Posted by PS again (oh, no!) on September 13, 2001 at 00:01:33:
In Reply to: Re: God Bless America posted by john on September 12, 2001 at 06:36:14:
Warning: This is going to be long, so if any of you really don't want to analyze your Christian world-view, don't even read this. ;-)
OK, John, I think I can now see where a lot of the misunderstanding originates. Please try not to mix your views on the appropriate actions in the "national/international" political arena with your views on our "individual" responsibilities as Christians into some kind of well-blended stew. It is confusing and begs for misunderstanding to occur. The "national/international" and the "individual" considerations are two separate contextual arenas, and you can't just jump back and forth in your reasoning like you have a portal to another dimension. Deal with these as separate issues, and try to draw the lines clearly when possible.
The concept of a holy war as you address it is a national/international issue. When, in the context of discussing "national/international" views, you go on to make reference to the martyrs' "individual" actions in detail (martyrs not fighting for their cause, allowing God's will, submitting to the true order of the universe, preaching to their captors, working to help their enemies, etc.) you clearly come across as if these "individual" actions have some specific relevance in this "national/international" context. They don't. For that matter, they don't even directly relate to our "individual" context. (It was the martyrs' own governments that persecuted them. They did not submit to their leaders or they would have necessarily renounced their faith in Christ and ceased to speak in His name. Instead they disobeyed these laws, hid from the local authorities, and worked to disciple others, who in turn did the same things.) So why must I make such a big deal about context? I fear that we do much to cloud the issues for Christians seeking wisdom in their world-views by using contextually-confused examples.
* * * * * * *
: The main body of my post was about NOT buying into the propaganda of this country being the greatest on earth or special in relation to the others.
* * * * * * *
Fair enough. Of course we must look at the other side of the coin as well. One has only to interview some of the older Cuban Americans who fled Castro's regime in the 60's (they are all over this town) and find out what they think of the ideals of freedom that we as Americans embrace. (I have personally had this pleasure.) They love the distinctions that America stands for, and clearly appreciate the contrast more than we ever could, since we have never experienced life without real freedom. (They also have a more accurate view of what martyrdom really is.) To recognize that in this regard we in the U.S. are privileged (or "special in relation to the others") is also to realize we have a greater responsibility. This realization ought to produce humility and thankfulness, not arrogance. I too, as Jonvon mentioned, am sickened by "empty boasting, arrogant and lacking wisdom." I think we agree on this.
* * * * * * *
: It was a caution AGAINST using Christianity as a cover for nationalistic revenge.
* * * * * * *
This is not the case with the references to God I have heard lately. Those leaders making reference to scripture or prayer seem simply to be attempting to walk in their faith in God in the midst of crisis, as all the fathers of our faith tried to do. Quoting from Psalm 23, as President George Bush did last night, is a perfect example: "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me." This does not alarm me; this reassures me. He speaks of comfort in God's presence, not some promise of revenge. (Lord knows he could have quoted a few of these verses instead!) I have heard no leaders using Christianity as a cover for nationalistic revenge.
Still, your caution against using our Christianity to justify nationalistic revenge is good. I agree that this would be falsely applying our individual Christian beliefs in the national/international context, and that it would be grossly inappropriate. But if in the same breath you also make reference to the martyrs' individual actions in their persecutions, this is an error in context--apples and oranges--and really confuses the issue. (You do well to warn against incontextually spiritualizing our situation in one area, so please don't do the same thing you warn against in another area.) What we need is clarity of thought, and to this end we should choose how we apply and teach Biblical principles wisely.
Now, since I misunderstood you initially (sorry), I reread what you first wrote:
* * * * * * *
: This is going to sound strange coming from me, but let us all remember that we are Christians called to love and peace. Even toward those who injure us. Above all, now is the time for we who think we have an enlightened sense of our God to stand firm against the vengeful calls for retaliation.
* * * * * * *
I'm not sure about this "enlightened" sense of God, but it sure initially sounded like you were saying that if we have this enlightenment we will necessarily agree with you and oppose retaliation. Well, feel free to call me unenlightened. ;-) In the national/international context, I believe retaliation is the only appropriate action. Anyway, then you later restated your views (thank you) and said,"...the perpetrators should be brought to justice." (Now please don't bother defining the difference between the words justice and retaliation--in this situation they are in harmony. To retaliate for such an atrocity is just, and justice demands some sort of retaliation.) So in trying to reconcile the discrepancy, I would suppose that perhaps you were initially trying to warn about harboring or fostering "individual" hatred. If so, good! I agree! But your language about "standing firm against the vengeful calls for retaliation" lost any sense of the peaceful and loving "individual" influence we can have, and put the focus squarely on the "national/international" outcry again, and really confused the issue by the mixing of contexts.
It also seemed (in the same statement) very much like you were equating "love and peace" as the diametrically opposed option to "retaliation". (I see now it is only because you were mixing contexts again.) Both peace and retaliation can be considered together in an international context. In reality, the promise of just retaliation is necessary to perpetuate peace internationally, so they are not necessarily opposed. Love, however, is an "individual" trait we cultivate (and cannot be nationalized). Though peace is normally understood as a national/international condition, it can also be an individual trait (if you mean inner peace or peacefulness of character). The retaliation we are all thinking of is of course a "national/international" action. Were you thinking otherwise? Individual retalitation? (I haven't heard anyone on my block staging a war against his neighbor, thank God!)
On a lighter note, when understood in a national/international context, "standing firm" in our enlightenment did seem pretty comical. I wondered, should we tell Bush or perhaps our senators, "No, I don't agree with retaliation! I am for love and peace! Remember the martyrs!" Or could we just tell everyone we meet that Bush is wrong to retaliate and is just being vengeful, and try to sway national opinion that way? Hee hee... ;-) Obviously it is only in the "individual" context that this exhortation to adhere to the principles of love and peace makes any real sense; here we can really have an effect as agents of God's grace in other individuals' lives.
* * * * * * *
: This is just the kind of instance that could lend enough support to carry the US into war, even against the consensus of the international community... and the result would be much greater devastation and loss of life, over what? Revenge. The President's comments on retaliation greatly disturbed me.
* * * * * * *
The president's comments did not disturb me, nor did they disturb most Americans, nor did they disturb most of the International community (the radical Muslims excepted). On the contrary, most Americans were reassured. They do not want a war; they want justice, in the form of well-planned and effective retaliation, to assure that this kind of thing will not happen again. Most Americans fear the devastating effects of inaction and/or ineffective action in this situation, which we have seen over and over again in our recent history. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember some of the pitiful U.S. retaliatory actions in the past few decades that have caused the radical Muslim community to have little respect for our ability to retaliate and little fear of our ability to bring them to account. One has only to think of Carter's helicopter attack force against Iran during the hostage crisis to imagine the middle-east Muslim community howling with laughter.
Regarding the international community: Many international leaders (even Cuba, Libya and Russia) have publicly decried this outrage, and many prominent nations have have offered assistance to help the U.S. retaliate against terrorism in its various forms world-wide. Not only the international leaders, but the citizens of their countries are appalled and stand with the U.S. in this crisis. I have many emails I've read from people all over the world whom I know from my Bengal business, and the messages are strongly in support of the U.S. The international community is not consensually against retaliation, as you suggest, but rather seems overwhelmingly supportive of effective action to bring the (surviving) killers to justice. Quick and effective action is the best way to try to avoid a war.
The possibilities of a real war on our hands? Afghanistan's perceived harboring of bin Laden and his activities has been emphatically denied by their government in an international press release, so it would seem there will be no war there (unless strong evidence later shows that their statements are false and they are indeed still assisting the terrorists). There may be a partial invasion into the more remote areas looking for bin Laden camps, which I expect Afghanistan will permit with very little resistance, as they will realize this is not an attack on their country or their government, and they really do not want to turn it into that. History bears this view out; Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan after bin Laden and the government basically did nothing.
The only other presently perceived possibility of a real war would be if conclusive evidence surfaced that Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq had somehow masterminded this attack. If that were the case, we would no doubt be at war with Iraq. Our military leaders feel that we did not finish what we started nor attain our full objective in the Gulf War. If we again had to fight with Iraq, I have little doubt that the U.S. will be more thorough in accomplishing its objectives this time around. Just an observation...
* * * * * * *
: Would it not have been better to call for justice and take a higher road rather than appeal to the mass indignity?
* * * * * * *
I heard the man speak. President Bush did call for justice (just retaliation!), and he did not appeal to mass indignity. Did anyone else get this "appeal to mass indignity" impression? If so, I must be blind, deaf, and stupid.
* * * * * * *
: ...we need to remember that America is not arbitrarily God's holy elect country and just because someone commits a heinous act in it doesn't mean that God will respond with full force of armageddon on the perpatrator any more than he does when the same thing happens in Northern Ireland, or Pakistan, or Tanzania.
* * * * * * *
Nobody here believes that holy elect stuff, and nobody is talking about God retaliating with Armageddon. I'm not sure who or what you are responding to.
* * * * * * *
: My post was a plea against the Holy American crusade which many may feel they need to take up. Terrorism is horrible and should be stamped out, but why is it that this country doesn't get so outraged when a bomb kills thousands in Israel?
* * * * * * *
Many do get outraged. I personally am deeply grieved hearing of dozens of women and children being blown apart and burned by some suicide bomber. But every time the U.S. gets involved in any substantial official capacity, these attacks escalate. Many Israelis actually want the U.S. to back off, so as not to provoke more attacks and thwart the peace process currently being pursued. Surprisingly, you seem not to have considered that yesterday's attack may be largely due to our involvement in Israel, including supplying them with U.S. arms. I would encourage you to think your world-view through a little more. You do have good understanding of cultural diversity (at least Eastern Asian and American), which is to your credit, but international relations can be quite complicated. I am by no means expert in this area either.
* * * * * * *
: We HAVE to love, help to heal, and ultimately forgive.
* * * * * * *
I very much agree! Healing on our local scale is what we as should be focused on, as we minister to individuals who have been wounded by this. Healing on the large national/international scale will not take place without some semblance of justice. God's gift of eternal forgiveness did not signal the end of the punishment of evildoers on this earth, nor did He intend it to. Jesus never preached thus, nor did his apostles. (I know you know this--I'm just restating.) We as Christians are called to forgive these killers if they repent, and in any case to release them from our eternal judgment upon them. We know and believe that only God is righteous to judge, and the blood of Jesus can cover all sins. But we are not called to let mass-murderers go free on this earth and forsake our responsibility to protect the innocent.