As I've been preparing for an upcoming series on sexuality in our High School ministry I've been trying to read some fresh stuff that engages sexuality from a theological point of view with special attention towards discipleship. I've been pretty underwhelmed by so much of the church's teaching on sexuality for so long. I've used curriculum that I felt went straight for the "what's over the line" question and felt schizophrenic in it's mixture of guilt and affirmation of sex. As I teach on sex I wanted to really do an excellent job of engaging sexuality, theology and discipleship this time around. So two books immediately hit the top of my "must read" list. 1. Rob Bell's Sex God and 2. Lauren F. Winner's Real Sex. I've heard Winner speak on the topic of chastity in a break out session at Youth Specialties this past year and she was great.

I'm really glad I took the time to read Bell's book before engaging this subject with the youth at our church. Bell's style of writing is so conversational that it belies the deep theological work he's doing in this book. Bell's catch phrase quickly becomes "this is really about that." And over and over again he makes connections between sexuality and spirituality and about how "this" is really all about "that." Bell's definition of sexuality alone was extremely helpful.

"For many, sexuality is simply what happens between two people involving physical pleasure. But that's only a small percentage of what sexuality is. Our sexuality is all of the ways we strive to reconnect with our world, with each other, and with God (42)."

Hmm, sexuality is all the ways we try to reconnect? That means that even the celibate can practice and express their sexuality. And on the very next page Bell makes this point saying,

"Some of the most sexual people I know are celibate.

They sleep alone.

They have chosen to give themselves to lots of people, to serve and give and connect their lives with beautiful and worthy causes (43)."

Bell takes this understanding of sexuality to deconstruct our culture's definition of sexuality. Some of the most overt expressions of "sexuality" in our world are the exact opposite of real sexuality. To illustrate this Bell describes the infamous "Red Light District" in Amsterdam where women sit in store front windows advertising themselves for prostitution. The transaction that happens between a man who goes to one of these prostitutes and the woman herself is just that, a transaction. Physical sex happens, but there is no reconnection. Indeed this kind of sex only serves to further divide and isolate the two parties. The man uses the woman for his own physical gratification and the woman falls deeper into the darkness of her situation. This is the exact opposite of two human beings reconnecting, and we still call it sex.

Bell's treatment of pre-marital sex is good. As far as I remember he never even used the term "pre-marital sex." Instead Bell contrasts "taking your clothes off" and "getting naked." Anyone can take their clothes off and have sex, but in the end this is not true reconnection. Real reconnection happens in physical sex when both parties can be naked with one another. Being naked is about way more than taking off clothes, it's about trust, it's about security, it's about accepting the other person with all their faults and still loving them. It's about being willing to die for the other person and the promise to remain faithful. Getting naked requires the commitment of marriage, the commitment to serve one another as Christ did the church. As always, "this" is really about "that."

I could go on and on... needless to say, I thought it was a great book.

Labels: Books, Discipleship, Emerging Church, Theology, Youth Ministry

permalink

A few days ago I finished Jesus for President and I've already lent it out to the first person on the growing waiting list. What a magnificent book! If you went to seminary and constantly had your nose stuck in a Hauerwas or Yoder book but wished you could lend a more accessible version to someone... this is that book. It isn't dumbed down, let me be clear about that, it's just that this book was really written for the church. This isn't the kind of conversation that takes place in the ethereal upper layers of academia, this is the best Kingdom-of-God theology taken to the streets. And what would we expect? Shane & Co aren't professors, they're subversive prophets living in the abandoned places of the empire. Making their own clothes, living with the poor, dumpster diving for food... always pointing to Jesus. They are living at the margins pointing us to Jesus. They are shouting with their lives (and this book) that the America we live in is a pitiful and fallen Kingdom not worth our allegiance.

The Eagle is fake, the Eagle is dead.

Follow the Lamb!

Labels: Books, Discipleship, Emerging Church, Military, Non-Violence, Politics, Theology

permalink

Last week I picked up a book that I've been looking forward to reading for several months now. I didn't even know that it had been released until I was wondering the isles of my local Barnes & Noble and bumped into the display for Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw's new book Jesus For President. I'm about a third of the way through it now and it's everything I was hoping it would be. Claiborne & Co have taken theologians and biblical scholars close to my own heart and made them scandalously accessible to an general audience. The book (so far) is tackling our own ideas about empire by taking a look at God and the people of God and their relationship to empire. The book is a creative mish-mash of art and prose and Kingdom Propaganda. This book provokes us towards a Christian imagination of politics and calls us to seriously rethink where our hope and allegiance really lay. Go pick it up now!

Labels: Books, Discipleship, Emerging Church, Non-Violence, Politics, Theology

permalink

I just reviewed a chapter of John D. Caputo's new book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? over at Church at Postmodern Culture.  If you're into that kind of stuff go check it out here.

Labels: Books, Theology

permalink

Eric Lee tagged me to put up my list of best books of theology published in the past 25 years.

This is the criteria:

Name three (or more) theological works from the last 25 years (1981-2006) that you consider important and worthy to be included on a list of the most important works of theology of that last 25 years (in no particular order).

1. Torture and Eucharist by William T. Cavanaugh 1998
2. Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas & William Willimon 1989
3. Between Cross & Resurrection by Alan E. Lewis 2001

Labels: Books, Theology

permalink

We’ve got a little less than one day left in 2006, so I think it’s safe for me to finally post my second annual “best of” lists for 2006. Man-O-Man I hope a bunch of great films and albums don’t come out in the next 18 hours and make me look like a fool. Feel free to argue the insanity of my picks and link to your own “best of” lists. Remember today and tomorrow are the two days when “thou SHALL judge” the previous year anyway.

Albums
5. Tool - 10,000 Days
4. AFI - DECEMBERUNDERGROUND
3. In Reverent Fear - Stomacher
2. Muse - Black Holes and Revelations
*1. Derek Webb - Mockingbird
*This album is FREE (just click the link)

Films
6. Why We Fight
5. Taladagea Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
4. Inconvienient Truth
3. Lady in the Water
2. Blood Diamond
1. Little Miss Sunshine

TV Shows
5. My Name is Earl
4. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
3. The Colbert Report
2. LOST
1. The Office

Books
5. The Secret Message of Jesus:
Uncovering the Truth that Could Change Everything
by Brian McLaren
4. The Irresistible Revolution:
Living as an Ordinary Radical
by Shane Claiborne
3. The Myth of a Christian Nation:
How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church
by Gregory Boyd
2. Presence-centered Youth Ministry:
Guiding Students into Spiritual Formation
by Mike King
1. The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture:
How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church
by Shane Hipps

Posts on chuckp3.com
5. July 4: Civil Religion’s Easter (10)
4. Dead Man’s Chest (11)
3. Kara and I are Engaged (17)
2. Radical [financial] Trust and Obedience (19)
1. Faith in the Military (46)

Gadgets
5. EyeTV Hybrid
4. Google Analytics
3. Library Thing
2. Harmony Remote
1. YouTube

Labels: Books, Film, Life, LOST, Music, Technology

permalink

Labels: Books, Civil Religion, Theology

permalink

Labels: Books, Prayer

permalink

Part III: Spiritual Values and International Relations
When Did Jesus Become Pro-War?
Chapter 11 - Against Impossible Odds
Peace in the Middle East

After treading on thin ice in chapter 10, Wallis is back to his decidedly Christocentric self. The chapter on Middle East peace begins with the words from the Ash Wednesday liturgy. This chapter is the best that I've read so far in God's Politics. Wallis painst such a vivid picture of the situation in Israel/Palestine, and does so, not from a pundit's or political analyst's chair on cable news, but as a friend of many people who live in Israel/Palestine. He shares story after story of his friends and their daily lives. He gives voice to the many peacemakers on the ground who he is humbled by. Perhaps I'm just overly optimistic, but I think that this chapter alone could do a lot to change the pro-Israel mantra of so many of our churches.

One of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) that he visted in Hebron told him a story of a group of Muslims who were on their way to Mosque to pray when they were stopped in the street by Israeli soliders. The Muslims went to their knees in prayer, but the soliders drew their guns and appeared ready to open fire when two CPT members a young American woman and Canadaian man ran in front of the soliders pleading for them not to shoot the unarmed people. The soliders didn't shoot, but the CPT members were thrown in jail for the night. What a witness to those muslims of Christ's love! The community said it was like "greeting Jesus" when the CPT members were released.

Wallis gives the account of a few Israeli Jews who are fighting for humanitarian rights for the Palestianians. Wallis writes about a conversation he had with one of them, Jeff Halper:

"Israel is strong," said Halper. Indeed, it's the fifth largest military power in the world, economically dominant, deep in leadership cadres, healthy in civil society and culture. "But we don't know we're strong," he said. "We still believe we are victims. As long as you believe you're a victim, you are not accountable."....Israelis do not feel accountable for what they're doing to Palestinians because they believe they are still victims. And as "victims" they must defend themselves whatever the cost, whatever the consequences.

But Wallis is hopeful. Walking the streets and seeing trees that were there when Jesus walked the streets reminds him that there is still hope for this land. The hope lies in following the way of Jesus in the land of this birth, death and ressurection.

Labels: Books

permalink

Part III: Spiritual Values and International Relations
When Did Jesus Become Pro-War?
Chapter 10 - Blessed are the Peacemakers
Winning Without War

The theme of this chapter seems to be that war is an unwise and immoral choice in fighting the war on terrorism. Wallis' focus is clearly on how to win the war on terrorism, but how to do it better and more Christianly. The problem I have with Wallis here is that he seems to give a lot of ground in his stance of non-violence. At least in this chapter non-violence isn't necessary because we are followers of Jesus and seek obedience to our Lord, but rather because it works better. I agree with Wallis, non-violence does work better, if your goals are reconciliation, peace and justice and you have the courage to sustain large losses. However, posing the issue in this light leaves it very vulnerable, first because few american Christians would agree that non-violence is more effective and secondly because the goals of the united states in going to war are not reconciliation, peace and justice. Non-violent strategies surely are more effective if you want to live alongside your former enemy and have your children attend the same schools. If, however, your goal is simply to topple their government for a more firm foothold in the region and to secure oil assets non-violence is very ineffective.

Wallis seems to be trying to sell non-violence as a "cleaner, more effective" alternative to war, but if he's trying to sell that to the policy makers he's barking up the wrong tree. If he's trying to sell it to the Christians in america, he'd do a lot better by delving into non-violence as faithfulness to God rather than a more effective solution.

While I've disagreed with the beating Wallis has taken for being a "Constantinian of the Left," and a "modernist liberal," I think those criticisms hit pretty close to the mark concerning his treatment of non-violence as an effective tool of the state in this chapter. On page 160 he says, "If nonviolence is to have any credibility, it must answer the questions that violence purports to answer, but in a better way. Saying no to violence is good, but having alternatives is better." Perhaps nonviolence would lose "credibility" to the united states, but not as a Christian response! I agree with Hauerwas, who he cites later in the chapter as believing that "pacifists cannot be expected to have easy policy answers for every difficult political situation, especially when they are often created, at least in part, by not listening to the voices of nonviolence in the first place." The current quagmire in Iraq seems to be a lose-lose situation, stay and fight a bloody and crippling war, or withdraw and let terrorists gain control of the country? These are not the options that we came to following a path of nonviolence, why would we have easy answers to such situations? When the US helped place Saddam Hussein in power and gave him chemical weapons to fight Iran with, it started the ball rolling to a point where he was seen as a threat to others and pathologically oppressed his own people. So many of the "sticky moral situations" that cause people to turn their noses at pacifists exist exactly because no one listened to the pacifists to begin with.

Wallis turns to the Sermon on the Mount and points out that Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers," not blessed are the peacelovers whom everyone claims to be. He gives some good examples of active peacemaking, that again, I agree are great strategies for peacemaking, but don't see why the united states government would buy into the goals of such peacemaking as they are essentially self-sacrificing and Christian, rather than self-serving and profitable.

The two sections of this chapter I found particularly helpful were on Police and the definition of terrorism. Wallis explores how terrorism can be fought using international law, but gives attention to some of the traditional reluctance pacifists have had with police. Drawing on John Howard Yoder's amazing work The Politics of Jesus, Wallis argues in favor of the use of force coming from police because unlike warfare violence or the threat thereof is applied only to the offending party; the use of force is subject to review by higher authorities; the officer applies power within the limits of a state whose laws even the criminal knows to be applicable to him; there are serious safeguards against violence being applied against the innocent; and the power of the officer is usually great enough to overwhelm the offender so that resistance is pointless. Wallis also draws some examples from Gerald Schlabach, who writes, "Political leaders draw on the rhetoric of national pride, honor and crusading to marshal the political will and sustain the sacrifices necessary to fight wars.... Police officials by contrast appeal to the common good of the community to justify their actions. Police officers are expected to use the minimum force needed to achieve their objective, and are judged harshly if there is 'collateral damage' of the kind that routinely occurs in warfare. War can never be subject to the rule of law in the way that policing is."

Of course these are ideals, but on a larger scale policing, at least structurally is far more compatible with pacifism than war of any kind.

To wrap up the chapter Wallis tackles the very definition of terrorism. At times Wallis almost sounds like Noam Chomsky in his work Manufacturing Consent. Turning to how we define terrorism, he points out that one must walk an impossibly fine line to call the killing of civilians by a non-state organization like Al-Queda terrorism, but refuse to apply the label to nations who commit the very same actions. In warfare killing civilians is called "an accident," or more disturbingly, "collateral damage." And yet this is not the case. If someone were to drive down a sidewalk and kill pedestrians we would not call it "an accident." In modern warfare about 90% of the deaths are civilian casualties, thus those waging war know their actions will kill civilians. This is terrorism. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was terrorism. Fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo was terrorism. Selling arms to Indonesia so that they can commit genocide in East Timor (as Carter did) is arming and aiding terrorists. Shelling Baghdad and bombing a hospital in Afghanistan are acts of terrorism. It doesn't stop being terrorism just because the terrorist was elected.

Wallis ends the chapter by saying that "in the end, Christian peacemaking is more a path than a position." To give an illustration of this point I'll reference back to a section Wallis quotes from A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict.

Regimes have been overthrown that had no compunction about brutalizing their opponents and denying them the right to speak their minds. How? By first demonstrating that opposition is possible, peeling away the regime's residual public and outside support, quashing its legitimacy, driving up the costs of maintaining control, and overextending its repressive apparatus. Strategic nonviolent action is not about being nice to your oppressor, much less having to rely on his niceness. It's about dissolving the foundations of his power and forcing him out.

Current Music: Nirvana - Lithium
Current Mood: Tired
Currently Reading: God's Politics

Labels: Books

permalink

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 America 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!

Labels: Books, Civil Religion

permalink

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.

Labels: Books

permalink

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

Labels: Books

permalink