Christians read Isaiah’s prophecy that “a little child will lead them,” they think it’s referring to Jesus. Not to a baby floating on driftwood after an apocalyptic sinking of a cruiseliner in the Aegean Sea. And generally Christians are unpleased when verses that apply to Jesus are taken to apply to other people. Generally.

6a. It has subsequently become apparent that the child is, in fact, Jesus, now returned to earth. I promise you can’t find me a Left-Behinder who believes in reincarnation, let alone in the reincarnation of Jesus - who is, after all, supposed to return in something of a blaze of glory. But do let me tip my hat to a rare instance of interreligious liberality. Even Buddhists can be offended by this program.

7. There is no Satanism in the bible. This will be a surprise, for clearly the satanic ritual around the murder of your lead character’s daughter, and your Satanist character’s quasi-omniscience - and his inability to bleed - all seem very fascinating to you. But for scripture and traditional Christianity, Satan is really not all that interesting. He doesn’t get his own “religion,” and he sure as hell doesn’t know everything. That’s what they pay youth counselors and Christian camps to do - scare youngsters by talking about Satanists. Because the Bible sure doesn’t do it.

8. Bill Pullman is a lousy actor. You didn’t need a professional religious person to tell you that, but you also didn’t know it on your own.

9. The Bible is not a set of tarot cards. It is not a crystal ball. It is not an amulet to foresee the future. I know this is confusing, since the Christians you know seem to treat random verses as glimpses of geopolitical futures, but trust me. The Bible is a story about God’s saving work in the world. It’s very religious that way - it’s mostly about God and God’s people, and not so much about Satan or lightning-zapping little girls or satanic dismemberment. In fact, it’s more about God’s healing of this world than phantasmagoric pornography.

10. Shows that claim to be about the Bible and Jesus ought probably talk about the Bible and Jesus. Just a little. And maybe the creeds, as they interpret the Bible for the church. All you have to do is talk a little about Jesus’ life. That sort of thing. As a preacher I know religious types expect this.

11. Ugly, banal, ridiculous, and hateful programming really gives no glory to God. And lucky for us in this case, no one watches it either.

12. Please read these notes fast, because your show’s shelf-life is going to be about half that of the average rapture prediction. Don’t say you weren’t warned that the end is near.

Jason Byassee is assistant editor at The Christian Century and a Ph.D. candidate in theology at Duke University.

Sojo Article

Thanks to ericisrad I took this little survey… glad with where I came out. I did find it kinda ironic that Eric scored so high with Barth AND Schleiermacher…. something scary is afoot.

ps- Being a good seminarian I think I read too much into the simple Calvinist questions (free will or not) and ended up coming out quite Calvinist, but I retain that I really am a good Wesleyan. Just my two cents for all those District Superintendents that read my blog.

Here’s what my girlfriend Kara scored…