Sunday, September 03, 2006
I finally got around to reading the 8/28/06 issue of Sojourners, "Nonviolence v. Terrorism." I had previewed it when it arrived but never had the chance to read it through. I just had that chance, and it wasn't too bad. Wallis said some good things, stressed that we are not to confuse nonviolence with appeasement (though that is often how it appears) and did get to the heart of the issue when he noted the political nature of this 21st century terrorism. Where I disagree, however, is where he cited the examples of King, Ghandi, Day, etc. and how their nonviolent tactics worked during their respectives times. My contention with that is that yes, they worked, they worked very well, but they also worked with Western nations where there seemed to be an overriding culture of morality present, maybe not that in which these people were oppressed, but a "Judeo-Christian" worldview, for lack of a better term. Once the US saw how brutally the blacks were being tortured and abused, the tide shifted. I'm not that familiar with Britain's response to Ghandi, but I would guess that it was very similar. Today, our enemy is different, they play by a different set of rules, they have a very different value of life, their end goal is the destruction of the West. So while I may agree with nonviolence as an idealogy, we are in a war (separate from the War in Iraq, which I am becoming more convinced is nothing more than a sham, I'm all for cutting loose and running, although I am worried what that would do to that nation and that region) and war is not pretty, it may take some violence at times. Diplomacy is a good goal, but I don't know how we talk with these people. It's an interesting subject and one in which I have set the goal to learn about more this fall. Your thoughts/opinions are most welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is something that is on my mind all the time, especially here in Madison. Every other car has sticker either suggesting that we impeach Bush, or that war is not the answer. I want to stop them and ask them what is the answer? My initial thought is that if we put our hands up and come in peace, we'll end up on our backs with bullets in our chest. It's easy to sit here in the comfort of my home, drinking coffee, surfing the net and think that we can all live in peace. Then I read stories like this
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2572577&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines
Can you imagine living in that kind of environment? We think the rest of the world should operate like our country, and it just doesn't and I'm not sure there is much we can do about it. Do we just pull out and let them have at it? I'm not sure that is the best think either. I'm not a historian, or a politician by any stretch of the imagination so I don't really have any suggestions. I feel like prayer is that best thing I can do from here.
Prayer and support of those organizations, both spiritual and political, that you feel are doing a good job.
By the way, the SG recommended the book "How Soccer Explains the World." Have you read it? It's on my list for the fall.
I saw that. I'll have to check it out. I'm trying to read Fast Food Nation right now. It's about how the fast food industry has impacted our country.
There are at least two huge problems with the type of thinking that is going on over at Sojourners. The first is their public interpretation of commands that were meant to be carried out individually by disciples of Jesus. For example, turn the other cheek cannot be ripped out of its context and simply applied as a proof-text on why Christians ought to call their worldly government to employ only “non-violence” as a political strategy. Second, the modern American liberals at Sojourners commit the exact same error that modern American conservatives commit as it relates to politics – that being that we as Christians somehow have a duty to get involved in the very worldly political processes and then somehow use the coercive power of the state to Christianize our government and the world. This presupposition is in no way biblical and I am every day connecting more to what neo-Anabaptist Greg Boyd says concerning the Christians relation to politics:
“The government of Jesus’ day was wicked, twisted, perverted, violent, oppressive, and unjust. In spite of this, Jesus avoided getting involved in the political process. Instead, he called both Matthew (as a Jewish tax collector for the Roman government, he was politically an arch-conservative) and Simon (as a zealot who opposed Roman taxation of the Jews, he was politically an arch-liberal) to follow him—and he never commented on their political convictions. Why? Because following God’s kingdom supersedes all distinctions that can be made in this worldly kingdom.
Rather than being co-opted, or at least distracted, by the political processes of this world, pray for God’s Kingdom to come and follow Christ’s example. We stoop too low when we buy into the worldly solutions to worldly problems. Even when they work (rarely), they create other problems. We need to offer people a radically different alternative to all of this…
Don’t get too involved, Paul tells us (2 Timothy 2:4). You belong to a radically different country with a radically different King who offers radically different solutions to the problems of life. You are a missionary in this country. Act like it. Whether your mission field is democratic, socialistic, communistic, libertarian or whatever...Do your mission, pray for leaders (Romans 13)—but don’t buy in to the world’s way of solving human problems.
Always remember that our battle is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6). We are not citizens of this world (Philippians 3:20). In this world we, like Jesus, are to expect suffering—and, like Jesus, how we take it, not how we change it, is our best witness to the world…
The Kingdom we represent, and the Kingdom that will ultimately take over the world, is different than any other Kingdom of this world. We are to change the world, but not by the means the world uses. Our power is prayer and sacrificial love [and of course, preaching the Gospel and discipling those who believe]. Our hope should be placed on nothing other than our Lord using us and following Jesus’ example to transform the world in a way the political systems of this present world cannot. Whatever distracts us from this should be avoided.”
Adam Nate
i had a prof challenge my beliefs on nonviolence with basically that same thought about these tactics being used against "civilized" nations. i do think that ghandhi, king, etc were right to use nonviolence, and i think they generally knew that there comes to point where we'll quit because of our civilized culture.
so, can nonviolent direct action work on large scale? i think yes. i think it's the way of the Kingdom. but, i also think that it's a sacrificial way, that may cost our lives. like Jesus. (and also ghandhi and king, who were willing to lay down their lives for the cause. shoot, ghandhi took some brutal beatings at the hands of the english.)
but, i don't know about applying these values to our nation. i don't expect our gov't to not fight, bomb people, etc. i also don't agree with it. and, i think if i was a Xian in office, i would have trouble carrying out such duties, voting to go to war, and so on.
i don't know what it would look like in the iraq conflict. but, i think we're creating more terrorists the way we're going about it now.
“I don't expect our gov’t to not fight, bomb people, etc. I also don’t agree with it.”
You NEVER agree with it? EVER? War is NEVER justified? Violent force is NEVER justified? Our nation should not have a military? Or a police force? Or prisons?
I think one of the biggest problems with such thinking as it relates to national policy is its assumption that those who initiate a war (e.g., Islamic fundamentalists and their state sponsors) and those who fight to protect and preserve themselves are equally at fault. That’s a dangerous presupposition that reeks of moral equivalency.
As a Christian, I can best fight terrorism by preaching the Gospel, baptizing and discipling those who believe, teaching the whole counsel of God, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, taking care of the widows and orphans, casting out demons, etc.
As an American, I should hope that my government obliterates any organization, as well as the state(s) who sponsors them, who would initiate aggression against us.
Concerning Iraq, we should leave immediately and hope the Iraqi’s can maintain some form of government that protects individual rights. Yes, I supported – and still do – the invasion of Iraq. But I don’t see why people assume that if a person supported the invasion but now thinks it would be best to leave Iraq, then that person is automatically a “defeatist-retreatist.” Can one not plausibly believe that the war was justified but also believe that the occupation ought to be ended immediately? Yes, one can. And I do.
I also disagree with this belief that America now has to stay in Iraq to defeat Islamic fundamentalism in general and al-Qaeda in particular. Poppycock, as NRO’s John Derbyshire once pointed out:
“From the point of view of killing jihadis -- a thing I strongly favor -- Iraq is not that important. It is not even the most jihadi-ridden nation -- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia easily outrank it on that scale. The ‘flypaper’ theory -- that all the jihadis in the world are going to flock to Iraq so we can kill ’em -- is just silly. Ask a Londoner.
There are more ways to kill a cat than by choking it with cream, and there are more ways to fight the War on Terror than with massive conventional-force assaults and Wilsonian nation-bulding efforts. We really ought to be devising and practicing those ways, instead of wasting our substance on Iraq.”
The war in Iraq is over. We won. So let’s either invade another country who threatens our national security (e.g., Iran – who is in need of a serious ass-whooping) and eliminate the threat by defeating them militarily, or let’s bring the men and women in uniform home. But either way, let’s certainly end now all this nonsensical “nation-building” as well as these attempts to spread that wretched form of government – democracy – to people who more often than not will elect officials who want to kill Americans (Christians and Jews in particular).
What is happening in Iraq at present is none of our business. A civil war there would be regrettable, but it would neither be our fault nor would it be a threat to our nation’s safety. The Bible warns of the ill-effects of meddling in strife not belonging to you (Proverbs 26:17). We have now become meddlers, and the consequences can be read in your newspaper or viewed on your TV each and every damn day. Let’s get out and move on.
Cheers!
Post a Comment