Fr. Jake references a critique of a new book, and then offers comments on the relationship between they mystery of God, our limited ability to understand God in His fullness, and those who demand an absolutist system of belief and how secular atheists tend to stereotype all Christians according to the very conservative and absolutist sort. It is an interesting post. Read it, if you will.
The War on Terror
While listening to NPR this morning, I heard a news piece on the changing strategy of this administration for “The War on Terror.”
What struck me, as I think about my own reactions to things and the common responses we make as a nation, is the idea of where we go first within ourselves and within our national psyche when we respond to events and threats. Do we go first: to force, to negotiation, to acquiescence, to isolation, to dialogue, to the old tried methods, to the trendy, to the violent, to the verbose, or to the hypocritical? What is the nexus of our reaction: pride, haughtiness, fear, confidence, humility, true concern for others, cowardice, selfishness, arrogance, or intentional ignorance? Our better selves, or our worst selves?
There were two approaches, two worldviews, two mindsets battling for attention right after 9-11 as we searched ourselves for the right response. One approach was that of empire, force, dominance, and arrogance. The other may be based on a sense of self-absurdity that requires humility. We could have approached this tragedy and the complex issues surrounding it with a response by which we are able to convince the majority of people who we see as the “problem†of our way, our perspective – peace, freedom, co-existence, development, mutual respect if not agreement. It can be said to be a battle of minds, ideas, or beliefs. It seems that the way of Rumsfeld eclipsed the way of Powell. Military vs. State.
We settled for a “War on Terror,†rather than a battle of ideas and ways of thinking for the hearts and minds of those “other” people. We settled for a war that requires no sacrifice on the home-front, just our sons and daughters in foreign lands and the countless killed in other own countries. Are we more secure or not? Are Iraqis better off – really? My hope is that we will in fact come through this in one piece and that Iraq will develop into a stable democracy. Yet, only after undeniable failure is this administration finally willing to consider that “staying the course†will only make things worse. A new way of thinking is needed – perhaps the way of thinking that was rejected in the beginning.
There are those who will fight to kill and with whom there is no mutual agreement possible – they will kill to achieve their goals. They are tyrants and dictators. These people are not the majority of Arab and Muslims, but the majority could come to sympathize with the terrorists. If we choose to respond and react like those who will kill and destroy to achieve their ends, we become like them – unworthy of the respect, cooperation, or allegiance of those found in the middle of the crisis and on the battlefield.
We have been losing the battle of ideas, of minds, of affections over the past years because we try to be tougher and more menacing then the terrorists. We have become like them, and we have lost the minds, the emotions, and the respect of Arabs, Muslims, and much of the world. I really don’t care whether we are liked or not, but I do care whether we are respect for our integrity, honesty, consistency, and willingness to seek solutions that enable everyone to be a piece – perhaps not agreement or acceptance, but at least at peace. Idealistic?, perhaps, but we really do need a new way of thinking about the situations we are in worldwide.
Test
This is a test.
Where do we go from here?
So, it seems the Bush administration, at least some within the administration, are willing to admit that things are not going as planned in Iraq. Perhaps, there may be even a re-evaluation of whether our policy and strategy have been correct. Staying the course when it seems the situation is continually deteriorating is not prudent or wise.
People have been saying for years now that our strategy towards Iraq is untenable and unwinable. The voices of those who called upon the administration to step “outside the box” of “old-war” mentality of conflict between states were ignored or ridiculed. This war is being fought under an old and inappropriate model, in my uninformed opinion. In my mind, we are like the English in their attempt to defeat the revolutionaries during our war of independence. They just didn’t get the fact that their way of fighting just didn’t work any longer, and they lost. Some people in this administration just don’t seem to get the fact that the way of war has now changed.
If we end up pulling out of Iraq before we reach our stated goals or if the conflict ends in a way that suggests our weakness and the American people’s unwillingness to complete what we began, legitimately or illegitimately, the impression is that we are unreliable, unstable in our commitments, and are willing to let huge numbers of people die in our wayward attempts to impose our will on the world. Okay, but what do we do now?
The American people will fight to the end and sacrifice whatever needs to be sacrificed if we believe that the conflict is for a greater good. The World Wars are good examples. We entered them reluctantly and overcome our isolationist tendencies. Vietnam and now this war in Iraq were entered into not for some greater good that will benefit not just us but the world. No, we entered into these wars upon a faulty foundation, and with a faulty and perhaps illegitimate intent, and we are witnessing the results.
Will we learn? Will there be leaders willing to move towards a solution that recognizes the complexities of the new world dynamic? I hope so. Perhaps the more important question is whether the American people will be wise enough to recognize a good leader from a poor one. Will we allow ourselves to be manipulated, again? Will we recognize wisdom? Will we realize the folly of empire? Will we recognize that there really is a solution, but it will mean that we change our way of thinking and our way of relating to much of the world? I hope so. This isn’t about liberal vs. conservative. Those paradigms mean little in this day in day, frankly. It will take someone, all of us, to look beyond these ways of dicing up the world and one another.
Okay, one more thing…
The warning applied to the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church:
Galatians 5:14-15 (TNIV)
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
We are devouring one another. It is a travesty. The distinctive spirit of Anglicanism is under great pressure to give way to the spirit of the world, the devises and desires of men.
Off Target
It’s too easy to be pulled off target. What should be the few basic things we aim for in life that will bring about an honest and true balanced life?
In a culture of consumption and a culture that demands our self-worth be defined by externals (the degree of wealth or power or physical prowess or beauty or talent or education or whatever-lifts itself-up-at-the-moment) that we can accumulate or attain, we will never make it to that point of balance if we allow ourselves to be subsumed by its demands.
To what are we called? Within the Christian faith, it is first to love God with all our being and secondly to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Selflessness? Considering the needs of or what will benefit others before our own needs? Rejection of those things within culture that work counter to the Way of Christ? What is the “Way of Christ?”
Really, what is that “Way” – can we disassociate from our culture enough and put aside the demands of our fellow citizens who consciously or unconsciously demand our acquiescence and confirmation to the culture’s way-of-things to begin to learn, to move, to have our being within God’s economy of life?
Jesus was crucified for looking at things in such a way. His disciples where martyrs because of that way of being. What could it cost us? What will it cost to keep balance, to keep our sight on the target? I don’t know if I’m doing such a good job.
Galatians 5:1 – Freedom in Christ
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
I’ve had it!
I’ve just about had it with the blatant lying and misinformation – bearing false witness – of leaders and organizations of the Religious Right. Focus-on-the-Family’s daily e-mail news update had a piece about the growing number of Gay Chambers of Commerce, and how they are just ploys to desensitize regular, god-fearing Americans to the perversion of gay behavior.
Here are a couple paragraphs:
Gay chambers of commerce exist in at least a half-dozen states, and in cities as large as Chicago. One, called Plexus, is forming in Cleveland — and organizers say Chase and KeyBank are already on board, with additional partnerships being eyed with other trade groups like the Greater Cleveland Partnership and the Council of Smaller Enterprises.
Cleveland resident Charles Giunta said such gay chambers are part of homosexual activists’ drive for special status under the law.
“That way,” he said, “they can access federal funding, state funding, local funding as a behavior-based minority.”
Linda Harvey, president of Mission America, said even though the gay community brags about its buying power, the bravado is often more myth than muscle.
“The vast majority of people involved in homosexuality are projected by many studies to be people that are employed sporadically, because of their lifestyle,” she said. “They are more unstable.”
So, Linda Harvey, who I know from Ohio and who makes the most outlandish and false statements, writes that gay people are so unstable that they can’t keep jobs. I remember so vividly the arguments used by the anti-gay Religious Right a few years ago declaring that gay people should not be given “special rights” because they make so much more money than average citizens, are far better educated than average citizens, and have much more economic influence that average citizens. They speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Linda Harvey, and Focus for disseminating her statements, are charlatans. They have to know that their pronouncements are so blatantly false. They are liars, and their sin will catch up with them. How many more people have to suffer and be deceived because of their idiocy? How much more damage will the cause of Christ undergo because of their hypocrisy and false witness. Their cause is lost if this is the way they attempt to win – they take people to be fools.
iPod Shuffle – 11:30 am
What was given to me this morning by my iPod. It is so giving and demands so little!
1. Sarah McLauchlan, Ice Cream, from ‘Fumbling Towards Ecstasy’
2. Smashing Pumpkins, Tonight, Tonight. from ‘Rotten Apples: Greatest Hits’
3. Sarah McLauchlin, Wear Your Love Like Heaven, from ‘Solace’
4. Sufjan Stevens, Romulus, from ‘Greetings from Michigan…’
5. Natalie Imbruglia, Good Bye, from ‘White Lillies Island’
6. Suzanne Vega, Songs in Red and Gray, from ‘Songs in Red and Gray’
7. Sarah Brightman, Scarborough Fair, from ‘La Luna’
8. Wilson Philips, Impulsive, from ‘Wilson Philips’
9. Joi, Everybody Say Yeah, from ‘One and One is One’
10. Eastmountainsouth, Mark’s Song, from ‘Eastmountainsouth’
Subway Observation #3
Yesterday, I was riding the “F” train back to Brooklyn. Around 32nd. St., I noticed on the other end of the train another guy in a clergy collar. “Hum,” I thought, “I wonder who he is.”
Through the next couple of stops and as the congestion lightened a bit on the train, the other guy came closer. Finally, we introduced ourselves. He had on an “Anglican style” collar, so I figured him to be an Episcopalian or perhaps a Lutheran.
He asked, “Roman or Episcopalian?”
He is a Roman Catholic priest, pastor of a parish, and was just returning from the meeting with the Archbishop of this archdiocese of all clergy concerning the anonymous letter of no confidence. He said it was not a nice meeting and the archbishop made a number of enemies that day.
I don’t think I have ever seen another clergy person in a collar on the subway, other than other clerics I am with at the time. It is strange, and I was surprised to feel like, “Oh, another one of me!”
“Godself”
An interesting post and article on Pontifications about the use the term “Godself” as a non-gender specific variant of the the traditional pronoun “himself.” I could say, rather: the attempted enforcement of political-correctness by a small group of people who think that refering to God in the masculine encourages violence to women – or even wife-beating, so says some Church of England clergy. As the Ponficator writes, send in the folks of Monty Python – this is all getting a bit silly.
Read the article.
via Titusonenine
On the other hand, this need among some to make sure that we never refer to God in any way but the masculine is equally problematic, and in my humble opinion absurd. God, in creating us in His/Her/Godsown image, created us male and female. Doesn’t that suggest that God is both and neither exclusively?
I tend to think that we simply cannot competently or correctly demand God be what we want God to be. I may use “He,” with a capital H, but that doesn’t mean I must believe God is completely male. It doesn’t mean I cannot accommodate those who refer to God in the feminine, except maybe when those other people insist that the only way I can refer to God is the way they demand I refer to God. Ya know what I mean? God is my father in heaven, therefore I image God in the masculine, but that’s just me.