As the American death toll in Iraq has continued to climb and as sectarian violence continues to cast doubt on the possibility of democracy in Iraq, I have asked for the last two years: “How long with the evangelical Christian families from the heartland and the South continue to be willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters to this fruitless war?
A glimpse of an answer was published on December 7 in the Chicago Tribune – “Poll: Military families losing faith.” A survey that covered active-duty service members, veterans, and their families shows that a majority has concluded that the invasion of Iraq was not worth it. “Nearly 6 out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bushes’ job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does, the poll shows.”
Seven out of ten military families favor a withdrawal within the coming year or “right away.”
One mother of an Iraq War veteran who was seriously injured in Iraq last year said, “I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don’t think our president is even sensitive at all to what it’s like to have a child serving over there.”
When veterans and their family say this war is not worth it, America will soon be electing politicians who will bring the troops home.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
What Would Jesus Do?
One of the most profound teachings of Jesus is recorded in Matthew’s collection in the sermon on the mount: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.” (5:43-45)
In a parallel passage Luke adds these words from Jesus, “But love your enemies, do good, and lend expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.”
The revolutionary theological content here is that God makes the sun to shine on the evil, sends rain on the unrighteous, and is kind to the wicked. I suspect that this was unbelievable to most of Jesus hearers. They knew from their scriptures and from the priests and prophets that God punishes the evil and the wicked, taking away their possessions, their land, and their lives.
I suggest several steps for all persons who wish to find meaning and orientation in the traditions of Jesus of Nazareth:
This approach to biblical interpretation and biblical ethics will involve struggle and humility. I personally warm up to Jesus teachings about God and love of enemies. I am less inclined to embrace his teachings on possessions and wealth. We all have room to grow.
In a parallel passage Luke adds these words from Jesus, “But love your enemies, do good, and lend expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.”
The revolutionary theological content here is that God makes the sun to shine on the evil, sends rain on the unrighteous, and is kind to the wicked. I suspect that this was unbelievable to most of Jesus hearers. They knew from their scriptures and from the priests and prophets that God punishes the evil and the wicked, taking away their possessions, their land, and their lives.
I suggest several steps for all persons who wish to find meaning and orientation in the traditions of Jesus of Nazareth:
- Become familiar with the convictions and the debates in the historical Jesus scholarship over the last fifty years.
- Use this informed understanding of Jesus to evaluate, critique, re-interpret, relativize, and reject parts of scripture that do not support the life and teachings of Jesus.
- Use contemporary knowledge and analysis to understand human well-being and human suffering; take non-violent actions to support that which enhances human well-being and minimizes human suffering.
This approach to biblical interpretation and biblical ethics will involve struggle and humility. I personally warm up to Jesus teachings about God and love of enemies. I am less inclined to embrace his teachings on possessions and wealth. We all have room to grow.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Responding to Violence in the Bible
What do we do when the Bible supports beliefs that we judge today to be very dangerous to human health and survival? I think several approaches have been used.
First of all, some would contend that the points that I raised in an earlier posting are not troubling at all. This is indeed how Gods works in the world: God does have a chosen people, who gets land. God blesses this chosen people and destroys its enemies. God punishes those who are evil and blesses those who are good. This is right and just. This is the moral order that God has created.
But those of us who are troubled by the biblical beliefs that I have identified take a number of other approaches:
First of all, some would contend that the points that I raised in an earlier posting are not troubling at all. This is indeed how Gods works in the world: God does have a chosen people, who gets land. God blesses this chosen people and destroys its enemies. God punishes those who are evil and blesses those who are good. This is right and just. This is the moral order that God has created.
But those of us who are troubled by the biblical beliefs that I have identified take a number of other approaches:
- God in the Bible is depicted as jealous, vindictive, and violent, but the biblical God was still an improvement over the gods of other near-eastern cultures; the Hebrews were leaning in the right direction.
- The jealous, vindictive, and violent God is not the only image in scripture; we simply need to put more emphasis on those passages that depict God as compassionate, just, and concerned about universal humanity.
- The name of God was abused by biblical people, but the prophets are included in scripture as a corrective to these abuses.
- The jealous, vindictive, and violent language about God in scripture is not historically literal; it is poetry that is suggestive of theological concerns that do not call for killing human beings.
- The jealous, vindictive, and violent images of God can be seen in actuality as being projections of human propensity to be jealous, vindictive, and violent. They do not instruct us in reality about the nature of God, but they point out the parts of our own nature that we tend to hide and deny.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Origins of Evil & Violence
Several weeks ago I was on an on-line forum about religion in politics and friends of mine asked penetrating questions about the origins of evil and violence. I thought about this and responded.
Male Aggression
My own musings on this issue have to do with male experience and roles. I wonder if aggression served men well through hundreds of thousands of years as they set off on “the hunt” to secure meat, skins, and other animal parts. Through thousands of years the male brain prepared itself for battle and conquest, sometimes in life and death situations. The male brain began to assume that there is danger in the world and one must fight in order to survive. Thus males, having evolved a culture that no longer requires the hunt in order to meet basic needs for survival, still live with the unconscious assumption that a threat lurks on the horizon. In our American context that threat in the last hundred years has been communism and now terrorism. Much of the developing world and the Muslim world sees the threat as European colonialism and American imperialism. The male mind creates a threatening enemy to confirm its unconscious assumptions about the world. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. George W. Bush said that Al Qaeda was active in Iraq, when in actuality it was not there at all. But now, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda is there. The prophesy has been fulfilled.
I think the myth of the rivalry between Cain and Able has to do with the male transition from being a hunter to being a farmer of domesticated plants and animals. Cain tilled the soil and his son Enoch built the “first” city. Thus the domesticated male, has had this internal anger, unleashed as lethal against his “brother.” Males in America are still on “the hunt,” whether it is gang violence in inner cities, police and detective work, professional football, militias in Michigan, the KKK in Indiana, or plowing through the deserts of Iraq.
My understanding of Muhammad, Buddha, and Jesus is that they all came to bring restraint to male violence. The Karen Armstrong biographies of Muhammad and Buddha work on this theme.
Scapegoat
Kathryn, you make the important observation the Martin Luther King held that “nonviolent resistance dos not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding.” Here too we have the presence of rivalry, which King sought to channel into nonviolent confrontation and eventually to friendship. Rene Girard has another concept here that might be useful: “scapegoat.” When individuals or a community are not able to acknowledge and deal with the aggression within their midst, they often project that aggression and threat onto a “scapegoat.” In ancient culture this was actually a goat that was ritually sacrificed. I wonder if white racism against blacks is a denial on the part of whites of our own submerged transgressions and then the project of these denied transgressions onto the “scapegoat” – most often the black male. We certainly lock up black men in shocking numbers. Michael Moore, in his film, “Bowling for Columbine,” concludes that white fear of black men is one of the forces that animates the white American psyche.
Male Aggression
My own musings on this issue have to do with male experience and roles. I wonder if aggression served men well through hundreds of thousands of years as they set off on “the hunt” to secure meat, skins, and other animal parts. Through thousands of years the male brain prepared itself for battle and conquest, sometimes in life and death situations. The male brain began to assume that there is danger in the world and one must fight in order to survive. Thus males, having evolved a culture that no longer requires the hunt in order to meet basic needs for survival, still live with the unconscious assumption that a threat lurks on the horizon. In our American context that threat in the last hundred years has been communism and now terrorism. Much of the developing world and the Muslim world sees the threat as European colonialism and American imperialism. The male mind creates a threatening enemy to confirm its unconscious assumptions about the world. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. George W. Bush said that Al Qaeda was active in Iraq, when in actuality it was not there at all. But now, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda is there. The prophesy has been fulfilled.
I think the myth of the rivalry between Cain and Able has to do with the male transition from being a hunter to being a farmer of domesticated plants and animals. Cain tilled the soil and his son Enoch built the “first” city. Thus the domesticated male, has had this internal anger, unleashed as lethal against his “brother.” Males in America are still on “the hunt,” whether it is gang violence in inner cities, police and detective work, professional football, militias in Michigan, the KKK in Indiana, or plowing through the deserts of Iraq.
My understanding of Muhammad, Buddha, and Jesus is that they all came to bring restraint to male violence. The Karen Armstrong biographies of Muhammad and Buddha work on this theme.
Scapegoat
Kathryn, you make the important observation the Martin Luther King held that “nonviolent resistance dos not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding.” Here too we have the presence of rivalry, which King sought to channel into nonviolent confrontation and eventually to friendship. Rene Girard has another concept here that might be useful: “scapegoat.” When individuals or a community are not able to acknowledge and deal with the aggression within their midst, they often project that aggression and threat onto a “scapegoat.” In ancient culture this was actually a goat that was ritually sacrificed. I wonder if white racism against blacks is a denial on the part of whites of our own submerged transgressions and then the project of these denied transgressions onto the “scapegoat” – most often the black male. We certainly lock up black men in shocking numbers. Michael Moore, in his film, “Bowling for Columbine,” concludes that white fear of black men is one of the forces that animates the white American psyche.
Friday, November 16, 2007
The Bible and War
For the past three years I have been reading widely in scholarly literature about religion and war. I have become aware of how the language of religion and beliefs about God are used to sanction violence and war. I think that most war-making in the 21st century will be framed in religious language. A great deal of self-serving idolatry will be presented as authentic religious faith. Here is my judgment of some of the most dangerous war-supporting religious beliefs in the 21st Century.
Special Relationship
Defeat of Enemies
Purity and Separation
Material Blessings
All of these beliefs can be supported by passages from the Bible. Jack Nelson-Palmeyer contends in Is Religion Killing Us? that, “Religious violence is first and foremost a problem of ‘sacred’ text, not misinterpretation of ‘sacred’ text. The violence-of-God tradition in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian New Testament, and the Quran must be understood and challenged if we are to have any realistic hope of building a peaceful world.” (p. 20)
Special Relationship
- God has chosen our people/nation for a special relationship and a special mission in the world. All others are outside of God’s favor.
- God has saved us and/or will save us from oppression and injustice, by defeating our enemies.
- God has given us land and has denied this land to others.
Defeat of Enemies
- God judges our enemies to be evil and calls on us to control, kill, and destroy those who are evil.
- Eventually all people and all nations will see the truth that God has given us; they will acknowledge our superiority and recognize our privileged role as messengers of God’s truth. The wealth of other nations will appropriately flow to us as a sign of our people/nation being blessed by God.
- Our victories in war are signs that our God is all-powerful and is blessing our righteousness.
- We have not always been treated justly by evil powers, and God commands that we re-establish justice even if this means going to war against our oppressors.
- Even if we do not appear to be victorious today, our God guarantees that at the end of the current age God will vindicate us and our enemies will be destroyed. At the end of this age God will send a righteous leader to lead God’s people to victory over the powers of evil.
- God will punish evil-doers, either in this world or the next world. This is a logically essential belief because God is all-powerful and demands justice.
Purity and Separation
- God requires that we be pure and separate from people who are evil.
- When we suffer temporary defeats this is God punishing us for our lack of purity and a call to redouble our purity and separation from those who are foreign and evil.
- When we re-establish our purity, God will save us and defeat our enemies.
- We must protect ourselves from the aliens who pollute our purity and threaten our identity, freedom, and security.
Material Blessings
- God has given us dominion over the earth and its resources, and God wants us to be wealthy and prosper.
- All of our wealth and prosperity is a gift from God and is God’s acknowledgement of our righteousness.
All of these beliefs can be supported by passages from the Bible. Jack Nelson-Palmeyer contends in Is Religion Killing Us? that, “Religious violence is first and foremost a problem of ‘sacred’ text, not misinterpretation of ‘sacred’ text. The violence-of-God tradition in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian New Testament, and the Quran must be understood and challenged if we are to have any realistic hope of building a peaceful world.” (p. 20)
Monday, October 22, 2007
Rep. Pete Stark on "Guns or Butter"
Chicago is filled with debate over new taxes to cover the cost of running a major American city. Washington, D.C. is filled with debate on providing healthcare for children. Few people are asking where a large slice of our public dollars are being spent -- the War in Iraq.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) was quoted in the October 19 edition of the Chicago Tribune: "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." The article continues that "The National Republican Congressional Committee called Stark's statement 'an outrageous and delusional tantrum.'"
I would called Stark's comments "righteous outrage" at the delusional policies of the Bush administration. Stark is speaking truth to power in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets confronting the dangerous and corrupt policies of kings. George Bush has fed us at least three delusions: Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, military victory is possible, and the highly polarized Iraqi society is capable of democracy -- even a democracy that can be a glorious light to other Islamic nations in the Mid-east.
Speaking of delusions: What were 75% of church-going Christians thinking when they elected George W. Bush to a second term in 2004? The role of ancient Hebrew prophets was not to forecast the future. It was to tell the truth about the present, speak with passion, and get the people's attention. Thank God for the vigorous and courageous voice of Rep. Pete Stark. His voice gives me some hope that there might be reason to be a proud American.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) was quoted in the October 19 edition of the Chicago Tribune: "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." The article continues that "The National Republican Congressional Committee called Stark's statement 'an outrageous and delusional tantrum.'"
I would called Stark's comments "righteous outrage" at the delusional policies of the Bush administration. Stark is speaking truth to power in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets confronting the dangerous and corrupt policies of kings. George Bush has fed us at least three delusions: Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, military victory is possible, and the highly polarized Iraqi society is capable of democracy -- even a democracy that can be a glorious light to other Islamic nations in the Mid-east.
Speaking of delusions: What were 75% of church-going Christians thinking when they elected George W. Bush to a second term in 2004? The role of ancient Hebrew prophets was not to forecast the future. It was to tell the truth about the present, speak with passion, and get the people's attention. Thank God for the vigorous and courageous voice of Rep. Pete Stark. His voice gives me some hope that there might be reason to be a proud American.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Who is Doing the "Cost/Benefit Analysis?"
Just this week I came across new estimates of the cost of the U.S. war in Iraq -- both human and financial costs. The figures are staggering:
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190907.htm
After this level of expenditure in blood and treasure, what benefits can we expect from this war of choice -- certainly not a war of necessity, by any criteria? James Fearon, professor of political science at Stanford, writes in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs that, "Of the roughly 55 civil wars fought for control of a central government. . . since 1955, fully 75 percent ended with a clear victory for one side. The government ultimately crushed the rebels in at least 40 percent of the 55 cases, whereas the rebels won control of the center in 35 percent." Power sharing agreements brought an end to hostilities in 16 percent of the cases.
What we see in Iraq today is the matching and contradictory assumption by both the Shiite and the Sunni contingents that their own sectarian group will settle this war through "victory" -- the annihilation of their adversaries.
Under these conditions Fearon concludes that: "U.S. miliary intervention in Iraq is thus unlikely to produce a government that can survive by itself whether the troops stay ten more months or ten more years.
Perhaps the best U.S. response at this point is to bring our troups home and pump our billions of dollars through United Nations programs helping refugees resettle into countries that offer some measure of safety, hope, and dignity.
Has anybody checked on the stock prices of U.S. corporations who are selling goods and services to the Pentagon during these last four years of war? Perhaps they are the only "winners" when it comes to "cost/benefit analysis."
- 1,100,000 excess deaths that are related to war and war conditions
- 4,000,000 Iraqi refugees
- 4,086 deaths among U.S. and coalition soldiers
- 28,093 U.S. soldiers wounded
- $2,500,000,000 U.S. expenditures for current and long-term costs of the war ($2.5 trillion)
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190907.htm
After this level of expenditure in blood and treasure, what benefits can we expect from this war of choice -- certainly not a war of necessity, by any criteria? James Fearon, professor of political science at Stanford, writes in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs that, "Of the roughly 55 civil wars fought for control of a central government. . . since 1955, fully 75 percent ended with a clear victory for one side. The government ultimately crushed the rebels in at least 40 percent of the 55 cases, whereas the rebels won control of the center in 35 percent." Power sharing agreements brought an end to hostilities in 16 percent of the cases.
What we see in Iraq today is the matching and contradictory assumption by both the Shiite and the Sunni contingents that their own sectarian group will settle this war through "victory" -- the annihilation of their adversaries.
Under these conditions Fearon concludes that: "U.S. miliary intervention in Iraq is thus unlikely to produce a government that can survive by itself whether the troops stay ten more months or ten more years.
Perhaps the best U.S. response at this point is to bring our troups home and pump our billions of dollars through United Nations programs helping refugees resettle into countries that offer some measure of safety, hope, and dignity.
Has anybody checked on the stock prices of U.S. corporations who are selling goods and services to the Pentagon during these last four years of war? Perhaps they are the only "winners" when it comes to "cost/benefit analysis."
Saturday, September 8, 2007
War Supporting Scripture
Stephen Mansfield, in his 2005 book on The Faith of the American Soldier, describes the experience of Russell Ripptoe, a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq: “He saw men die for the first time. It changed him. He pressed into his Christian roots, prayed often with his chaplain, and found a new passion for the Bible. Somewhere along the way, someone gave him something that looked like his dog tags. It was called a Shield of Strength. On one side there was a picture of the American flag with the words ‘One Nation Under God,’ and on the other were the modified words of Joshua 1:9: ‘I will be strong and courageous. I will not be terrified, or discouraged; for the Lord my God is with me wherever I go.’ Russell carried the Shield of Strength with him and soon learned that thousands of his fellow soldiers did likewise. It was an inspiration to confidence in God, a seal of martial unity through faith.” (pp. 43-44)
The passage from Joshua 1:9 is in the context of God’s instructions to Joshua to “proceed to cross the Jordan. . . into the land that I am giving to them, to the Israelites. Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you. . . No one shall be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous; for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them.” Joshua gave instructions for invading the land and the people answered, “Whoever rebels against your orders and disobeys your words, whatever you command, shall be put to death. Only be strong and courageous.” (quotes from Joshua chapter one.)
Here we see that thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are today wearing a war-supporting portion of scripture around their necks.
This one example is part of a larger system of beliefs that supports groups and nations in their war-making. I think that most war-making in the 21st century will be framed in religious language. A great deal of self-serving idolatry will be presented as authentic religious faith. D. Koehn
The passage from Joshua 1:9 is in the context of God’s instructions to Joshua to “proceed to cross the Jordan. . . into the land that I am giving to them, to the Israelites. Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you. . . No one shall be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous; for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them.” Joshua gave instructions for invading the land and the people answered, “Whoever rebels against your orders and disobeys your words, whatever you command, shall be put to death. Only be strong and courageous.” (quotes from Joshua chapter one.)
Here we see that thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are today wearing a war-supporting portion of scripture around their necks.
This one example is part of a larger system of beliefs that supports groups and nations in their war-making. I think that most war-making in the 21st century will be framed in religious language. A great deal of self-serving idolatry will be presented as authentic religious faith. D. Koehn
Friday, September 7, 2007
Gods of War: Introduction
This is the first post for the new block, "Gods of War." The focus of this blog will be the relationship between religion and war. I have been reading and thinking in this field for over three years and I am currently starting a Ph.D. program to help focus and structure my research. I hope this will be a format for friends to keep up with my current work and thinking. Other readers and voices are also welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)