I think I may have scared you off with the "Paula Deen colostomy bag" comment. Either that, or you people don't have any burning questions. Well, pin a rose on your nose, smartybritches. Meanwhile, I'm still wondering why people insist on leaving their shopping carts in the middle of the freaking supermarket parking lot instead of WALKING FIVE FEET and placing the cart in the space that has been designated for it. Why do you do this?! There is no acceptable answer. (If you are someone who does this, incidentally, I have a strong desire to kick you.) (Oh, and I do appreciate the three of you who did take the time to comment. Just so you know. I won't kick you.)
So, since you are all so smart and don't want to ask any of life's silly unanswerable questions, I'm going to get serious up in here. Take that.
This week, I had the opportunity to listen to three separate perspectives on the concepts and the realities of war and peace. The Seminary held a forum during which Dr. Jerry Walls presented a case for just war (claiming war can be morally OK under certain criteria), Dr. Chuck Gutenson presented a case for pacifism, and Omar Alrikabi shared his personal story of how the "war on terror," specifically the war in Iraq, has impacted his life and his family. Since I've heard many arguments (on both sides) that were grounded in politics, economics, and even philosophy, I anticipated this forum in hopes that I would hear arguments for and against war grounded in scripture; I must say, I was a bit disappointed.
Even though Dr. Walls made a convincing case for the reasons we should consider the jihadists a serious threat to human lives all over the world, and even though he explained the criteria for war to be "just," he failed to contextualize his proclamations for his audience. He was speaking to a chapel full of seminary students, and he never mentioned Augustine's thoughts on "just war," nor did he use scripture or any theologically-based argument to support his position. How should we, as Christians, be informed about this topic by the Church and by the teachings of Jesus? Dr. Walls missed this part of the argument completely. Unfortunately, I didn't hear anything from Dr. Walls that I couldn't get from a good dose of Fox News or any neo-conservative book on the war in Iraq. Frankly, I expected more from him.
In my opinion, the best point he made was that one cannot be a partial-pacifist. You cannot support the use of lethal force in some cases and not in others and claim to be a pacifist. I completely agree with this. You either believe in nonviolence or you don't. The degree to which you don't agree may vary greatly, but you can't say "A little brute force is OK as long as it gets the 'bad guys'" and claim to be a pacifist.
The weaknesses in Dr. Gutenson's argument were the same as those in Dr. Walls' argument. While he referenced scripture considerably more than Dr. Walls (read: he mentioned it), he, too, became mired in the politics and numbers that we've all heard before. To me, the strength of the argument for pacifism (when contextualized for a Christian audience) is the strength of the Gospel. Jesus is the Prince of Peace; he teaches us to turn the other cheek, to forgive our enemies, to love our neighbors, to love our enemies, to leave vengeance and justice in the hands of God. When he was seized in the Garden of Gethsemane, he admonished his disciples for trying to use force to free him from his captors. As he was dying on the cross, he asked God to forgive those who were killing him. Never does Jesus ask us to kill for him, but he does say that we may have to die for him. And that is what Dr. Gutenson never fully got around to, and that is what is so freakin' hard about following Jesus. We may have to lose our liberties and even our lives in this journey.
The strengths of Gutenson's argument were that he mentioned how we've missed the point in "going after the terrorists," and how, as Christians, we have nothing to fear from the people who threaten our lives. On the first point: the way that terrorists have been able to recruit so many to their side is not with the unpopular "Come and Be Evil With Me" propaganda, but because they have GIVEN FOOD TO HUNGRY PEOPLE. And when Americans show up with guns a'blazin', they say "no thanks, I'm siding with the guys who fed me." If we would begin to care for people, for other human beings, we would undermine the lure the jihadist leaders have over their main line of recruits. On the second point: we believe in redemption, resurrection, and God's justice. We have nothing to fear from those who threaten our lives or our freedom, because those are things that, essentially, cannot be taken from us.
Oh, another great point that he made was that we have a knack for demonizing people when it is convenient for us. For example, back in the day, America supported Saddam Hussein when he wasn't so cool with Iran. There's a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand back when we were friends with him. We also liked Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians. Oh, the times they are a' changing.
So, somewhere in the middle of these two views on war, Omar told us his story. I've already written enough, and what I can write here will not do justice to his testimony, so I'd urge you to listen for yourself (it's an mp3). His perspective is so real, so normal, so human - it was wonderful, heartbreaking, hopeful, and convicting all at once. The small disappointments I experienced with the other speakers were not repeated when Omar presented his perspective. You should all read his blog.
To listen to Jerry Walls' pro-war argument, click here. To listen to Chuck Gutenson's pro-pacifist argument, click here. Both are mp3s.
I think that the amazing thing in all of this is that so many different perspectives on this highly charged issue can come together and debate intelligently and respectfully. What a wonderful thing it would be if the leaders of our country could be so respectful. And intelligent.
And for those of you who leave your shopping carts in the middle of the supermarket parking lot: you may be wondering why I don't kick you, if my desire to do so is so strong. Well, it's because I'm a pacifist, of course. Lucky you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
WOW!! Very deep, girl!
I must admit, even if it was disappointing, I'm a bit jealous that you got to attend such a program.
war = real good
i mean it's not like innocents ever are affected by war
Joseph Beth is serving Paula Deen Tomato Pie MMMMMMMM
Matt, we'll be expecting some of that tomato pie ASAP!
It's a shame that Jesus lived when he did. The problem is that he rarely tells us how "powerholders" are to act and respond. I don't want to get into a discussion of the foreknowledge of Christ, but I wonder if Jesus ever saw the people of his movement becoming so powerful that those who claimed his name would be able to talk about participating in wars of such great consequence.
NT Wright is helpful in really understanding the gospels' take on Jesus's positions on violence, war, and rebellion. Wright sets up the narrative and historical setting for the ministry of Jesus (harsh Roman rule, oppression of Jews, constant threat of rebellion). It certainly puts "turn the other cheek" in context.
If it sounds like I have no idea where I stand on the issue of war, then I have communicated effectively.
Wow, Brian, that sounds like a good recommendation. I may have to look that book up.
Also, it's really good to know that even you theologically intelligent types get lost in the gray sometimes. :-D
As always, your insight is very penetrating, although I must admit, I made a late night Wal Mart run earlier this week, and upon unloading my buggy (I think that's what they call them in the South... that or shiny-thingy-on-wheels), there were these two guys sitting in a big red pick-up with a (I am not making this up) Confederate Flag in the back window, drinking beer out of the can. I suspected they could smell fear, so I left my buggy where it was, and got the heck out of there.
Anyhow, my topical review of the week's events, was similar to yours in that I saw more holes than cheese to each argument. I would have liked more cheese. I mean, the best presentation of the three was by-far the Iraqi-American guy but it was his experience that made me think, not his exegesis... which isn't a bad thing. But what do you do when one book says Abraham blessed Issac, and the other says he blessed Ishmael? That's a tough exegesis to do.
But, you would have expected more scriptural cheese from two seminary profs as opposed to gaping (and when it came to Walls presentation, I mean big-freaking-lose-an-iceberg-inside-of-it) holes. But that's just me... Mister Casts-Stones-Safely-From-My-Cubicle. I'd have probably just stood there drooling if I had been in either one of their shoes.
Good re-cap of an interesting week.
Hey Suzanna,
Long time reader, first time poster here. Great stuff. Really liked your synopsis of Walls and Gutenson. Ah I remember back to my first Jerry Walls debate where Jerry and the late Bob Lyon debated whether we should allow Homosexuals to partake of communion. Good times. Good times. Reminded me of Ruprecht the Monkey Boy in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, "You were telling us why poor people shound't be allowed in museums...."
I am going to continue not working at work and listen to Alrikabi's piece.
In the off chance Chuck didn't quote from Volf (and I am sure you and your astute readers have so I am just showing off here)his Exclusion and Embrace is an incredibly life changing book in regards to how we view the other.
Hope life in Wilmore is going well (we met once very briefly when I came knocking at the front door w/ Sam. As opposed to creeping round the back stair with Gordon Lightfoot).
Thanks Suzanna. Look forward to reading more.
Give Nolan a big old hug from me sometime.
Todd
Okay -- I'm going to provide a bit of a different perspective, as a practioner of war (bet you've never met one of those before...)
Containment and rollback are the only humane strategies available to us at this point in the conflict with radical islam. Unfortunately, radical islam is in its nascent, progressive phase, so it may impossible to negotiate with anyone who adheres to this philosophy. The only alternatives are surrender of extermination. Which do you prefer?
Monk -- that's the thing that's so confusing about war. It's like many tough issues. You know EXACTLY how you feel about it until you put it into the context of a REAL situation with consequences on either side that are horrible -- and then your SOLID opinion is blown to smithereens! Sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing.
Monk, when you say "Containment and rollback are the only humane strategies available to us at this point in the conflict with radical islam," who exactly is "us"?
Post a Comment