Organize VIII, or...

...Waking Up to War with Iran (by Brian McLaren)

(Mike's Note: This one definitely belongs in our conversation. I'm going to take the liberty of highlighting a couple of parts. Reprinted from the God's Politics blog.)

I am afraid, but not for the reasons our government is telling me to be afraid. I am afraid that I may wake up one morning soon to discover that our government has launched a preemptive attack on Iran. While our government is issuing national orange alerts about "them," I wonder whether we Christians should be issuing global orange alerts about our own government.

I am disgusted, concerned, appalled, and furious about the current saber-rattling of our government - so reminiscent of the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. My feelings intensify in many of our presidential candidates' forums, where each candidate seems to be in a hissing contest, declaring that he or she is the loudest hisser against terrorism - as if the only danger in the world is posed by an evil "them" and not by evil resident within us. Our Congress' bipartisan vote last month, which labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, seems to me to be handing our president a "go to war free" card, another rather frightening development.

Meanwhile, our media are becoming an echo chamber of fear: after all, fear keeps people tuned in, which means better ratings, and thus more advertising income. Fear pays - economically and politically - but sadly, we haven't reached the point yet of fearing fear itself and what it may do if it keeps accelerating.

On top of these fears, I suspect that many of my fellow Christians will, in the name of God and Jesus and Christianity and the Bible, support and justify a preemptive war on Iran before and after it happens - no matter how unprovoked, no matter how brutal, and no matter how foolish and costly, both financially and morally. Forgetting even the traditional Christian criteria for just war, and forgetting the falsified "intelligence" used to justify our last preemptive war, we Christians in the U.S., I fear, will once again be high on credulity and low on scrutiny - all too eager to believe what our government tells us to legitimize a pre-emptive attack and feed our growing fears. We Christians who cannot follow this path into another war must ask ourselves two kinds of questions:

1. What will we do if we wake up and find our government has attacked Iran while we were sleeping? What actions - public and private - would be appropriate?
2. What can we do now to decrease the possibility of that occurring? What will we wish we would have done in the weeks and months before the morning after?

Justice, Jesus and protesting. The discussion continues...

Comments

[Wes]

...what, really, sincerely does Christ-following civil disobedience look like now to gain attention...or is everyone seeing the possibilities like they are numb to them?

[Rick]

Can someone point me in the direction of a McLaren comment or two abhorring Iranian threats against Israel, the oppression of their women, their blatant funding and equipping of terrorists across the globe, their blatant attacks against our men and women in Iraq, the denial of the holocaust, their indoctrination of children and various other behaviors that most of the rest of us find easily deplored?

Just a few... I'd love to link to them...

[sonja]

Hmmm, Rick, I wonder if any of that makes the US a global police force? You are correct in pointing out that all of that is horrible, violent and awful. But meeting it with more horror, violence and awfulness is not the path of peace. As Christians (Jesus-followers) we are to bring light and salt to world. We must look like something that is different and not of this world. If we also kill in response to killing and hate in response to hating ... how is that different? What light are we shining?

[Rick]

You are correct in pointing out that all of that is horrible, violent and awful. But meeting it with more horror, violence and awfulness is not the path of peace.

IS that all America is doing? Is there no good, whatsoever, that has been done by America in the world?

Can someone explain to me how a McLaren or a Wallis, quick to talk about how we should deal with the evil in our own hearts before we deal with the evil in someone else's, are quicker to then talk about the evil being committed by this Administration?

Might someone explain to me where the integrity is in denying or ignoring any, and I do mean any, of the good being done abroad by Americans, especially by America's military?

I can tell you that it is beyond disappointing to find out that Brian McLaren has turned out to be nothing more than yet another Sojourner political hack, pushing their narrow view of what is or isn't Christian, while talking much about the need to be loving, accepting and open.

Please sonja, before we start asking about what light is shining by the direct confrontation of evil in the world, let's in the least have the integrity to admit that indeed there is light shining and that there are those in America's military and America's leadership who are doing their level best to promote good over evil. To focus on the exceptions in that policy and furthermore to promote the idea that the exception is instead the rule is to practice one of two things. Willful deceit or ignorance, neither of which have much to do with integrity.

Again, I ask for someone to send me links to McLaren or Wallis speaking of the evil that is being confronted by this administration or the good that is being accomplished by the same. Either one. I'll be more than glad to promote it at my place as an example of my being wrong and their being something other than the hypocrites and narrow minded religious zealots I see them to be.

[sonja]

Which good is it that the US military is doing? This? Or this? Or how about this?? None of those look like appropriate ways to shine a light and replace hatred with love to me. Jesus called us to turn the things of this world upside down. We are to behave differently. When I read His teachings I hear a calling to live and respond to life differently. Does that mean the entire nation ought to? I don't know ... but I do know that my calling as a Christian is higher than that to my country. And that, I believe, is what Mr. McLaren and Mr. Wallis are endeavoring to point out to us.

[Rick]

You know for a fact that the U.S. military is responsible for what you're pointing us to? For a fact? Is there any possible reason to believe that perhaps those the U.S. military are fighting are responsible? Could these kinds of photos be used in any way as propaganda?

I think until you know the answers to these kinds of questions, you may want to have the integrity to hold off on your claims.

[sonja]

Ahhh ... Rick, now you're being disingenuous. You and I both know that if it were not for the fact of our troops being in Iraq and and the Commander In Chief having given direct orders which caused this war, those pictures would not have been taken. Whether or not our troops were directly responsible for them or not is hardly the point, now is it?

[sonja]

In any case you are missing the entire point of my argument. Please listen carefully.

As Christians, little Jesuses, we are to be different.

That is we should NOT kill, maim, harm, bloodlet, bomb, shoot, rape, pillage, destroy, and otherwise hurt our enemies.

We are to love our enemies. Love them. Because that is what Jesus told us to do.

And it's really, really, really hard work sometimes.

And it means that people who are of the world will spit on us and revile us. But that's why we are little Christs, little Jesuses.

It does not mean we are doormats ... but it also does not mean we meet anger, hatred, and violence with more anger, hatred and violence. Ever.

[Rick]

Sonja... being disingenuous might be defined as ignoring the atrocities that Hussein and his henchman were perpetrating on Iraqis, to include the gassing of entire Kurdish villages. Being disingenuous might be defined as the ignoring of the torture that was taking place in that country far before Abu Grhaib, which was an exception to American policy and not the rule. And again I ask here, at what point does loving your enemy get in the way of loving your neighbor?

You may see this as black and white (which used to be called fundamentalism, now it's called Emergent) but I don't. Which of us is being more open-minded?

And please, save the little Jesus soliloquys for those ensconced in kumbayah theology. I live in the real world where at times sin is committed so that a greater sin can be avoided. Ask those little Jesus' who were saving Jews from the ovens during WWII.

We have a difference here that is largely based on the fact that you and McLaren and Wallis and other Utopianists are so caught up in pointing out how evil Americans are that you've redefined the term to ignore the attempt that is being made in overcoming evil.

And dare I say that you folks are also defanging the Christ I see portrayed in the pages of Scripture. Big time. But I guess that's a discussion for another day.

Mike, thanks for allowing me to have this conversation here. I'm attempting to get some to join in at my place.

[sonja]

OMG ... You **are** joking right? This is a joke. Because I am laughing all over my floor right now.

I'm sorry. I should take this much more seriously. But that's the first time in my whole entire life anyone has ever accused me of seeing something in black and white.

Okay ... drawing a breath and trying to be serious.

Now ... really, Rick. Let's think about *all* of the despots in the world. Shall I begin to name them? Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Omar Hassan al-Bashir (Sudan), René Préval (Haiti), Than Shwe (Myanmar), Kim Jong Il, Hu Jintao, ... shall I go on? I haven't even begun to look at the former Soviet republics or sub-Saharan Africa.

Loving your enemy is congruent with loving your neighbor. But it is not congruent with blowing them up, or gunning them down along with their wives and children.

I'd like an answer to this question ... how is bombing your enemy, loving your neighbor?

And, please, do not run and hide behind Hitler that is the technique used by those whose arguments are weak. My uncle was one of those "little Jesuses pulling the Jews out of the ovens." Frankly, if the German church had followed Bonhoeffer and not the state we may consider the idea that WWII might never have happened. Certainly the Jews would not have experienced annihilation at the hands of Christians.

Frankly, yes, America committed a great evil in Iraq. Are we evil? It depends on how we extract ourselves from that mess and clean it up. Because we made that mess ... our government installed Hussein in the late 70's and then wrung our hands over how evil he became. What did we expect? The culture in Iraq is ancient, complex, and completely different from ours. It is arrogant to expect that we have any traction within their culture to understand the nuances of tribal conflict thus have the nerve to inflict democracy upon them.

[Rick]

It is arrogant to expect that we have any traction within their culture to understand the nuances of tribal conflict thus have the nerve to inflict democracy upon them.

Inflict democracy? Interesting and telling way to put it. I tend not to think that promoting freedom, encouraging a form of government that represents all segments of society, allowing women a voice in who governs, ending oppression and joining the ranks of those who've found democracy to be anything but an affliction is a good, not evil thing.

Frankly, if the German church had followed Bonhoeffer and not the state we may consider the idea that WWII might never have happened. Certainly the Jews would not have experienced annihilation at the hands of Christians.

Ahh... most interesting... Bonhoeffer in the end thought that fighting the Nazis and not passively allowing them to steamroll you was a necessary thing, not an evil thing. And the annihilation of the Jews took place not at the hands of Christians but at the hands of Nazis. It would do you well to read what it is that Hitler and his henchman believed about Christianity before you call them Christians. Unless you're saying that pacifist Christians allowed the Jews to be annihilated. Which is it Sonja?

Now ... really, Rick. Let's think about *all* of the despots in the world. Shall I begin to name them? Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Omar Hassan al-Bashir (Sudan), René Préval (Haiti), Than Shwe (Myanmar), Kim Jong Il, Hu Jintao, ... shall I go on? I haven't even begun to look at the former Soviet republics or sub-Saharan Africa.

Yes, they are all evil and the argument could be made that passivity allowed them to gain and maintain power, to prosper and to oppress their people.

Loving your enemy is congruent with loving your neighbor. But it is not congruent with blowing them up, or gunning them down along with their wives and children.

I'm assuming you mean those exceptional times when civilians have been killed and I've italicized the word exceptional and I'm assuming you're intentionally ignoring the good and decent things our military is doing in that region once the fighting has stopped, an intentional ignoring seemingly steeped in duplicity soas to further a perspective, something learned well from Wallis and now sadly McLaren.

I'd like an answer to this question ... how is bombing your enemy, loving your neighbor?

I won't fall for the trap. You're not painting the full picture and attempting to control the debate by only partially revealing what is truly happening. And you've done this consistently. Why?

OMG ... You **are** joking right? This is a joke. Because I am laughing all over my floor right now.

I'm sorry. I should take this much more seriously. But that's the first time in my whole entire life anyone has ever accused me of seeing something in black and white.

Okay ... drawing a breath and trying to be serious.

Perhaps no one has had the courage to accuse you of black and white thinking because of the way you react to the charge. I'm not sure but let there be little doubt that on this issue it's either your way or the highway. You've made charges here that suggest that unless people think the way you do, they're not Christians. That's black and white thinking. You've made the direct charge that bombing your enemy is not loving your neighbor. That's black and white thinking. You've portrayed the action in Iraq that leaves out so much of what is really taking place. That's black and white thinking. You laugh hysterically at people who see things not the way you do. That's black and white thinking.

I end with this. I'm afraid I've probably overstayed my welcome here at Waving or Drowning. I encourage you Sonja to continue this at my place unless Mike states that it can continue here.

[Rick]

A number of folks have passionately commented at my place Sonja. I'd encourage you to especially read Mommynator and Morgan Freeberg.

[sonja]

Why would I go to your place, Rick? I've already been called a coward and thoughtless there ... by people who have no knowledge of me other than what you've chosen to reveal to them. Which is based upon a tiny piece of an even smaller piece of what I have chosen to reveal to you. None of you know me ... yet you've seen fit to make some pretty outrageous judgements about me. I wonder why that is? I've made few about you. I'm just talking and asking questions. But I've done so without casting aspersions on your character or judgements upon you. Why do you and the people at your place need to put others down in order to have a conversation with those you have differences with?

We have very different ideas about how the world works, but you seem pretty unwilling to listen to my ideas. Mine are rooted in the Gospel of Peace. To you that looks like I haven't thought certain things through. That's a pretty arrogant thing to say, when ... you really don't know me or anything about me. You know nothing of my background, my education, my training, my work, or anything that might feed into why I have come to my conclusions. You've just made some pretty knee-jerk reactive assumptions about me. You are not God and I don't seek validation from you, so I'm not going to defend my philosophy or my theology to you. I am comfortable with it and I know that I have sought the approval of the only One who matters. That may bother you. It doesn't bother me.

I agree, we're done. At the very least, I am done. This is no longer a conversation. We are at an impasse. But only because you came here with an axe to grind. If you say otherwise, you might want to think more deeply about it.

[Brian in BC]

RIck, I jumped over to your site to see who you are. You mention that you are both involved in Republican politics (or at least have been) and that currently you work as a government contractor. May I ask you a couple questions about these points to better understand your baseline point of reference.

1.) Are you still actively involved in Republican Politics? Which of the current candidates for the nomination do you support?

2.) As a government contractor have you or your company benefitted financially due to the current situation in Iraq?

[Mike]

Ho boy...

[Rick]

Bruce,

1) I'm no longer involved with Republican politics, neither local or national. In many ways, I think the Republicans to be spineless. Of all the candidates running, Fred Thompson, at this early stage, seems to more closely align with my viewpoints and perspectives.

2) I've been a military contractor for most of my career until nearly two years ago when I was offered a job working for an aerospace engineering firm. I'm not sure whether what has taken place in Iraq (or Afghanistan) has contributed to or benefited the company I'm working for or not. But let me add, so what if it did? We all enjoy the benefits that America's military and her contractors provide for us, including you Canadians. We might all be speaking Japanese or German otherwise. And let me add, if I were still working as a military contractor, I would hold my head up high, as I believe all should.

Sonja, I'm trying to understand your... shall we say... double-mindedness. You seem to take umbrage at those who speak ill in a general way of people who think, apparently, as you do and yet you confidently speak ill of the American military, her commanders and the current administration, speaking of them as if they were all willful murderers of innocent women and children. Mommynator's son is serving in Iraq. Does he get painted with your broad brush? Why shouldn't she take umbrage at you remarks? And how are they Christian?

You say I'm unwilling to listen to your ideas? You're partially correct. I'm unwilling to allow you to smear the American military without defending them as best I can.

And you call me arrogant? Please... what I am is someone who pretends not out of one side of my mouth that I am this most loving little Jesus while spewing hatred out of the other that is steeped in ignorance.

And I came here not with an axe to grind. I came here with a perspective different from your own. And frankly, you and people like you take tremendous umbrage at the very idea.

[Rick]

My apologies... wrote Bruce, obviously meant Brian...

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Sonja, I'm looking over this statement which I find to be pretty remarkable...

You and I both know that if it were not for the fact of our troops being in Iraq and and the Commander In Chief having given direct orders which caused this war, those pictures would not have been taken. Whether or not our troops were directly responsible for them or not is hardly the point, now is it?

...and I'm wondering something. Three things, actually. One, I'm wondering what exactly your overall opinion of our military is -- good bad or something in between? Reason I ask is, Rick asked you a direct question about the injuries in those photos and whether you knew for a fact said injuries were directly caused by the U.S. military. That's the inquiry that inspired the statement above, by you. If I'm understanding it right, you're essentially dismissing the question as irrelevant, commanding Rick and everybody else reading to lay the blame for any & all violence at the feet of the military...our military. Frankly, I find this a little bit simplistic and I'm sure it wouldn't sit too well with a lot of other people, some of whom have family serving overseas right now. Some of the life-altering injuries inflicted on our soldiers by IEDs are quite severe and would have no shortage of "shock" value either. And then there's the matter, presuming it's relevant -- and you seem to think it is -- of who threw the first punch. A lot of folks, myself included, see this as a war between the United States and Islamofascism. It's awfully challenging to pursue for too far a train of thought that says it isn't. And if it is, well, it's just a matter of fact that we didn't attack first -- we were attacked. You may have an opinion about whether or not we're in the right place to be responding to that initial attack. I'm sure Jesus would want you to keep in mind, just because you've got an opinion, doesn't mean it's the right one.

In fact it's fair to say every comment you've made here, once the theatrical incredulity and condescension is stripped out (having the same shrinking effect of frying very, very cheap bacon), what substance is left over seems to have a primary mission of putting readers on notice of what your opinion of the military is. Within the entire collection, I've yet to see anything positive expressed. In fact, I'm really left unsure as to whether your comments are addressed to Rick at all (which brings me to my next question). So is it fair to say you don't support the military, or are you one of those folks who insists nobody be allowed to draw this conclusion about you, but meanwhile has nothing for the military except a lot of bile?

Second question. Are you really having an exchange of ideas with Rick, or are you grandstanding for third-parties who already agree with you...kinda like you're afraid of getting kicked out of some kind of club if you don't say the right stuff?

Third question. What's a military for? In the time of Christ, a lot of nations existed, contemporarily or in history, that had large armies. Rome had a large army. Christ knew what an army was. I'm not aware of any directive or instruction in the New Testament that nations should not have defensive forces, or even offensive ones. If Jesus was just a peacenik hippy who was born 1,940 years too early for Woodstock, he had His opportunity to address this directly. Speaking for His Father, He could have outlawed war forever. He did not. Do you agree with that position? What, in your mind, is a military for? Is it just a place young people can go to get college educations at discounted rates with a government subsidy, or does it have a higher purpose?

If you could address those directly, skipping over the descriptions about how they make you guffaw or snort or tsk-tsk or roll around on your floor laughing (the thread's mighty long as it is, and most of it seems to be you doing that), I'd be most appreciative. Thanks in advance.

[Rick]

Ho boy... indeed...

[Brian in BC]

Rick, thank-you for answering my questions.

Would you allow me to offer a few observations which I think get to the bottom of why discussions like this veer off into ad hominem and straw man arguments, which then end-up with people taking sides and sniping at one another's seeming lack of integrity, disingenuity and continuing to spiral downhill into "discussions" which amount to little more than screaming opinions past one another between snark and insults.

You actually raised the point in one of your comments. The point is that the things which tend to cause the most vehement arguments are the things in which not only "wrong vs. right" is in conflict, but when "right vs right" are in conflict. It is the battle of two competing rights which is in my line the ugliest of arguments.

In this specific case we have the right of removing a dictator from power and freeing a people to be able to have better lives. You also have the right of defending your country (or as it is couched in this situation) civilization/way-of-life against those who would seek to destroy it.

On the other hand we have the right that the reality of unintended consequences have resulted in a serious decline in all the markers of liveability within the country which has been helped infrastructure, jobs, life expectancy, and arguably close to 1 million dead, several million displaced civilians, disease, sectarian violence and further international conflicts brewing as a direct result. Some have been criticized for raising the concept of "blowback" to the national stage.

Add this to the labyrinth of "truth" people of all thougths and opinions find themselves in, no WMD found, Patriot Act (1 and 2), warantless wiretapping, secret renditions, suspension of Habeus Corpus, suspension of posse comitatus, reclassification of torture, outing of Valerie Plame, a reinterpretation of the power of the executive, etc. etc. etc.

Before someone starts jumping on all of these points with argument, rebuke, and a list of "links" pointing out the truth/fallacy of any and all of these issues, realize that my point isn't to start a debate on ANY of them, it's to point out that WE as (to borrow a beautiful phrase from Mark Driscoll) pajama blogger jihadists posting from our mom's basements, need to realize that NONE OF US have the complete picture. NONE OF US has a monopoly on the truth of ANY of these issues. We are all swimming in an ocean of grey.

Is the military doing good things? Yes
Is the military doing bad things? Yes

Is the government doing good things? Yes
Is the government doing bad things? Yes

Unfortunately, since we don't have the total picture, cruxifying people who point out the other side of the issue/issues instead of reasonably, soberly and openmindedly looking at the other point of view with an eye to perhaps coming to a new understanding and a new, better way of responding for all parties is what we should be striving for.

(As an editorial aside, I'm disgusted by the language, tone and completely un-Christlike "discourse" I've read on this thread and (unfortunately) many others just like it where Christians eat their own after displays of verbal scourging, regardless of the "rightness" of what you are defending, if you communicate it in a manner which denigrates, insults and calls to question the character/intelligence/integrity/etc. of your brother or sister in Christ as a part of your dialogue, you are out of line.)

[sonja]

Hmmm ... wow ... I left for the weekend and came back to this.

Rick, when I asked you to consider that you didn't know me and were making assumptions about me, I thought that perhaps that might slow you down and cause you to, oh, I don't know, think about your responses.

Here's the thing. You've made a lot of assumptions about who I'm criticizing. I warned you that you don't know me. I celebrated my 20th anniversary this August. Before I married my husband we dated for 3 years. So we've been together for 23 years now. He is a disabled veteran of 20 years service in the USArmy with multiple service awards. My father-in-law was the first commander from Vermont since the Civil War to take a unit into combat and not lose a single soldier ... he served in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969 while my husband and his siblings were children. He, using common sense (and not following orders) was able to keep peace with the local population. So ... please ... do NOT assume I am smearing the military.

As I asked you before, please be careful when you make assumptions about who you are speaking to and why they have developed the philosophies and theologies that they have. You may discover that they are more well thought out than you give them credit for ... once you are willing to hear them.

[Rick]

You let me know Sonja how I can get away with wrongly calling people murderers while not smearing them... and though I'm glad to hear you're married to a vet and have been for some time, I find not a scintilla of relevance in the revelation. In other, perhaps more blunt language, so what. Is this supposed to give you moral authority to wrongly call members of America's military willful murderers of women and children?

Please attempt to answer the questions I've raised and those others have raised toward you before climbing on that high horse of yours... and do be careful... a fall from that height could be serious.

[Mike]

I think we're done here.