The Spectrum Blog

A vet of peace-making

By Alexander Carpenter

William Sloan Coffin, who once said:

"Many of us are eager to respond to injustice, as long as we can do so without having to confront the causes of it. There's the great pitfall of charity. Handouts to needy individuals are genuine, necessary responses to injustice, but they do not necessarily face the reason for injustice. And that is why so many business and governmental leaders today are promoting charity; it is desperately needed in an economy whose prosperity is based on growing inequality.

First these leaders proclaim themselves experts on matters economic, and prove it by taking the most out of the economy! Then they promote charity as if it were the work of the church, finally telling us troubled clergy to shut up and bless the economy as once we blessed the battleships."

A Reoccurring Dream

by Johnny A. Ramírez

Honest and reflective spiritually and beyond, I believe the story this veteran tells is worth our time.

Click on the photo to view the narrated slide show.

The land of the free-to-torture

By James Coffin, senior pastor of the Markham Woods church.

This appeared in the Orlando Sentinel today.

I would have never believed it possible had you told me in the fall of 1959 -- the beginning of my formal education -- that in the year 2007 I'd be reading a rash of newspaper headlines about a U.S. attorney general-designate's uncertainty concerning what constitutes torture.

   Or, worse still, that a Democrat-controlled Senate would confirm him despite his uncertainties.

Now don't get me wrong. In 1959, I wasn't some kind of child prodigy with deep political and moral insights. Not at all. I was just a run-of-the-mill American kid experiencing school for the first time.

That year, on the day after Labor Day, I not only placed my hand over my heart and pledged allegiance to "one nation under God," but I also learned how to seek shelter under my desk should the Russians start dropping bombs. That day I was introduced to a world of good government versus bad government. And it made an impression.

   Over the next few years I learned a lot as I moved through the eight grades and two rooms of that little country schoolhouse.

I learned the significance of the ubiquitous fallout-shelter symbols I'd seen in the basements of public buildings. I learned about the stored provisions that would sustain us should the Russians launch a nuclear attack.

I learned about the evils of godless, oppressive, coercive communism and the merits of democracy and capitalism and a nation willing to base its actions on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

I learned those lessons well. But increasingly I wrestle with the disquieting possibility that my government no longer shares the ideals and the vision I had instilled in me so effectively as a child.

   In class, we studied the history of our government -- a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

In class, we learned that all humans "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." We learned about due process -- even for bad guys. We learned about the presumption of innocence. We learned that it was better to have a standard so high that the occasional guilty person goes free rather than to risk punishing the innocent.

In those country-schoolhouse classes, we repeatedly contrasted the virtues of the U.S. form of government with the obvious shortfalls of many other governments. We took pride in the role the United States had played in bringing about worldwide improvements through such documents as the Geneva Conventions.

We learned that there are some actions to which Americans won't stoop simply because the actions are wrong -- categorically. They violate self-evident, unalienable human rights -- no matter how advantageous they might be in the short term.

   Was it all just propaganda? Whistling in the dark? Wishful thinking?

   Or do some of our nation's major players need a refresher course in a little country schoolhouse in the Midwest?

If you care about this issue and what to magnify your moral voice, check out the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

A year of surging death

While October has had a relatively low number of deaths, at least 852 military personnel have died thus far this year -- the highest annual toll since the war began in March 2003.

And that doesn't include the hundreds in mercenary forces.

By Leo Tolstoy

Last Message to Mankind:
(Delivered at the 18th International Peace Congress, Stockholm, 1909)

Before us are millions of armed men, ever more and more efficiently armed and trained for more and more rapid slaughter. We know that these millions of people have no wish to kill their fellows and for the most part do not even know why they are forced to do that repulsive work, and that they are weary of their position of subjection and compulsion; we know that the murders committed from time to time by these men are committed by order of the governments; and we know that the existence of the governments depends on the armies.

[snip]

Perhaps Christianity may be obsolete, and when choosing between the two - Christianity and love of the State and murder - the people of our time will conclude that the existence of the State and murder is more important than Christianity, we must forgo Christianity and retain only what is important: the State and murder.

That may be so - at least people may think and feel so. But in that case they should say so! They should openly admit that people in our time have ceased to believe in what the collective wisdom of mankind has said, and what is said by the Law of God they profess: have ceased to believe in what is written indelibly on the heart of each man, and must now believe only in what is ordered by various people who by accident or birth have happened to become emperors and kings, or by various intrigues and elections have become presidents or members of senates and parliaments - even if those orders include murder. That is what they ought to say!

But it is impossible to say it; and yet one of these two things has to be said. If it is admitted that Christianity forbids murder, both armies and governments become impossible. And if it is admitted that government acknowledges the lawfulness of murder and denies Christianity, no one will wish to obey a government that exists merely by its power to kill. And besides, if murder is allowed in war it must be still more allowable when a people seek its rights in a revolution. And therefore the governments, being unable to say either one thing or the other, are anxious to hid from their subjects the necessity of solving the dilemma.

[snip]

Humanity in general, and our Christian humanity in particular, has reached a stage of such acute contradiction between its moral demands and the existing social order, that a change has become inevitable, and a change not in society's moral demand which are immutable, but in the social order which can be altered. The demand for a different social order, evoked by that inner contradiction which is so clearly illustrated by our preparations for murder, becomes more and more insistent every year and every day.

The tension which demands that alteration has reached such a degree that, just as sometimes only a slight shock is required to change a liquid into a solid body, so perhaps with a slight effort or even a single word may be needed to change the cruel and irrational life of our time - with its divisions, armaments and armies - into a reasonable life in keeping with the consciousness of contemporary humanity.

Every such effort, every such word, may be the shock which will instantly solidify the super cooled liquid. Why should not our gathering be the shock?

In Andersen's fairy tale, when the King went in triumphal procession through the streets of the town and all the people were delighted with his beautiful new clothes, a word from a child who said what everybody knew but had not said, changed everything. He said: 'He has nothing on!' and the spell was broken, and the king became ashamed and all those who had been assuring themselves that they saw him wearing beautiful new clothes perceived that he was naked!

We must say the same. We must say what everybody knows but does not venture to say.

We must say that by whatever name people may call murder - murder always remains murder and a criminal and shameful thing. And it is only necessary to say that clearly, definitely, and loudly, as we can say it here, and men will cease to see what they thought they saw, and will see what is really before their eyes.

They will cease to see the service for their country, the heroism of war, military glory, and patriotism, and will see what exists: the naked, criminal business of murder!

And if people see that, the same thing will happen as in the fairy tale: those who do the criminal thing will feel ashamed, and those who assure themselves that they do not see the criminality of murder will perceive it and cease to be murderers.

But how will nations defend themselves against their enemies, how will they maintain internal order, and how can nations live without an army?

What form of life men will take after they repudiate murder we do not and cannot know; but one thing is certain: that it is more natural for men to be guided by reason and conscience with which they are endowed, than to submit slavishly to people who arrange wholesale murders; and that therefor the form of social order assumed by the lives of those who are guided in their actions not by violence based on threats of murder, but by reason and conscience, will in any case be no worse than that under which they now live.

That is all I want to say. I shall be sorry if it offends or grieves anyone or evokes any ill feeling. But for me, a man eighty years old, expecting to die at any moment, it would be shameful and criminal not to speak out the whole truth as I understand it - the truth which, as I firmly believe, is alone capable of relieving mankind from the incalculable ills produced by war.

Adventist grad student organizing pro-Burmese democracy protest

By Alexander Carpenter

An Adventist Forums member, Spectrum writer and USC political science doctoral student, Ron Osborn is organizing a Burma-supporting event in Los Angeles.

Ron Osborn writes:

The news from Burma is grim. Unknown numbers of Buddhist monks have been killed. Thousands more are being sent to remote prison camps as a punishment for defying the generals. Shocked and dismayed, a group of us students at the University of Southern California have been struggling to think of how we in the United States can show our solidarity with these courageous individuals. Here is what we have decided:

We hope to stage an event on or before December 8 that will: 1) call attention to the ongoing crisis in Burma; 2) let the people of Burma know they are not forgotten; and 3) shame the Chinese government into taking a more serious stand on human rights atrocities in Burma before the Beijing Olympics.

●The event will be called “LA-88” in honor of those killed not only over the past two weeks but also during the pro-democracy demonstrations of August 8, 1988.

●We will meet in front of the Chinese Consulate General’s Office in Los Angeles since it was China that blocked UN action as the killings unfolded.

●A total of 88 of us will then publicly shave our heads in solidarity with Burma’s courageous monks.

We are inviting students from other universities, celebrities and public figures, and others from across the country to join us in any way they can, whether with their presence at the event, their support from afar, or their active participation.

We realize that LA-88 is not going to change the harsh facts on the ground in Burma, and we are daunted by the challenge of planning and organizing a consciousness-raising event of this kind. We are determined, though, to resist the temptation to despair and apathy and to do whatever we can to focus attention on Burma’s plight. Our hope is that news will leak through to Burmese monks even in remote prison cells that many hundreds of people, in at least one American city, took symbolic action in solidarity with them and are united with them in spirit.

If you are willing to be a part of this public event in Los Angeles in any way, please join the group. We need help from people with organizing skills and media connections. We need sponsors. We need hair. Please encourage your friends to join.

To learn more/support the action: rosborn@usc.edu

The LA 88 Facebook page.

UPDATE: The Los Angeles 88 web site.

“The only real prison is fear and the only real freedom is freedom from fear” - Aung San Suu Kyi

Why preach Sabbath economics

By Alexander Carpenter

Who Then Can Be Saved?: The Reign of God as Redistributive Justice". Talk on Mark 10:17-30 by Ched Myers, Melbourne Australia, 1995.

Check out Paul Krugman's new blog, The Conscience of a Liberal.

He's got a very telling graph up on the "share of the richest 10 percent of the American population in total income – an indicator that closely tracks many other measures of economic inequality."

What's especially interesting lies in the strong evidence that the progressive New Deal reforms created the great American middle class and the last thirty years of supply side economics in action have -- on the whole -- not trickled down. Period.

Krugman adds:

The great divergence:  Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; I believe that politics has also played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality – even the rising inequality of Thatcherite Britain was a faint echo of trends here.

And if that's not enough, Forbes just released its list of the 400 richest Americans. For the first time in the magazine's history, a billion dollars isn't enough to join the club. In fact, 82 billionaires couldn't make it into the Forbes 400 this year.

Even Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. "has acknowledged that income disparities have increased."

According to a study of tax returns,

"Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928. . . . The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans."

And here's the kicker, while the super rich mimicked the Gilded Age robber barons, ninety percent of the country actually lost, on average, over half a percent of their income or about $172. Instead of trickling down, nine out of 10 Americans actually lost money.

Religious leaders may wonder why this matters for their pastoral ministry.

Beyond the the obvious concerns over equality and economic justice this concentration of wealth among a few causes churches and institutions such as colleges and ministries to rely on a few big money supporters (who get influence) rather than allowing grassroots support to flourish.

In fact, preaching Sabbath economics not only helps the poor, it also fosters a more variegated Christian support network and like the great middle class boom of last century, a progressive economy cuts back on civic apathy and equips more people to convert their ideals to reality.

A Petraeus video roundup

By Alexander Carpenter

This video does a good job of capturing a variety of voices responding to General Petraeus' report to the American people about the state of our occupation of Iraq.

Update: And here's another opinion, from the other surge guy, CentCom Chief, Adm. Fallon.

Re-membering the Gulf Coast

By Alexander Carpenter

Why handouts are outdated

By Alexander Carpenter

From small scale projects to HIV/AIDS programmes NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) charities and aid agencies are everywhere in the developing world. They are all the rage in the West too, and are seen as the good people who want to save Africa. But, however well meaning NGOs may be, their programmes often get up the noses of everyone, from African fishermen to shanty town inhabitants. Their idea of improving people’s lives by promoting the basics only are a far cry from the aspirations of those they seek to help. Serious development and growth is definitely not in the NGO dictionary. Shot in Ghana, Godbless, Waffa, Deroy and local fishermen and women are articulate and angry. They loathe the peanuts offered and sanctimonious lessons in good behaviour. They want industry, jobs and material advancement and for NGOs and aid agencies to stop treating them like children. As Godbless tells us: “Africans have big brains, big aspirations….and want to live in liberty.”

Now history deletes itself?

By Alexander Carpenter

Boston University presidential historian Robert Dallek talks about his new book, which include the fact that Nixon was drunk and sedated during the Yom Kippur war. And that's because that administration actually recorded their secrets.

And if that's not enough for you, watch University of Texas poli prof Robert Pallitto talk about the Bush administration (& Cheney super fourth branch) approach to secrecy and "democracy."

The only proper place for pacifism

Many in the Spectrum community really seek to understand how best to reconcile their ideals of conscientious objection with the contemporary realities of humanitarian and/or corporatist military intervention. Recently Arlyn raised some questions and Bob Rigsby has taken up the challenge. Although these usually happen in the comment threads, Bob has spent the weekend honing his thinking on the topic connecting the larger issue of redemptive violence to pacifism. Let them know what you think.

By Bob Rigsby, a Seventh-day Adventist anesthesiologist who grew up in Ethiopia as the son of a missionary doctor, and now lives in Altamonte Springs, Florida.

Arlyn: This is a huge topic with lots of corollary ideas, and still being formed in my mind. Here goes…

Some things seem undeniable. We live in a violent world; problems are solved with violence. This happens on a personal level, and a national/international level. It is easy to reflexively call violence evil. We instantly recognize that something is amiss when we see violence. Be it verbal, institutional, emotional, physical. At the same time, we realize instinctively and through history, that there is a type of evil which does not learn; it does not change; it does not repent. And perhaps it can not repent -- though I resist this idea.

This evil is not evil “lite” -- examples might be the evil against which MLK spoke -- and Christ too. The evil which can be “shamed” into change. The non-violent “acts” of turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile, giving the cloak also, and silently shaming a “Christian” nation into recognition that blacks are also created in the image of God, all are designed to allow the victims of violence (oppression) to retain their dignity, not passively submit, and call to change to better values. These acts are a call to higher moral ground. They offer time and context, and are the hope for transformation of the enemy's heart.

But some evils will not be “called” to anything but more violence. For ultimate evil knows no self restraint. It only knows self-justification. We know this intuitively. A good man (who is a pacifist; unwilling to use violence for any reason) goes into a locked room with an evil man who (the reasons he acts this way a fascinating aside) who has no moral qualms about using force to achieve his purposes, and it is certain -- 100% percent of the time -- that only the evil man will emerge. Baring external interventions, this is easily predictable. Predictable too -- and we often find this jarring -- is that the evil man will have come up with some very good and convincing “reasons” for his actions! He emerges actually believing he is “justified” in his violence!

This is no idle mental exercise. It’s already happened in history. God (whom I will try to sustain as the perfect pacifist) enters the locked room of this evil earth and, given His priorities, didn’t stand a chance. He killed -- and true to form, His killers imagined they had thereby accomplished a certain “good”.

Jump to another train of thought; the various theories of the Atonement. Most Christians have embraced the violence of the cross in ways that implicitly accept -- maybe even rejoice in -- violence. Good violence. God’s violence. This, in my opinion, mirrors our human (and profoundly fallen) conviction that in fact there are certain kinds of violence which are “good” -- so good in fact that this violence actually “saves” us! And if you believe in the saving violence of God, in Christ, you will take great and holy meaning from it and it will be celebrated. (Just watch Gibson’s “Passion…” to see what I mean) It will be celebrated and mimicked.

In short, we humans have largely bought -- deeply and completely -- into what Wink (and others) calls the Myth of Redemptive Violence. The “right” violence, against the “right” people, in the “right” circumstances, is not only justified, but it will save us! It is more ingrained in us that we comprehend, I believe.

Well, what about it? Does God ultimately solve His problems with violence? This is a long story in and of itself for me, but I’ve concluded that He does not. It is totally foreign to His nature. All manner of other ideas -- each betraying the bias (again, my take) of fallen humans -- find little niches for “useful” violence. Ideas like punishment, discipline, judgment, and yes, justice. You do X (bad thing) and justice insists you be disciplined and punished. At this point it gets horribly confused and conflated as we bring in ideas of “law” and since God is equated with His “law” somehow He becomes wrapped up in all this violence as solution.

And so we partake of the system of command and punishment for misbehavior. We console ourselves it is punishment with a “purpose”. We will enforce goodness (with all it’s attendant usefulness to our community at large) with violence. But the reliance on the motives of fear, deterrence, force, pain, to accomplish common “good” is troubling. Sure there are temporary and visible advantages; we’re safer. In time however, I’ve become convinced that God’s ultimate solution involves neither fear, nor force, nor coercion, nor punishment, and consequently no violence. For what God really wants can in no way be gained by those things. In fact, those things produce the exact opposite of what He desires. (The savage and absurd irony of “beating the ‘hell’ out of somebody” comes to mind. In reality, hell is beat in.) He will not, now or ever, be satisfied with a love born of force and fear. (This truth didn’t become real for me until I had read so called “Feminist” and “Liberation” theologies… Theologies uniquely qualified to discern the absurdity of associating Love with violence.) For the love upon which His entire Government and Universe are founded is freely given; it is drawn out -- we are wooed to it; it cannot and will not be forced. We must choose God’s system as free, individual, moral beings.

This stands as the ideal then; the city of God, there on the mount ahead and above us to which we march. Yet we are not “there”, we are here, in our earthly kingdoms and systems. Flawed, fallen, and fearful. It is my firm conviction that one cannot even begin to contemplate the rightful place for pacifism until he has come to the knowledge that violence itself has no place in God’s ultimate plan. It’s that simple. But from where we stand in our earthly “prison” we imagine it is very complex. And the complexity multiplies as we discover new reasons and ways to smuggle in “necessary” violence in the service of “good”. And when we try to shroud and bless this violence in the name of “Love” it only gets worse. Yet, if we cannot imagine that shining ideal of God’s true kingdom of nonviolence, it’s unlikely we will ever find a proper understanding of pacifism. (As an aside, Elaine and Arlyn, my eventual embrace of God’s Universal salvation, seemed a logical consequence of a God who eschews all violence.)

No small amount of soul-searching results as we find ourselves both captive to our dependence on systems of violence for our sense of security, while at the same time puzzle at Christ’s insistence that His kingdom was already here; it has broken in to this darkened room filled with evil. The tension we find between these kingdoms is seen and felt at all levels of experience. We see ideals, and goals, yet seem powerless somehow to live Kingdom values in earthly kingdoms.

And so we imagine -- and list -- all manner of reasonable places for violence (in all it’s forms). We discipline the immature, (think children) using force, to achieve desired behaviors. We see the desirable effects of sensible laws (think the command not to kill; or not to speed) and so tolerate the “enforcement” of those things. We see that here in this realm, certain “good” can in fact be accomplished through selective violence. It is easy to see the “good” in protecting the lives of my family -- by killing with violence the intruder into my home. It is undeniably “good” that the horror of the Atom bombs in Japan hastened the end of the war (ending war; surely a “good”) and resulted in the saving of many more lives than those lost to the bombs themselves. A “bad” thing necessitated by the “good” which results.

But this is not the calculus of the kingdom of God; it is our own. That very moment we allow the motive of fear and force to serve our goal of love, we have become severed from the true Kingdom. Enlisting violence, in any of its forms, in the service of love, betrays the true Kingdom. The WAY of the cross could not be clearer; yet we resist (for what seem to us, in our humanness and fears, good reasons) it’s final destination. Death. In the great confrontation between kingdoms, death is the result of the one who participates in God’s Kingdom values. There is no way to sugar coat this reality. Christ showed us that.

Attempts to avoid and temper this stark truth of Christ’s cross results in strains, species, and variations of pacifism. But for every variation we imagine, we enable a departure from the only sort of pacifism deserving of God’s name. Pacifism thus laden with conditions, contingencies, and qualifiers, is a pinnacle of fallen man’s hubris and arrogance. (Due respect for John Howard Yoder’s “Nevertheless: Varieties of Religious Pacifism” noted earlier by Alex on this blog.) For a pacifism thus adulterated with human pragmatism, wise as it may seem to us at the time, is worse than a neutering of the Kingdom; it is thus destroyed. Such dilutions to the Kingdom of God can not, and will not prevail, ultimately.

That is the goal; that is the Beacon which both calls us and guides us. The ways we fall short of this high calling are many; too many to count. Yet there hangs the Christ -- urging us to live inthat very Kingdom. Freely, and without compromise -- pragmatic as such pragmatism may seem. The calling could not be higher; this distance we feel from it can be discouraging. But there it stands.

Two realities (for starters) can form the basis for our actions toward this goal. First, they must be freely chosen, and second they must be chosen by individuals -- not groups. This seems, to me, axiomatic. That all choices made in the Kingdom must be free and made by individual minds is surely foundational. Again, the cross. Christ chose it with full awareness of what He was doing. Not commanded, not forced,  but chosen freely. Further, not even Christ Himself can make the choice for us; we chose it ourselves. Thus Christ faced the cross alone. His choice was His own -- He will not make that choice for the group. Years later, His followers made similar choices in the full knowledge of the meaning of what they were choosing. Freely. Individually.

As an example of the implications for my personal life, I can consider my attitudes and understanding of violence, enacted by me, in “defense” of my home; my family; my “castle”. I have, for some years now, believed that, given all the unpleasant choices, my best, most “moral” choice is to be willing -- and possess the means and ability -- to kill that intruder who threatens my family. I have seen that not to do so would be, in effect, to participate in their deadly harm. Were I to adopt a policy of pacifism, it would force my moral choice upon my family -- who have not made that choice for themselves.  But the day comes when my children are grown, mature adults; they make the personal choice for pacifism then.

For myself, my own paradigm is slowly shifting. Hard as it is for me, I’m beginning to see that this moral calculus is my own; it is of this world. Had I faith enough (in God’s promised resurrection, for example) and absence of fear ( can I really, willingly and freely, let the intruder kill me? -- Trusting my life will be restored; just as Christ’s was?) it seems that I have the support system to make that hard choice.

Some comparisons exist with nations who wage war. Suggesting nations adopt a policy of pacifism (the total -- indeed only meaningful -- version) seems inappropriate. Each individual of that nation, it seems to me, must chose that option for himself -- given the high stakes inherent with pacifism, (i.e., it may well kill you). However, if one imagines a nation with a high percentage of citizens who have made that very choice, and have openly elected leaders who explicitly ran on that platform, that is a very different (and in my view) unlikely scenario. (And of course could never happen with an Adventist running; believing in separation as we do.)

That said, there really is a body of people who can, and according to Christ’s witness (my take), should have real basis to make that very choice; it is the Christian church. Imagine if such principled pacifism achieved large adherence. (By principled, I mean undiluted with “exceptions”.) Might they not be scorned, ridiculed, and even blamed for all the evil and wars about them? I have often wondered if the eschatology of the Adventism I grew up with actually applies to all those who chose, under Kingdom of God principles, to observe the true Sabbath peace God offers. And their resulting pacifism marks them as the enemy. With great passion and righteous indignation, they are scapegoated as the real cause of conflicts (after all, they are utterly unwilling to solve the problems of obvious evil with what “everybody knows” to be the proper solution) and attempts are made against them with the very force these pacifists abhor. It is only then, when the commitment of God’s true church to His ways of pacifism is total, completely freely chosen, and obvious, that God intervenes and offers divine protection. This only serves to infuriate those who have come to trust in earthly means of violence in the service of God. And the ultimate irrationality of violence as solution to anything in God’s Kingdom becomes plain to all.

Well, all manner of implications and questions can arise from this line of thinking.

To the narrower question (Arlyn’s) of the usefulness of the metaphor of the violence of surgery being likened to certain violence being acceptable in the cause of a greater good… It can be a useful metaphor, but it is limited. The very need for surgery is a glaring reminder of our fallen state. This is not how God created us. And surgery must be chosen freely -- by individuals. (So must pacifism -- one of my main contentions  here.) However, the realization that all our surgery, well intentioned as it is, is ultimately futile (for all our patients die eventually) serves to emphasize that earthly kingdom solutions which rely on violence, obvious as the “good” may be, are only temporary. Only God’s Kingdom offers the permanent solution.

Thanks Arlyn for your thought provoking questions!

The sad insanity of Iraq

By Alexander Carpenter

This video comes from a whole series called Hometown Baghdad, created by young people in Iraq. I found this episode, One of Thousands, to be particularly revealing in the Kafkaeque sad insanity it portrays about the real world of living in an occupied Iraq. Is this objective truth? No. Is this a larger reality? I think so. But you should decide for yourself.

I think the story's most salient point centers on the resentment that the occupying troops often inadvertently spread in the discharge of their duties. By being there we undermine the very peace that we are supposed to represent. And more and more of the normal middle classes are trapped between Iraq and a harder place.

Below, I have also posted some video from one of the most straight-shooting reporters in Iraq, CNN's Michael Ware. He gets past the endless debate over whether the surge is working in some areas or not to the wider concerns of what the last six months have cost. In fact, we are now undermining the very government we created and arming para-government militias (this time Sunni --thanks Bob) -- a policy that should bring a smile to those familiar with Afghanistan, Colombia, Nicaragua, oh yeah, and Saddam Hussein during the 80s.

As Sy Hersh writes in the New Yorker: 

The Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings.

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

The theft of the future -- the relationship between the market and religion and today's social movements

By Alexander Carpenter

This is about an hour long which will take a commitment to watch, but it will be well-worth your time if you wonder what is going on with capitalism, faith and social change in the world these days.

The New Great Transformation with Paul Hawken

Video from the Long Now Foundation - San Francisco, CA

The title of Paul Hawken's talk, "The New Great Transformation," has two referents. Economist Karl Polanyi’s 1944 book, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, said that the "market society" and modern nation state emerged together in Europe after 1700 and divided society in ways that have yet to be healed.

Karen Armstrong's 2006 book, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, explores "the Axial Age" between 800 and 200 BC when the world's great religions and philosophies first took shape. They were all initially social movements, she says, acting on revulsion against the violence and injustice of their times.

Both books describe conditions in which "the future is stolen and sold to the present," said Hawken - a situation we are having to deal with yet again

Inside the Iraq "surge"

By Alexander Carpenter

"Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008.  More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'"

Here's some currently serving troops in their words in some of the best reporting I've seen on the Iraq disaster.

Earlier this week, ABC News cut and used some of this footage from the brilliant journalists of journeymanpictures. They describe themselves as "London's leading independent distributor of topical news features, documentaries and footage. We're like a video encyclopedia of the world."

As calls grow for the White House to 'reverse the surge', the experiences of soldiers in Iraq is driving the anti-war movement. In an unprecedented insight into the dangers they face, these journalists spent two months on patrol with Apache Co.

Through Thunder and Flame: Thoughts on the Military Chaplaincy

By Bill Cork

In recent discussions about the appropriateness of Christian pastors serving as military chaplains, I have heard some suggest that a chaplain is someone who just serves the status quo, serving as a sacred sugar coating of an activity that is antithetical to the kingdom of God.  I disagree with that negative assessment.

I served in the Army Reserve and National Guard from the mid-80s to the early 90s as a chaplain candidate and chaplain (endorsed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). I’ve taken the title of this essay from the official march of the U. S. Army Chaplain Corps, “Soldiers of God,” which includes chorus: “Soldiers of God, we serve him faithfully, and march in his name through thunder and flame wherever the call may be.” That’s the essence of the chaplaincy—to follow the call of God wherever it may lead.

The role of the chaplain as understood by the U. S. Army is prescribed in Army Regulation 165-1, “Chaplain Activities in the United States Army.” Here are some selections:

Army chaplains have a dual role as religious leaders and staff officers. … Chaplains are noncombatants and will not bear arms. … Chaplains are required by law to hold religious services for members of the command to which they are assigned, when practicable … . Chaplains provide for religious support, pastoral care, and the moral and ethical wellbeing of the command. Each chaplain will minister to the personnel of the unit and facilitate the “free-exercise” rights of all personnel, regardless of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the unit member. … Chaplains are authorized to conduct rites, sacraments, and services as required by their respective denomination. Chaplains will not be required to take part in worship when such participation is at variance with the tenets of their faith. … Military and patriotic ceremonies may require a chaplain to provide an invocation, reading, prayer, or benediction. Such occasions are not considered to be religious services. Chaplains will not be required to offer a prayer, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith group. … Chaplains will provide religious support for confined personnel and Army personnel in foreign or civilian confinement facilities. … Chaplains will advise the commander and staff on matters of religion, morals, and morale, to include—(1) The religious needs of assigned personnel. (2) The spiritual, ethical, and moral health of the command, to include the humanitarian aspects of command policies, leadership practices, and management systems. (3) Plans and programs related to the moral and ethical quality of leadership, the care of people, religion, chaplain and chaplain assistant personnel matters and related funding issues within the command.

The military expects chaplains to be men and women of conviction, and underscores this in their training, as I experienced at the U. S. Army Chaplain Center and School at Ft. Monmouth, NJ, in the summers of 1986 and 1990, when I did phase one and two, respectively, of the Chaplain Officer Basic Course.

As prescribed in the Army Regulation just quoted, chaplains are expected to be faithful to the tenets of their denomination and to do nothing that would compromise that standing. They also have a role as members of the commander’s staff, advising the commander on matters of ethics, morality, and morale, and facilitating the free exercise of religion by all members of the command.

We were carefully instructed in the morality of war, both jus ad bellum (what criteria are necessary to declare a war) and jus in bello (criteria regarding the conduct of war). We were told there might be times when we would need to confront commanders over violations—and that we would need to expect to suffer consequences for sticking to our conscience.

Classroom instruction on this point was reinforced in other activities, including physical training, when the drill sergeant might start us in a cadence call that said, “One, two, kill a commie, that’s right, kill a commie.” In a Command Post Exercise, an officer might have a sign on his desk reading, “No prisoners,” or something similar. When we raised an objection, we were commended (though the officer might yell at us and throw us out of his office at first). If we said nothing, we were hauled on the carpet during the After Action Review and the point was underscored—we as chaplains must be prepared to speak out, regardless of the professional consequences to ourselves.

My army instructors were aware of the tension inherent in our role and did their best to prepare us for it, so I was not surprised when I experienced that tension in the years that followed.

During Operation Desert Shield, in the fall of 1990, I served for several weeks with the 82d Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC. One Wednesday prayer meeting I gave a talk about just war, looking at our reasons for going to war at that time in light of “The Law of Land Warfare.” I candidly expressed my reservations from the pulpit of the 82d Airborne Division Memorial Chapel, with the Assistant Division Commander, a Brigadier General, in attendance. He came up to me afterwards and expressed his appreciation—he said he expected his chaplains would assist him in working through the moral issues, even challenging of assumptions and policy, and was grateful for what I had shared.

During that same period I got some grief from the Acting Division Chaplain, a Christian Scientist, who expected me to co-lead a communion service with him for the General Protestant Service. I told him I could not, because my denomination could not accept his as Christian. He thought I was trying to shirk my duty, but I told him I’d lead it by myself. He thought I didn’t understand his church’s teaching, and gave me a book to read. I thanked him, told him I would read it, but I had to stand firm. It was a heated conversation, but he backed off (and a chaplain on post who was senior in rank came to my defense). He also had the sense to realize he wouldn’t be a fair rater when it came to evaluation time, and so had another chaplain serve as my rater who he knew would be more objective.

When I was chaplain of a tank battalion in the Vermont National Guard my commander was insistent that I do my job, ask questions, teach morality, and tell soldiers of their obligation to report immoral conduct. When I preached a sermon on this latter point, some soldiers looked nervously around at their commanders—who looked back at them, nodded, and said, “Listen up.”

Chaplain (CPT) James Yee was not as fortunate. You may recall the story. He was a Muslim chaplain assigned to Guantanamo. He did exactly as he was supposed to according to army regulations on chaplains and prisoners of war. He gave briefings for new personnel on understanding religious needs of prisoners (based on material developed at the U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School). He raised concerns to the command about treatment of prisoners. He ministered to fellow Muslims on staff and among the prisoners. Chaplain Yee did exactly as he was trained to do—exactly as I was trained to do—but his actions raised suspicions in the mind of one reserve officer. He reported Yee and accused him of espionage, and Yee was clapped in irons and thrown into solitary confinement. False charges were stacked up against him and rumors were spread in the press, but the Army eventually had to drop all charges and release him. But the damage to his character had been done.

This was exactly the kind of retaliation my Army instructors told us to expect if we did our jobs properly during times of war.  But they—and we—felt it to be worth the risk.

The role of the chaplain is to “march in his name through thunder and flame” (and sometimes that’s friendly fire) “wherever the call may be.”

Yes, there are struggles and temptations. But these temptations exist in any ministry. The question here is the same as for any other minister—will you do what you’re called to do, even in the tough times? Will you be faithful? Will you love the people of God, wherever they may be found?

Yes, the military has its share of pragmatists, careerists, and people with anger and authority issues. But it also has men and women of the highest character. Part of my role as a chaplain was to strengthen these, so that they would have a greater influence, so that they could shine as “men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.”

Chaplains don’t sit on the sidelines debating hypothetical situations. They go into the trenches with their flock. They minister to people in the face of death. They put their own lives on the line, walking into fire without protection. Yes, they are “chaplains of the culture,” but I don’t see that as a pejorative. Chaplains live in a specific culture, and from that space they are able to speak to it. They take risks, and make themselves vulnerable.

It’s called “incarnational ministry,” and it is modeled on the life of Jesus. It’s a ministry of being salt and light—and it can’t be done from the outside. It’s a ministry I did by hospital beds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, on the top of tanks in the Canadian wilderness, under the stars in the field at Ft. Drum, and in mess halls and motor pools and day rooms at Ft. Bragg. It’s a ministry I did with other men and women of faith, as well as young men and women who never would have thought to enter the door of a church. But I went to them. I spoke their language. I wore the same muddy uniform. I ate the same MREs and SOS. Together laughed and cried; together we wrestled with questions of right and wrong, of duty, honor, country. It was frustrating at times, but it was the greatest experience of my life, that has colored the way I have approached every ministry experience since. I loved it. And I miss it.

William J. Cork, D.Min. serves as an Associate Pastor at the Houston International Seventh-day Adventist Church in Texas.

The millenium development goals

By Alexander Carpenter

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
   • Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than one U.S. dollar a day.
   • Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
   • Increase the amount of food for those who suffer from hunger.
2. Achieve universal primary education
   • Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling.
   • Increased enrollment must be accompanied by efforts to ensure that all children remain in school and receive a high-quality education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
   • Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015.
4. Reduce child mortality
   • Reduce the mortality rate among children under five by two thirds.
5. Improve maternal health
   • Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio.
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
   • Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS.
   • Halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases.
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
   • Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources.
   • Reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water (for more information see the entry on water supply).
   • Achieve significant improvement in lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020.
8. Develop a global partnership for development
   • Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory. Includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction—nationally and internationally.
   • Address the least developed countries’ special needs. This includes tariff- and quota-free access for their exports; enhanced debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction.
   • Address the special needs of landlocked and small island developing States.
   • Deal comprehensively with developing countries' debt problems through national and international measures to make debt sustainable in the long term.
   • In cooperation with the developing countries, develop decent and productive work for youth.
   • In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries.

This is the surge the other way. . .

By Alexander Carpenter

No god but God of war?

By Alexander Carpenter

I enjoyed this interview with hipster Iranian scholar Reza Aslan. His informed points about Iraq cut right through the fearmongering about the "war on terrorism" and noting that Iran has the best Muslim democracy in the Middle East needs more attention.

As Michael Scheuer, the former station chief of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden task force, has correctly noted:

Osama doesn’t hate our freedom: The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that ‘Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do.’ Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It’s American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society.

 

Mother of My Adventism

By Alexander Carpenter

I just got off the phone with my mother wishing her a happy Mother's Day and listening to all her work worries. After I hung up it occurred to me that I wouldn't be an Adventist without her biological and social influence. Moreover, it was during college that I just realized that both my parents molded much of how I relate to authority - both divine and human. As a result, I pray to GOD, not a heavenly father or mother, grandpa or grandma. It is precisely because I appreciate the contributions of my relatives of both genders that I don't want to saddle one side as less Godlike.

My mother raised (often homeschooling) four boys. All our pets were male as well. As a result, even though she read more Ellen White than Gloria Steinem and probably still doesn't know who Simone de Beauvoir is, she embodied a practical Adventist feminism. For family worships, we'd read Adventist Home as well as spend what seemed like agonizing hours memorizing Psalms or a particularly terrible episode with Rudyard Kipling's "If—".  It's tough to appreciate the character building power of 19th century poetry while Legos await.

A creative thinker, I remember her objecting to the mindless male-first mentality at our small local church. I recall being embarrassed as a teen in adult Sabbath School class cringing out a thought: "Why is it that my mother always has to comment on the lesson?" An RN, health is her passion, and I remember after my parent's divorce her voicing a worry that she wouldn't find a partner who could keep up with her on morning runs. Still an Australian citizen, with Eastern European roots, she's lived in America as a resident alien since the sixties. Her family knew Des Ford and Bob Brimsmead from plenty of Sabbath afternoon "discussions" Down Under and always fighting the old battles through the late 80s and early 90s during the holidays they'd sit around the table and reveal to me the overlooked ideological variety of Adventism. Her relatives were all conservative immigrants but they championed Des as much as any 1980s AAF academic. Not a graduate degree among 'em, but they still loved the struggle for good theology, and tempered by life under Communism, they worried about a movement where institutional authority and moderate apathy become more essential than the daily walk to define present truth.

And that's what I appreciate about the Adventism of my mother: that passion for truth. She and I argue about inspiration and she tells me to eat this or that weird food. Do I listen? Not as much as I should. But as I remind her (and my father) we don't listen to God as much as we should either. They know they're in good company! And perhaps that's part of the point in Spectrum community and Adventism. We know that we don't hear God as much as we should. But we're in good company, all equally the offspring of God.

On this day, in remembering mothers we often neglect all those women who lost, never had, never wanted, aborted, could not have, were legally prohibited from having children. Let's not. And let's also remember the original purpose of Mother's Day: to promote pacifism.

As Digby writes:

It's unfashionable and vaguely unpatriotic these days to talk about "peace" but back in 1870, it was a pretty compelling concept. As the country was still reeling from the effects of the civil war and still dealt daily with its consequent illness, poverty, injury and death, feminist Julia Ward Howe wrote the following proclamation creating a Mother's Day convention and a demand for "the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace." How quaint.

Mother's Day Proclamation - 1870
by Julia Ward Howe

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Happy Mission Accomplished Day

By Alexander Carpenter

(BTW, this is the Spectrum Blog's 300th post since we launched on June 8. As of the moment I'm posting this we have 2824. . .now 2826 comments.)

Watch Bill Moyers of PBS and Jon Stewart of the Daily Show - two of the wisest folks on TV - as they discuss Iraq. Their insight into what has happened to America in the last four years makes a whole lotta sense.

BILL MOYERS: Well, what is your thinking about why it is as-- the war enters its fifth year, and the President has announced - an extension of tours to 15 months, and they're going to call up the National Guard. And April was the bloodiest month so far since the war started, and there was one day in April that was the bloodiest day. That people have seen they have no way to get the guys in Washington, and Condoleezza Rice, to listen to them. That there seems a detachment emotionally, and politically in this country from what is happening.

JON STEWART:It's very hard to feel the difficulties that the military goes through. It's very hard to feel the difficulties of military families, unless you're in that environment. And sometimes you have to force yourself to try and put yourself in other people's sort of shoes and environment to get the sense of that.

JON STEWART: You know, one of the things that I do think government counts on is that people are busy. And it's very difficult to mobilize a busy and relatively affluent country, unless it's over really crucial-- you know, foundational issues. That come sort of sort of a tipping point.

BILL MOYERS: War? War?

JON STEWART: But war that hasn't affected us here, in the way that you would imagine a five-year war would affect a country. I think that's why they're so really — here's the disconnect. It's sort of this odd and I've always had this problem with the rationality of it. That the President says, "We are in the fight for a way of life. This is the greatest battle of our generation, and of the generations to come. "And, so what I'm going to do is you know, Iraq has to be won, or our way of life ends, and our children and our children's children all suffer. So, what I'm gonna do is send 10,000 more troops to Baghdad." So, there's a disconnect there between — you're telling me this is fight of our generation, and you're going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that's gonna do it. I'm sure what he would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can't, because he doesn't have them. And the way to get that would be to institute a draft. And the minute you do that, suddenly the country's not so damn busy anymore. And then they really fight back, and then the whole thing falls apart. So, they have a really delicate balance to walk between keeping us relatively fearful, but not so fearful that we stop what we're doing and really examine how it is that they've been waging this.

Especially the final point Jon makes, brilliant.

Darfur: we have options, they don't

By Alexander Carpenter

To raise awareness of this four-year conflict, actor, director and activist George Clooney traveled to Sudan and Chad with his father, journalist Nick Clooney.

Both Nick and George Clooney plan to attend a "Rally to Stop Genocide" organized by the Save Darfur Coalition on Sunday, April 30 in Washington, D.C. The assembly plans to call on the international community to help end the turmoil plaguing the African region.

Here's a great discussion from the non-partisan Brookings Institution on the idea of the "responsibility to protect." What's particularly interesting is the release of new global poll data that shows that people, even in China, agree that the international community must act. I know that it is a lot of talking, but some of the questions that have been raised in the comments section in the last post are addressed here by experts.

Global Days for Darfur

By Alexander Carpenter

As you know time is running out for the people of Darfur.

Four years of genocidal violence has left over 400,000 dead, 2.5 million innocent civilians displaced, and 4 million men, women, and children completely reliant on international aid for survival. Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter.

For Adventists with especially tender memories of Rwanda, our community should be clear and strong on pressuring our government to pressure the international community to stop supporting the genocidal Sudanese government.

Over at God's Politics, Adam Taylor titles his Friday Darfur post: For God’s Sake, Save Darfur! End the Politics of Delay. And he lists growing numbers of folks of faith who are acting out, "273 events in 175 cities and 42 states (and D.C.) across the country, as well as events in 20 countries."

Loma Linda University religion prof Julius Nam and Claremont grad student Trisha Famisaran are both promoting  the Loma Linda University Church film and conversation: Darfur Diaries.

"The Save Darfur Coalition is a non-profit organization and advocacy group dedicated to ending the genocide in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. It is a coalition of over 160 faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organizations designed to raise public awareness and to mobilize an effective united response to the atrocities that threaten the lives of some two million people in Darfur."

According to their wikipedia entry:

The Save Darfur Coalition began on July 14, 2004 when the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and American Jewish World Service organized a Darfur Emergency Summit at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan featuring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Elie Wiesel. Mr. Wiesel inspired the group with his impassioned remarks about the suffering being inflicted on Darfurians: "How can I hope to move people from indifference if I remain indifferent to the plight of others? I cannot stand idly by or all my endeavors will be unworthy."

You've got to check out Johnny Ramirez's flash graphic for Global Days for Darfur.

If you want to do something with your church, here's Sojourners' Global Days for Darfur toolkit as well as other resources.

But there are one thing that we can do as active members, not just thinking typists, in the Spectrum Adventist community.

Donate directly to the Adventist Development and Relief Agency Darfur/Sudan fund. I volunteered for a year for ADRA Bangladesh and saw first hand that even a little bit of support creates an exponential difference in human life. 

Beyond good and evil?

By Alexander Carpenter

Update: How does the Stanford Prison experiment and Abu Ghraib inform the way that Christians should talk about evil? Does sin explain evil behavior? From astute read T. Joe Willey PhD (who I just noticed in the intro to The Creationists, stayed up with Ron Numbers that fateful late night). Anyway, Dr. Willey sent over a link to yesterday's eSkeptic review of Stanford psychiatry emeritus Philip Zimbardo's new book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil:

The central metaphor of The Lucifer Effect is “no bad apples, only bad barrels.” That is, situations and systems, not individuals, transform behavior and personality. In exhaustive detail, including a day-by-day, sometimes hour-by-hour, description of the psychological decline of student volunteers and those conducting the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo details countless shameful examples of human behavior, from the alleged banality of Adolph Eichmann to the brutal Rwandan and Nanking rapes, ultimately ending with the offenses performed by our very own forces in Abu Ghraib.

[snip]

Who among us has not surprised and shamed himself with acts of minor cruelty, or fails to recall the social hierarchy of his own primary and secondary school experience? The Lucifer Effect presents data that is far from inconceivable or unconvincing, and readers who remain doubtful of the extremes of human behavior after reading it must be determined to submerge their capacity for reason in the sands of denial.

As we know evil and good Adventists existed right next to each other in 1994 Rwanda. What separated those aided the genocide and those who acted heroically were not separated by doctrine - but by action. But as we know, different contexts or barrels call for difference acts - thus, how should Adventism make good barrels? In the past we've worked to keep folks, especially the young out of the world while making sure that doctrine stays firm, clearly attention to the barrel and the apple. In light of Rwanda and Abu Ghraid, what needs tweaking so that Adventists stand out as good fruit.

 

Noam Chomsky and the terrors of the earth

By Alexander Carpenter

Noam Chomsky is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th Century.

In the BBC interview below, Chomsky discusses his thesis on terrorism, explicated in his book, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World.

This updated edition of Noam Chomsky's classic dissection of terrorism explores the role of the U.S. in the Middle East, and reveals how the media manipulates public opinion about what constitutes "terrorism."

Chomsky starts by tracing the changing meaning of "terrorism," examining how it originally referred to violent acts by "governments designed to ensure popular submission." He calls its current application "retail terrorism," practiced by "thieves who molest the powerful." Chomsky argues that appreciating the differences between state terror and nongovernmental terror is crucial to stopping terrorism, and understanding why atrocities like the bombing of the World Trade Center happen.

In comparing the "war on terror" launched by George W. Bush to that of his father and Ronald Reagan's administrations, Chomsky recalls Winston Churchill's summation of the terror by the powerful: "The rich and powerful have every right to demand that they be left in peace to enjoy what they have gained, often by violence and terror; the rest can be ignored as long as they suffer in silence, but if they interfere with the lives of those who rule the world by right, the 'terrors of the earth' will be visited upon them with righteous wrath, unless power is constrained from within."

Lessons from Ben Suc

The mendacity and criminality of the U.S. war on Vietnam are matters of historical record, yet easily forgotten is the role that so-called objective, balanced, and responsible language played to defend the indefensible. With today’s Washington planners attempting to disburse billions of dollars in “development and reconstruction aid” to Iraq in the midst of a heated war, the village of Ben Suc in Vietnam serves as a prescient reminder of what “aid,” “development,” and “humanitarianism” can mean in the context of an ongoing foreign invasion. Ben Suc also points toward an unsettling kinship between debased language, social sciences, and pathologies of technocratic control.

The use of technocratic doublespeak as a mask for violence is perhaps nowhere more incisively analyzed than in George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language”: “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification,” Orwell wrote in 1946. “Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called rectification of frontiers…. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.” Orwell identified four ways that truth is shrouded in cocoons of debased speech by the perpetrators of deadly political action: pretentious diction, verbal false limbs, dying metaphors, and meaningless vocabulary.

Continue reading this essay by Ron Osborn in Z Magazine.

Asking President George H W Bush a Question

by Michael Weismeyer
Written on March 12, 2007

Tonight I went to the Music Center in LA to hear the 41st President of the United States, George H. W. Bush speak. When you walked through the door, you could get a slip on which to ask a question that might be asked during the Q & A session after his talk. So I wrote one down. About half way through President Bush's speech, which was very interesting and funny, an usher came to me and said my question had been selected and to come with her. I was taken down from high in the balcony where I was sitting to outside the front of the auditorium. I was told that I would get to ask my question of the President. In the meantime, I got a much better seat near the front.

Finally, it was time for the questions. The first person asked his question and then it was my turn. I asked, "What advice would you give to young people who believe in their country but are in an environment filled with disillusionment?" He answered by saying to ignore the disillusionment. He said compare the US to other countries. People are lining up to come here, and the United States is the greatest country in the world. This got a lot of applause, including from me.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to say thank you because as the applause died down, a man stood up and started yelling about why President Bush didn't pass on his values to the current President and essentially yelling about the Iraq War. The audience was not pleased with this outburst. The moderator, a NPR reporter, said this was a forum for asking questions not yelling. President Bush asked where his cane was (so he could whack the man I assume) and then gave a defense of his son by saying that the current President is a good and honest man who calls things as he sees them. Security came and took the yelling man out. Things proceeded for a few more minutes before another man started yelling. This time someone in the audience yelled out for the person to sit down and shut up, which got some applause. Security came and took this second yelling man out as well. President Bush was very classy throughout the whole thing as was the audience (except for those two men) and the NPR reporter.

Tonight on the news, the ABC, CBS, and NBC stations covered the speech with a clip from the beginning when President Bush described his fainting spell yesterday. He had been playing a little golf in the heat out in the desert and fainted at the house of a friend. He said the worst part was that when he came to, he was getting mouth-to-mouth from a male friend when there were six beautiful women standing around.

All in all, I'm very glad I went tonight, even if it didn't get me closer to finishing my 500+ page book that I have to read in the next couple of days. It was nice to be able to ask a question of the former President and get to hear one of our American heroes speak.

An alum of Southern Adventist University, La Sierra University and Loma Linda Academy, Michael is now pursuing a Ph.D. in History at UCLA.

The hope of mankind

By Nathan Brown

Four years from the US-lead invasion of Iraq, serious questions remain about the justification and results of the military action.

But perhaps we could learn something from regime overthrow in the last century. Reflecting on the bloody course of the Russian revolution, Lenin made a startling admission with possibilities for contemporary analogy: “I made a mistake. Without doubt, an oppressed multitude had to be liberated. But our method only provoked further oppression and atrocious massacres. . . . It is too late now to alter the past, but what was needed to save Russia were ten Francis of Assisis” (Philip Yancey, Rumours of Another World).

Imagine what might have been achieved if—instead of hundreds of thousands of military personnel armed with millions of dollars worth of weaponry—thousands of missionaries, aid workers, teachers, doctors, nurses, and builders had been dispatched and equipped with the equivalent values of construction materials, medicines, and education supplies. How different a place would Iraq be? How different a place would the United States be? How different a place would the world be?

It’s not just a nice idea. Undoubtedly, there would have still been casualties; there always have been among those on the frontiers of Christianity—but perhaps they may have been less than those of the ceaseless violence of the past four years. If we are so confident in the rightness of our cause and the inherent strength of good, it’s not a risk. It’s even a way of living urged in the Bible: “If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink. . . . Don’t let evil get the best of you, but conquer evil by doing good” (Romans 12:20, 21). It’s not our natural reaction but it can work.

In recent history, there have been more positive examples of regime change than Lenin’s regrets—or the US invasion of Iraq. Foremost among these is the role credited to Christian churches in the 1989 revolution spreading across 10 formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe: “against all odds, when the decisive moment for change finally arrived in the Eastern Bloc, the church lead the way in a peaceful revolution. . . . Virtually, every protest demonstration began with worship. . . . Not a single life was lost as throngs of people marching with candles brought down a government” (Philip Yancey, “The Wall Comes Tumbling Down”). On a smaller scale are the stories of societies radically impacted by evangelistic efforts. For example, in 2001, following in a major evangelistic campaign held in Papua New Guinea, local politicians and newspapers noted “a dramatic decrease in major crime in the country.”

We hear much about the individual life-changing power of the gospel; perhaps we need to spend a little more time on the broader culture-changing possibilities.

Less than two weeks before the beginning of the Iraq war—in one of the most misplaced and poorly-timed uses of Adventist satellite technology—a globally-broadcast concert featured a pre-recorded message from President George W. Bush, in which he described America as “the hope of mankind” (“Spirit of Freedom” Family Reunion Concert, broadcast March 7 2003). How such a statement by-passed editing by broadcast directors is puzzling. But with four years of war and “peace” in Iraq as just another example of the bleakness of such human endeavour, we can surely recognise and must insist that the hope of mankind resides elsewhere.

Thankfully, the Bible offers a greater hope: “I wait quietly before God, for my hope is in him” (Psalm 62:5). He—and He alone—is the Hope of mankind, whatever Bush’s rhetorical excess might suggest. In fact, the danger is that of misplaced hope, even—intentionally or unintentionally—putting something else in the place of God. Yet “those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength” (Isaiah 40:31). It is this hope that can truly change the world for the better.

We need to renew our trust in the world-changing power of the gospel. Then perhaps we can invest more in saints, rather than soldiers.

Iraq: word to power

By Alexander Carpenter

Here's Christian Iraqi-American rapper TIMZ with a video that has stirred some controversy among a few people who don't understand the difference between Chaldeans and Muslims, fantasy war and intentional peace.

TIMZ (aka Tommy Hanna) writes: "the first verse is written from the perspective of an Iraqi while the second verse is written from the perspective of an American. The third verse is a history lesson!"

Ceremony or commitment?

By Nathan Brown

Figures from the US show 4 in 10 of babies born last year were born “out of wedlock.” The additional interesting dynamic to this is that teen motherhood is at the lowest levels for years and the big increase is among unmarried women in their 20s. It seems it’s part of a larger trend. An Australian study of young married couples has reported only 9 per cent of these couples had not lived together before marriage. Add to this statistic, the significant number of couples who choose not to get married at all and the sad realities of divorce and we have a picture of a society in which the traditional, legal forms of marriage are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

These trends pose some tough questions in relations to our church’s stand on marriage, particularly in relation to “discipline” procedures and the impact these have on the involvement on young people in our church.
Before we go running for the Church Manual to brush up on our censure procedures—thus excluding another young couple from the contribution they can make to our church—we need to ask ourselves some questions: Have we reached a stage or will we reach a stage at which we have to recognise that a traditional marriage ceremony is simply a fading cultural tradition and that perhaps our focus on such an event has been—or may become—misplaced?

Would we be better to focus on commitment between couples rather than the trappings of a white dress, a large church and a legal document? Are these trappings what we mean when we refer to “God’s plan” or is He more interested in the heart of the matter? Or do these things evidence the heart of the matter? In short, are we more interested in a wedding or a commitment?

It is unlikely Adam and Eve had a wedding ceremony we would recognise as such. Certainly, it would not be legally recognised in our society, due if nothing else to the absence of witnesses and a “qualified” marriage celebrant—the legal requirement for a valid marriage in my part of the world.

Jesus, when questioned on marriage, referred His listeners back to the story of Adam and Eve and the statement made by God at that time, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife and the two are united into one” (Mark 19:5). But the Bible does not limit this ‘becoming one flesh’ to a man and wife (see 1 Corinthians 6:16): “Paul did not limit it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes ‘one flesh’… The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured” (C S Lewis, The Screwtape Letters).

Undoubtedly, simply drifting into an uncommitted sexual relationship which then evolves into cohabitation is a poor start to a lifetime commitment to each other: a wedding ceremony can mark a significant moment of commitment. But there are many examples of weddings simply being a part of such a drift and certainly providing no guarantee that the couple will not similarly drift apart. Marriage can be an important life step but as it is practiced in our society it has become equally a social and cultural event.

As such, increasing multicultural influences and the decline of organised religion contribute to the decline of the traditional forms. Our society now affords unmarried couples similar legal relations to those formally married, perhaps recognising something of the commitment involved in such relationships—despite the lack of legal form and traditional ceremony.

It is not marriage as commitment that needs questioning or even as concept but marriage as a traditional, cultural form—of which we can even find variety in the Bible. Jesus urges, “Let no one separate them, for God has joined them together” (Matthew 19:6). Perhaps in a changing culture, we need recognise this choice some couples have made, question our insistence upon the uncomfortable suits, white dress and all the paraphernalia assumed to be the necessary ingredients of a "proper" wedding, and encourage their continuing commitment to God, each other and the church.

Clergy as officers of the state no more?

By Johnny A. Ramirez                  

A bill has been introduced into the Maine legislature that would separate the religious role of clergy in performing marriage ceremonies from the legal recognition of marriage. The bill, LD 779, titled An Act to Remove Clergy as Signatories on Marriage Licenses, was introduced by a legislator on behalf of Rev. Mark Rustin, a Congregationalist minister, who says that he does not want to be an agent for the state of Maine. The bill calls for the legal aspect of the marriage contract to be carried out by lawyers, justices, judges or notaries. Today's Village Soup Times reports that Rev. Rustin is concerned that the present role of clergy places them in a difficult position when they need help a couple get through a divorce.
From Religion Clause

It would seem, from prior expressions by Adventists in Canada, that this would be a compromise our church would be happy with.  When that nation was debating same sex marriage our church said:

"Our concern has always been that of maintaining freedom for our religious expression of faith," said Bussey, who is also an attorney. "The government's bill appears to protect clergy from having to perform marriages against their conscience. However, the Supreme Court in December stated very clearly that the federal parliament has no authority to grant such protection -- it is the role of the provincial legislatures."
From the Adventist News Network

Would our traditional notions of marriage remain unscathed and protected if the state were to separate their legal recognition and unions from our church ceremonies and clergy?

Happy Presidents' Day: I like Ike, too

By Alexander Carpenter

As our representatives turn their attention to the Bush administration's new 100 billion dollar request for funding the war on Iraq, let us consider these words from President Eisenhower, a man who actually knew how to plan and win wars (WWII) and also knew when to redeploy (Korea).

As President Eisenhower notes, our money is not just going to the troops, but also to the new American war industry.

Oh yeah, and there's more:

It could cost the VA at least $350 billion to provide disability compensation and health care to Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, according to a Harvard University researcher's conservative estimate. Those costs could climb as high as $663 billion, if many troops remain at war much longer and health care costs inflate. "We're running up a bill that we'll be paying for the next 50 years," said Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs for Veterans for America, a national veterans advocacy organization. The nation has committed $427 billion to war costs, not including VA expenses. Pending budget requests would raise the total to $662 billion.

Want to do something informed by your faith? Join the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

Rules for a Global Neighbourhood in a Multicultural World

By Alexander Carpenter                  

In an era of great change, religion and spiritualism can provide strength and guidance. However, it is vital to strengthen the dialogue among different religions and cultures in order to foster common understanding. In the case of the West and Islam, a growing disconnect poses serious challenges to global order. This session builds on the ongoing dialogue created by the World Economic Forum's C100 initiative.

Why democracy won't work everywhere, yet.

By Alexander Carpenter

Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria converses with Jon Stewart about Iraq. I posted this because they raise several good points about the problem with the current theory that spreading democracy in the Middle East is a good in itself.

World AIDS Day

By Alexander Carpenter

Adventist World President Calls For an 'Accepting Church,' Lights Candle to Commemorate World AIDS Day. Ray Dabrowski / Adventist News Network reports:

"On a day the world community recognized the challenge of HIV and AIDS, Pastor Jan Paulsen, world president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reaffirmed the Adventist commitment "to an be active, and not a silent partner" in addressing what has become a curse for mankind."

Around our world 8000 persons die every day from AIDS:

Here's some hope:

President of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, Charles Sandefur writes:

"Since 1985, we have been working around the world to generate HIV and AIDS awareness, educate about prevention, and provide counseling and support. We’ve seen progress and have reached millions, but there is much to be done, and we need your help to do more. I have some exciting news to share! ADRA will soon launch a new section on our Web site dedicated to HIV and AIDS. It is full of essential resources to help you tackle the challenge of stopping AIDS. We expect it will be an indispensable tool in your efforts. Complete our online form and we will email you when the new site is available."

Where is our Darfur witness?

By Alexander Carpenter

As I pointed out a few days ago, our church leaders have not officially spoken out on Darfur. But who then is our neighbor? 

Here is a very significant list of key leaders in American Christendom who believe that the 400,000 who have died and the 2.5 million displaced persons are our neighbors, too. In fact, these Christian leaders backed it up and took out ads in major US papers calling for our government to use its considerable diplomatic resources to end the suffering in Darfur. And they did it as bible-believing followers of Jesus.

They include:

Dr. Tony Campolo, Baptist evangelist and international speaker
Rev. Rich Cizik, Vice-president for Government Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals
Rev. Bill Hybels, Pastor, Willow Creek Church, leader of Willow Creek Association
 Dr. Richard Land, President, Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Rev. Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, author of God's Politics

For those who know the current public scene, that is a pretty significant mix of folks on the right and left. Listen to their interesting and principled public press conference call here.

In 1999, our church leaders spoke out on the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo - why haven't we done it for the people of Darfur? 

In October, I wrote an essay saluting General Conference president Jan Paulsen for his speech in which he thoughtfully asked: 

"Does leadership nurture a church which is so focused on spirituality and eternity that they have no feelings in their hearts for what is happening to society today, except to condemn decaying morality," he added, "Do they think about the environment; do they care about HIV [and] AIDS; and what about poverty? Do they understand what poverty really is?"

Already some Adventist laity are ready for our leaders to see these words put into action.

Johnny Ramirez said: "You'd think our international church would care about our Adventist brothers and sisters in Darfur. . . ."

George Odell added: "Yes, let's encourage our leadership to speak out, to direct ADRA to the region but most importantly, to strongly but respectfully encourage our African church leadership to actively engage this ongoing African crisis. This will be the most effective response from the Adventists community."

Blogging over at Adventist Pulpit, Sherman Cox II notes that Adventist UN liason Jonathan Gallager says that Adventist churches are increasingly speaking out on social issues such as poverty, AIDS, human trafficing, and the environment. Sherman adds: "It is good news to see the church standing up to fight the pain and hurt in the world. Let us pray that God will continue to use our church to be a blessing to the world."

And Courtney Krudy pointed out: "I can't believe the Church has not already made a statement on Darfur. Its just sad. But if there is enough pressure put on Church leadership they will do the right thing...they are after all *our* leaders."

Here's the direct comment line to good-hearted President Paulsen.

This thanksgiving season, consider letting him know that you - as a Christian and a member of the Adventist community - care about our public witness for humanitarian action in Darfur.

Darfur: What is our leadership saying?

By Alexander Carpenter

In 1999, the the General Conference Administrative Committee approved an official statement on Kosovo expressing concern "about the worsening humanitarian situation in Kosovo" and bemoaning the "hundreds of thousands of displaced and homeless people."

But what about Darfur?

The region continues to fester like Kosovo and humans continues to suffer, die, or relocate at genocidal levels. The time is now to move forward on this and stand up for our Christian principles. This Sabbath millions of our community members will gather in the name of present truth and talk about being like Christ in word and deed. Many will ponder the difference between faith and works.

It's time for our church leadership to not just witness for itself, but push us to act like Christ who modeled a faith that leads the faithful to work for others. Today, this means standing up for the least of these in Darfur.

If we can say this about Kosovo:

"The Seventh-day Adventist Church urges the international community and government authorities involved to push for an early end to the crisis on the basis of Christian, moral, and ethical principles of human rights, and good faith negotiations that are fair to all concerned and which may lead to better relationships."

We must say it about the hunted Africans of Darfur.

If we continue to tell our comfortable white, middle class audience that Christ offers "life and more abundantly," the time is now to help out those who may die while we worship. Change comes first when people take the time to articulate the need, and then push for those words to become reality.

Heidegger writes in his "letter on humanism:"

"Language is the house of Being. In its home man dwells. Those who think and those who create with words are the guardians of this home. . .such action is presumably the simplest and at the same time the highest, because it concerns the relation of Being to man (217)."

The future of the Adventist church lies in the actions of our leaders today. They can continue to release statements on what everyone should believe about the bible and Ellen White, or they can show us what that belief means.

Most Adventist young people have little buy-in to the church's mission. One still misunderstood reason is that the future of truth is not just truth that just makes a difference in me, but leads me to make a difference. That's the attraction of Last Generation Theology and the General Youth Conference, but if the church wants to be more than just a bunch of soteriological solipsists our leaders need to lead us to a thoughtful prophetic Adventism that finds in faith a mandate for the common good.

Let's start with Darfur. ADRA's kinda there, we've lost churches and members to the conflict - it's time for our community leaders to show us what servant-leadership really means. . . 

Oh, now Iraq's looking bad?

In the current Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone, "Ohio Burning," another brave Adventist pastor speaks up.

Gianluca Bruno, a young Adventist pastor who recently moved to Mason, agrees. "Even the most conservative people I talk to are saying that maybe it's not a good thing that we went to war," he says.

Hmm. . .perhaps if Ohio conservatives express reservations about the Iraq war, maybe the Adventist church leadership could follow lead the church in taking an official stand against this:

Or is that just too political to apply official church statements for peace in 1980 and 2002 to a real war?

Vote!

Neil Young - Keep On Rockin' In The Free World

"We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler,
Machine gun hand
We got department stores and toilet paper
Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer
Got a man of the people,
says keep hope alive
Got fuel to burn,
got roads to drive."

Who cares about Darfur?

Although a few months old, this very informative short doc provides exclusive interviews with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rabbi David Saperstein and Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Injustice system

Adventist adventurer and USC political science pedant, Ron Osborn writes: "My younger sister, Kim, spent 2005 as an intern with a humanitarian NGO, ADRA International, in Guinea, West Africa.

Early on in her internship, she visited La Surete, Guinea's largest prison in the capital of Conakry, and was so challenged by what she saw there that she ended up returning to the prison repeatedly to document its conditions, both in writing and on film. . . .

Ironically, the 'justice system' in Guinea is so corrupt, inefficient, and oppressive that falling under the 'law' is to become the victim of a crime."

Get the whole story here.

Can Adventist Pastors Actually Speak to their Communities?

By Alexander Carpenter

Jim Coffin, a Florida Adventist pastor, joined with his community faith leaders to push for peace.

As they write in the Orlando Sentinel:

Despite a rapid increase in knowledge and astounding advances in technology, humans are already engaged in or teeter on the brink of all-out war in various regions throughout the world. Taking or threatening human life and destruction of property are used routinely as a means to achieve the goals of nations and other groups.

While our weapons have become increasingly sophisticated, our moral sensitivity concerning the sacredness of human life has lagged appallingly. Therefore, the Interfaith Council of Central Florida calls upon spiritual people of all persuasions to refocus attention and strengthen efforts to work for peace.

Although the sacred writings of the world's great religions are not typically pacifistic, they consistently call for a higher level of moral responsibility in the resolution of conflict. Further, these writings point to peace as the ideal. Peace is portrayed as the prime characteristic of "paradise."

Johnny likes it, too.

Now, I'm only in my twenties so I know my place in church decision-making - near the bottom - just barely above women. But I've got an idea: wouldn't it be great if all NAD pastors had the opportunity to sign onto a statement calling for "a higher level of moral responsibility in the resolution of conflict?" Both the US-backed IDF and Hezbollah seem more concerned with the rightness of their fight than the morality of their methods. And since both sides are dominated by their religious right, the larger faith community could put aside their sectarian differences and unite over a larger shared concern - not politics, but God-given life.

This isn't a right/left issue, it's about progress toward peace versus continuing cycles of violence. Adventists in Lebanon are suffering, or as Dr. Kjell Aune, the leader of the Adventist church in the Middle East, says:

. . .church members "are fearful with anxiety, experiencing the reality of shortages, have limited freedom of movement, and first and foremost, are coming to terms with the paralyzing realization that the hope which they had built up for their future has now gradually shattered."  

It's an interfaith war - Jews, Christians and Muslims support it and are causalities - interfaith pressure against both Israel and Hezbollah can only save lives.

If our faith communities acted strongly - maybe the thousands of times the phrase "a personal relationship with Jesus" will be repeated this Sabbath might not sound so solipsistic. 

The Christian consequences of the war

As Christianity Today points out:

It can be easy for Western Christians to tune out violence in the Middle East. It can seem to be both intractable and unending, while the grievances on either side extend decades, even centuries, into the past. Yet, the dimensions of any conflict in the region can affect Christians differently. Lebanon has the largest percentage of Christians of any country in the Middle East, and fighting between Hezbollah and Israel in the country affect Christians differently than in Gaza, where Hamas and Israel are also fighting. To understand how locals view the current conflict, we've solicited and collected articles from several Christians in Lebanon, Israel, and elsewhere. We've also brought together other recent stories on Arab Christians from around the Middle East.

Adventists have a long tradition of living and working in Lebanon. There is much to understand and advocate for in this conflict. Reading Christianity Today's thoughtful articles provides a perspective that broadens the consequences of this conflict and leaves little room for Adventist silence.  Or we just spend our time trying to figure out Daniel eleven again?

Thoughts on the Lebanon Crisis

By James Standish

My daughter Shea put her leg up in the air on Sunday and said "I'm selling my leg." I looked at her, and asked "how much?" She giggled and said "two cents." "Only two cents? Shea, do you know what your leg is worth?"  She looked at me as seriously as a two year old can as I said "Sweetie, I wouldn't take all the money in the world for your precious leg!" As we banter back and forth, an image from a news story comes to mind.

The story described the scene in a Lebanese emergency room where a mother held her baby's hand up for treatment. The baby's hand had four little bloody stumps where her precious little fingers had been shorn off by a piece of Israeli shrapnel. Does that Mother feel the same way about her daughter as I feel about mine, I ask. And if so, why am I sitting in silence?

Those shooting rockets indiscriminately into Israel are involved in unmitigated evil. But they are stateless terrorists supported by pariah nations. They make no claim to respect human rights. They do not claim to be democracies. And they do not receive large amounts of arms and funding directly from the United States. Israel is a democracy, Israel claims to respect human rights, and Israel's ability to survive and wage this war is dependent on the funding, the armaments and the unquestioning diplomatic support of the United States. With that unquestioning support, Israel is inflicting horrendous destruction on Lebanon and the Lebanese people – 40% of whom are Christians.

Some may argue that the Lebanese deserve to have apartment blocks turned to rubble with men, women and children trapped inside and no chance of rescue because Israeli jets supplied by the United States bomb anything moving along the roads; that they deserve to have humanitarian supplies blocked; that they deserve to have their hospitals bombed, their villages destroyed, their infrastructure obliterated, their airport destroyed and their ports blockaded. The population deserves this, some argue, because the Lebanese government could not control Hezbollah. This claim completely ignores the weakness of the Lebanese government and the fragility of the society. Have we already forgotten that the nation was in a state of civil war, and then was dominated by Syria until recently? That Lebanon has a democratically elected government free from Syrian control was considered a miracle – until this assault. Do the Lebanese boys and girls, men and women, deserve to have their homes, their villages and their nation destroyed? What moral decadence would presume to even ask the question?

We are Christians who reject the evils of war. And yet, as our tax money is used to inflict this intolerable suffering on the Lebanese we are largely silent. This will be counted against us. It is our nation that is funding this war – to the tune of $500 for each Israeli per year. It is our nation that is supplying the weaponry – as I write U.S. jets are delivering munitions to Israel to re-supply their bombers. It is our nation that is the one and only country rejecting calls for a humanitarian cease-fire. How can we remain silent and call ourselves moral? If Ellen White spoke against the Civil War – a war to "make man free" – how can we remain silent in this war that is nothing more than a tit for tat escalation for six decades of brutality?

Mahatma Gandhi said it well when he stated that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." The problem in the Middle-East is not that the two sides are so different – rather it is that the results of their actions are so much the same. The extremist Muslims believe that if you harm a Muslim, they must inflict punitive revenge in any way they can – on children, on the elderly, on civilians – it matters not. The Israelis, with our support, are proving just as capable of punitive destructions wrought on innocent civilians in their villages, in their apartment buildings, in their cars as they attempt to flee the fighting. Indeed Israel has destroyed a budding democracy which had the strongest economic ties to her in the region, and it has done this in a matter of weeks. And so they go, round after round after round of brutal reprisals - evil repaid with unspeakable evil – one precious eye for another.

And it is this evil that leaves a precious little baby girl in an emergency room without electricity, with her hand held aloft by her mother with four little bloody holes where four precious little fingers had been only moments before. And here I am, with my little girl, knowing that my tax dollars went to pay for the bombs that blew the fingers off that little girl and my silence is facilitating the next round of barbarism.

Is church growth more important than principle?

Adventist pastor blogs are buzzing with the New York Times story Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock.

The Minnesota pastor, Greg Boyd preached a series of sermons calling his congregation to reject the dangerous confluence of faith, patriotism, and war.  The results?

As Oregon Adventist Pastor points out:

• His church lost 1,000 of its 5,000 members (mainly white, middle-class professionals).
• He had to lay off seven of its fifty staff members.
• His church's drive to raise $7 million stalled out at $4 million.

But he adds, "Then again, his church has picked up members from the Black, Hispanic, and Hmong communities."

Probably alarming his ministerial director, Hollywood pastor Ryan Bell proclaims: "Greg Boyd is my hero!"

The guru of creative ministry, Monte Sahlin flags the article as well, noting that pastor Boyd is known for his bible-based preaching.

What do you think?

Could an Adventist pastor survive a politically nuanced stand like this?

A Great Resource

By: Alexander Carpenter

Check out the Daily Faith News Reel.

It is updated five days a week and includes major and minor news articles and opinion pieces on faith groups and politics around America.

Progressive Faith Blog Conference

I am attending the Progressive Faith Blog Conference this weekend.

It is a gathering of about thirty-five folks from various faith traditions who blog about progressive values.

Jews like Velveteen Rabbi and Jspot.

Christians like Talk to Action and Christian Alliance for Progress and Street Prophets and Xpatriated Texan.

Muslims like Islamicate.

Buddhists like Hoarded Ordinaries.

If you want to read live comments from the conference visit the Progressive Faith Blog Con web site.

It is turning into a very exciting discussion.

War, Peace and the Minimum Wage

Young Adventist Lebanese blogger Johnny tackles Israel and Hezbollah. Well researched, he writes:

"Israel is wrong in attacking Lebanon for the sins of Hezbollah. Israel does have a right to defend itself.  But Israel is behaving cowardly by not attacking the real backers of the Hezbollah missiles, Syria and Iran.  Obviously they are not attacking Syria or Iran as Syria and Iran can actually defend themselves."

Jeannette Rankin (1880-1973) was the first woman ever elected to the U.S. Congress, and a native of Missoula, Montana. She was elected in 1916, before women nationwide had the right to vote. In 1917 she joined a handful of representatives who voted against entry into World War I asserting, despite harsh criticism and certain damage to her career, that "the first time the first woman had a chance to say no against war she should say it."

Visit this site to see some Adventist women who carry on that tradition: Adventist Women 4 Peace

Finally, over at Faith in Context Monte Sahlin writes:

"Why would anyone want to pay an employee so little that the employee cannot provide the cheapest possible housing and food for him or herself? Would you be willing to look a person in the eyes and say, 'Because you do not have the education that you should and don't vote, I want you to work for me at about half the real cost of the labor you are going to do. And, I want you to go the church down the block and to your parents and get them to provide the other half so that I can afford this project.'???"

Read a really thoughtful post on Christian responsiblity and the minimum wage.

Creation Care for the Discerning Adventist

By: Alexander Carpenter

After you've seen An Inconvenient Truth here are eighteen good resources for folks of faith to learn about the issue of climate change and what we as Christians can do.

A significant part of the evangelical world is starting to really care about creation.  Read about the Evangelical Environmental Network. 

The Adventist church just spent three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to understand the chronology of creation.  How much time and money was spent thinking about actually caring for that creation?

We are stewards of our billionaire church; where is our elected leadership investing our tithe? Do we have a green, renewable resource policy? Do our leaders really care for creation, or merely care about chronology?

Perhaps the creator might ask us about what we did with everything after the first six days?

Or, of course we could just rehash 1844 for the hundredth time. . .wait, let's face it, we've got a new millennium; we're post-disappointment Adventists--wherever Jesus ministers architecturally, this planet could use a little attention from the remnant.

Didn't Jesus have something to say about those waiting, foolish virgins who burned up all their oil?

Are You An Inconvenient Adventist?

Christianity Today editor David Neff, in his review of the film says An Inconvenient Truth "engages its audience with its moral seriousness and its avuncular and folksy style. . .He [Gore] wants action now-and he's right about that."

Get two free tickets at this web site for "inconvenient Christians". 

Barack Obama Hangs the Right’s Rhetoric on a Prayer

By: Alexander Carpenter

Today, the man President Bush calls “the pope” delivered an incisive speech articulating a principled way forward in the American debate over faith and public life. I saw it four rows away, and it was good.

Speaking at the First National City Church, to a packed audience of mainline, evangelical, and Catholic progressive activists, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) began with a story familiar to many—having his religious bona fides questioned because he wasn’t conservative enough. Pushing past both the Right’s patently parochial rhetoric and the secular stammer of the left, the senator swung back with a vision for American values rooted in his hopeful prayer that “reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all.”

The only African-American in the U. S. Senate, and only the third since reconstruction, Obama pointed out that the “single biggest 'gap' in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.” And thus it follows that “we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people.”

While this might seem like easy words for the crowd, already the DailyKos community contains some prickly posts worried over the senator's recognition that “under God” is not the most difficult or stultifying aspect of a child’s school life. Read their posts here as well as some Obama defenders who urge people to read the whole speech, not just the AP MSM angle.

But Obama is no religious ideologue, sharing in the speech about his own secularist upbringing, and even after joining the Trinity United Church of Christ he recognizes the value that doubt plays in the search for meaning. He points out that one American's doubt shouldn't force another's awkward silence. In fact, the Left's religious sotto voce leaves it unable to call the country to high ideals.

Not long ago Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker noted the junior Democratic senator joking at the Gridiron dinner.

“You hear this constant refrain from our critics that Democrats don’t stand for anything,” Obama said. “That’s really unfair. We do stand for anything.”

Listening to today's speech it's clear that Barack offers progressives (and the Democratic party) a new religious principle on which to stand.

He opposed CAFTA, has called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and even in a skeptical The Nation article entitled "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington," David Sirota notes the junior senator's "rare flash of defiance when he unsuccessfully pushed legislation this year to create an Office of Public Integrity." Obama has even blogged on DailyKos, addressing the sphere's two dominant topics: troops out of Iraq and into Darfur. 

“They are exactly right to be fired up about Darfur, he writes. "It is in our national interest to stop states from failing, and to stop genocide. But they also have to recognize that if we are willing to engage militarily in those circumstances, then there certainly are situations that call for direct military engagement in defense of our national interests.” He adds, "we are less equipped to deal with Iran because of the Iraq war.”

But Obama's short record and today's speech reveals more than progressive ideals and sharp political timing. He also envisions a way forward that eschews the Right's solipsistic rhetorical grip on American values. He sees that the solutions to gun violence, poverty, war and failed immigration policy lie in our ability to turn personal ideals into broad movements for the common good:

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

By saying to the faithful and the secular of all varieties that the American conversation should always be privately honest and publicly plural, today, Obama leads a party hung by others’ prayer to a new vision for faith in public life.

                           

By: Alexander Carpenter

Today, the man President Bush calls “the pope” delivered an incisive speech articulating a principled way forward in the American debate over faith and public life. I saw it four rows away, and it was good.

Speaking at the First National City Church, to a packed audience of mainline, evangelical, and Catholic progressive activists, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) began with a story familiar to many—having his religious bona fides questioned because he wasn’t conservative enough. Pushing past both the Right’s patently parochial rhetoric and the secular stammer of the left, the senator swung back with a vision for American values rooted in his hopeful prayer that “reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all.”

The only African-American in the U. S. Senate, and only the third since reconstruction, Obama pointed out that the “single biggest 'gap' in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.” And thus it follows that “we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people.”

While this might seem like easy words for the crowd, already the DailyKos community contains some prickly posts worried over the senator's recognition that “under God” is not the most difficult or stultifying aspect of a child’s school life. Read their posts here as well as some Obama defenders who urge people to read the whole speech, not just the AP MSM angle.

But Obama is no religious ideologue, sharing in the speech about his own secularist upbringing, and even after joining the Trinity United Church of Christ he recognizes the value that doubt plays in the search for meaning. He points out that one American's doubt shouldn't force another's awkward silence. In fact, the Left's religious sotto voce leaves it unable to call the country to high ideals.

Not long ago Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker noted the junior Democratic senator joking at the Gridiron dinner.

“You hear this constant refrain from our critics that Democrats don’t stand for anything,” Obama said. “That’s really unfair. We do stand for anything.”

Listening to today's speech it's clear that Barack offers progressives (and the Democratic party) a new religious principle on which to stand.

He opposed CAFTA, has called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and even in a skeptical The Nation article entitled "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington," David Sirota notes the junior senator's "rare flash of defiance when he unsuccessfully pushed legislation this year to create an Office of Public Integrity." Obama has even blogged on DailyKos, addressing the sphere's two dominant topics: troops out of Iraq and into Darfur. 

“They are exactly right to be fired up about Darfur, he writes. "It is in our national interest to stop states from failing, and to stop genocide. But they also have to recognize that if we are willing to engage militarily in those circumstances, then there certainly are situations that call for direct military engagement in defense of our national interests.” He adds, "we are less equipped to deal with Iran because of the Iraq war.”

But Obama's short record and today's speech reveals more than progressive ideals and sharp political timing. He also envisions a way forward that eschews the Right's solipsistic rhetorical grip on American values. He sees that the solutions to gun violence, poverty, war and failed immigration policy lie in our ability to turn personal ideals into broad movements for the common good:

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

By saying to the faithful and the secular of all varieties that the American conversation should always be privately honest and publicly plural, today, Obama leads a party hung by others’ prayer to a new vision for faith in public life.