There is a huge difference between a deranged lone gunman and a conspiracy of deranged religious fanatics. There is no reason to believe that there was ever any animosity between Marie Roberts and the Amish. That cannot be said across the board for the friends, relatives, and especially co-conspirators of the 9/11 hijackers. Not to take anything away from the Amish — it was a very noble thing that they did and no doubt helps to heal wounds. Marie Roberts can rebuild her life knowing that the Amish community does not blame her in any way for her husband’s actions, and that is a great good. But, unlike the killer who assaulted the Amish schoolhouse, Islamic terrorism remains an active threat. I admire the Amish of Pennsylvania, but their response to the schoolroom murders simply does not transfer to the war on terror. Wolverine>

Diana Butler Bass, thank you for voicing such a courageous proposal. Inviting Jesus back into the conversation is always disruptive, and it will most certainly offend the religious fundamentalists who attempt to derail dialogue on this blog. I will add, however, that it is not “five years too late” but about 500 years too late. The 9/ll equivalent of 1492 or 1521 or 1848 is not forgotten among this hemisphere’s indigenous–the legacies of “Oil Stain” imperialism, as Brian McLaren might say. But this is also the case regarding the Middle East. What if Jesus’ teachings were taken seriously during the time of the Balfour Declaration? or during the time of the illegal zionist occupation of northern Palestine? or during our current era of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo? Affirming Jesus has never been politically-popular, and we must not underestimate the power of pro-war, pro-torture evangelicals. They invest an immense amount of energy justifying their Oil Stain gospel (“Imminent Threat,” “Mushroom Cloud,” “Freedom” etc.). The religious elite of Jesus’ time rejected him, so we must not be shocked when the today’s religious elite does the same. Thank you Diana for affirming Jesus’ teachings no matter how politically-intolerable it is to do so.>

Well said. Violence and hate have no place in God’s Kingdom.>

For all the pontificating that we can get into as to why something like what the Amish did can’t work with the “war on terror” it is still legitimate to ask the question “What if …?” What if a country responded to a terrorist act by sending aid to the terror’s country of origin? (OK, OK, the last thing Saudi Arabia needs is aid).It seems odd to me to reason that the Amish approach wouldn’t work when the polar opposite that is being attempted doesn’t seem to be doing anything either.>

Beautiful proposal. Wolverine – you are looking for this to make sense. Presumably then you’re also looking for participation in the Jesus movement to make sense. It never will.>

This is not a war in revenge for an act. We are going to war to protect our citizens from further attack. On this point Christ is silent in the gospels, but was not in Romans. Diane’s fanciful approach would not lead to security. What would Iraq look like if we ended our military presence there right now? It would fall apart, and not at all peacably. Would it have been more peacable to leave Germany immediately after our victory during WW2? Things weren’t so peaceful when we left Vietnam. Perhaps, if we left Iraq, Dinae wouldn’t have to see the violence on here TV set, but it would occur, nonetheless, and it would make it’s way here.>

I still am waiting for the day when these people actually go to the scriptures for guidance on such issues.>

I do agree that we need to be doing more to “Make Peace” in the Muslim world, but here is the problem: the Roberts family did not want to kill the Amish, and the Amish, who are purely pacifist, would be willing to be destroyed physically rather than fight back. While this is admirable in some ways, I don’t think this is the way to go. The way I see it, any efforts to “make peace” will only really work after a generation or two. In the mean time, there are still terrorists who want to kill us, and while some of America’s actions post-9/11 have made this worse, the fact is that most of these people already wanted to kill us. So how do you balance a need for peace in the long term with security in the short-term? I don’t have the answer, but these are the questions we need to be asking. God bless.>

Diane, I’m glad to see I wasn’t the only one last week to have this thought. In fact, I almost argued with a family member who has a similar view as Kevin S. and Wolverine. As a Christian, I believe that–to the best of my ability–every action and decision I make should reflect what Jesus would do. This week, pondering these things, I honestly believe that if our nation HAD responded in a truly Christ-like way on 9/12/2001, God would have honored that, and we would have seen miraculous things as a result of our radical peace-making. I’m not saying we’d never get attacked again, but the world would have seen Jesus in America. A real Jesus, someone they could respect, admire, and trust. A Jesus who loves the world, even “evil doers” with a self-sacrificing love so strong that not even death could diminish it. That’s not what they see now. And why should they? America is NOT a Christ-following nation, no matter what a certain group of Christians like to claim. I guess it just makes me wonder what the use is of claiming to follow Christ if we don’t go all the way with it? If we stop short and say, “Well, it’s just not practical. It’s just not human nature. It’s not safe. It’s not reasonable. I don’t want MY kids to get hurt.” Following Jesus isn’t safe, reasonable, rational, or any of those other things. We turn it into a sick joke when we try to make it so.>

Mike wrote: Presumably then you’re also looking for participation in the Jesus movement to make sense. It never will. So you’re admitting that what we’re discussing here doesn’t make sense? And this is supposed to be a selling point? Look, the fact is you are treating two very different incidents, involving very different personalities, as if they were the same thing. That is begging for disappointment, if not disaster. Now if Mrs. Bass were to propose that we give some aid to the parents of the hijackers — whose opinions are largely unknown — that would be closer to what the Amish actually did and might even “make sense”. (I hope this thought doesn’t discourage you.) But making a show of extending forgiveness to Osama bin Laden, who to this point has shown no interest in accepting our forgiveness, seems more like a futile bit of groveling than a bold move towards meaningful reconciliation. One more thing: The Gospel of John refers to Jesus as “logos”, typically translated as “word” but also indicating reason or logic. Now God ferquently goes beyond our experience and reason, but that doesn’t mean reason isn’t valid. God doesn’t invite to ignore reason altogether. Come, let us reason together… Wolverine>

Although I agree that the Amish community has shown what true Christianity and forgiveness is all about. They showed remarkable kindness in the aftermath of terrible tragedy. However, anyone who has lived among the Amish will tell you that their lives (much like the rest of us) are not always kind, loving, forgiving. They shun children who marry outside of the order; fathers and husbands can be abusive and although they don’t watch violence on television, their sons can be found throwing frogs up agains barns to kill them. I worked w/ a social service agency who tried to help a young Amish wife whose husband was trying to have her committed to a mental hospital because she wanted to leave the order. So all is not perfect in their world.>

The sort of utopian way in which this article is being viewed troubles me. In that light, it would also justify letting any and all criminals go free (after giving them a big hug, of course). I do not think this is what Diane is suggesting. The people who committed 9-11 are fascists bent on an ideology of hatred and death. This is different from a mental illness or mere selfishness and far harder to engage without using force. I don’t think Diane would have a significant issue with this statement. I don’t think this critique can be viewed as a stand-alone strategy, it must be taken as a critique of the status quo. We already have the protection part down. We have lacked from the beginning any real attempt at empathy, contrition, compassion, or peacemaking. Maybe it would be easier to compare Diane’s example to the Irish with the one I see at work: the bar fight. We were punched by one guy. When we got up, whether out of fear or rage, we hit someone else entirely. Amish communal forgiveness of tavern retribution – which is closer to the will of God?>

And another thing: “The Amish” are not the same as “the government”. But that’s a whole other argument… Wolverine>

Someone said that Jesus didn’t address preemptive killing in the Gospels. But that doesn’t mean we can’t draw conclusions about what his position would be on it. He tells us to turn the other cheek after someone has hurt us, so do you really think it plausible that he would tell us to destroy someone and his family and entire community before he has hurt us? Meg>

“Following Jesus isn’t safe, reasonable, rational, or any of those other things. We turn it into a sick joke when we try to make it so.” It’s completely rational and reasonable. He died for our sins, that we might follow him and receive eternal life? It’s only irrational if you think it a myth. However, the Bible does not say that government must be at peace. Further, he does not say that Christians may not defend themselves. Really you are asking us to agree with you, not obey scripture.>

Daniel, I wish I could be sure what Diane has in mind, but when she suggests that the Amish be put in charge of the Department of Homeland Security, that sounds to me like she wants the US Government to adopt Amish norms. Now a private outreach to the families of the 9/11 hijackers might actually work, but Mrs. Bass seems to want the government to mimic the Amish, and include bin Laden himself. That goes way beyond even what the Amish did. Wolverine>

This whole event has really touched my heart. As Christians and as citizens of the world we must at some point just stop. Conventional(whatever that means) war and violence have only spread more violence. Read your other emails from Sojo… Perhaps upwards of 655,000 Iraqis dead due to war. Maybe not directly as a result of war, but as a result of the conditions brought on by war. The Amish reminded me of homeopathic healing… When you take something and distill it down to almost nothing and that is what heals. Their instaneous access to forgiveness and compassion is a healing remedy for communities small to large, the world included. Peace Unto All.>

“I don’t think this critique can be viewed as a stand-alone strategy, it must be taken as a critique of the status quo.” I think that is the point. If this were a whimsical “wouldn’t it be nice if…” sort of piece, then it would be almost cruel to find fault with it. However, it is posturing as a substantive critique of Bush policy. “Maybe it would be easier to compare Diane’s example to the Irish with the one I see at work: the bar fight. We were punched by one guy. When we got up, whether out of fear or rage, we hit someone else entirely.” This has nothing to do with Diane’s example, but to your analogy… We waited more than a year, and placed susbtantial pressure on Iraq to give up information on their weapons program. We had every reason to believe they had one, and even Hanz Blix believed that they would resume such a program after inspectors left. So, in you Irish Pub analogy, the guy who got clocked spent 18 months pretending to be the guy who punched us, and suggested he might do it again.>

Christ told us to turn the other cheek. He modeled passivism as he was led to crucifixion. He died for our sins while we were still sinners! He did address the fact that the secular world would not understand Christ-like behavior – that we would be reviled and rejected at times, as He was. Wolverine – In the Gospel of John Chapter 1, Christ is the Word, yet ‘He came to His own and his own received Him not’ (v. 11). Unfortunately this world cannot comprehend the beautiful logic of Christ’s sacrifice, yet we are called to imitate Christ. I agree with Ms. Bass, and am ashamed that this nation conveniently wraps itself in the banner of ‘Christianity’ while selfishly pursuing goals that are clearly NOT what our Savior would want to see accomplished in this world. Kevin S. – You have bought into the neo-conservative fearmongering that is keeping the Republicans in power. Do you truly believe that this country is safer now than it was on September 12, 2001? The acts of this administration have absolutly upset the tenuous hold on some semblance of peace in many areas of this world. Some Christ-like forgiveness, some true caring (not just throwing money around to enrich our friends, but working to truly improve the conditions of the poor in these countries), would go a LONG way in actually making this world a safer place. As Meredith says, we are NOT a Christian nation, and should not represent our national interests to the world in that light. One of the best things that American Christians can do, other than to pray for our leadership and live personally holy lives, is to work to remove the religious rhetoric from our international discourse, as it serves to inflame passions and confuse the world about what true Christianity really is.>

Yeah, here’s the problem with this question. It is asking something with certain other assumptions that are incorrect. A better question migght be, what if the Amish were in charge of technology. We couldn’t read your article.>

Hard to take seriously this kind of a piece. The analogy breaks down pretty quickly once we realize that there isn’t a long line of Robert’s that are determined to do violence to the Amish people on their own soil. What the Amish did was to “forgive” the innocent. Perhaps one should posture the opposing view. I wonder if innocent Amish children would continue to be wiped out because of their non-violent response to fanatics determined to wipe them off the earth? Further, I wonder if it is biblical to forgive a person who is not repentant? If we do it- are we not exercising a higher form of forgiveness than the Savior?>

“Do you truly believe that this country is safer now than it was on September 12, 2001?” No, but I believe we would be even less safe if we adopted a pacifistic response to terrorist attacks. By the way, what is with everyone throwing around the turn “neocon”? I understand it’s semantic appeal, it’s a broad brushstroke, and it sounds like a cross between “neonazi” and “convict”. I just don’t think people using the phrase understand exactly what the movement entails, or that conservatives are divided over its merits.>

To any supporters of the Iraq war, exactly how many innocent Iraqi lives are worth one innocent American life? By every account, at a minimum tens of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of our war, our invasion. There is no sign of this ending, so there will likely be thousands more dead. When is the loss of Iraqi innocents too much? Do you ever see a point where it is too much? Babies, children, wives, sons, daughters, husbands, fathers. Iraqi or American they are all children of God. Do you think for a second that God places a higher value on your life, than on the life of an innocent baby blown to bits by one of our bombs? If you do, may God have mercy on you.>

Just from a practical standpoint, the act of forgiveness clears the mind of destructive emotional confusion. Forgiveness brings back sanity. Clear thinking becomes possible again. I think that’s why forgiveness is central to the teachings of Christ. This is why the Amish tradition of forgiveness should be an example for all leaders when making difficult decisions in this violent world. The Amish example is transferable to 9/11. Looking back on the aftermath of that horrible experience, thoughts of revenge were allowed to surface in our minds. The base emotion of revenge crowded clear thinking out of our collective consciousness. Clear thinking would have led to a discovery of the causes behind this terrible act. Clear thinking would have revealed the real sources of hatred for American presence in the Middle East. A clear thinking leader would have launched an international hunt for the terrorists, and a simultaneous peace offensive in Palestine. If we had such a clear thinking leader as president, we would be far better off than we are today. Bush’s War on Terror was born out of the base emotion of revenge. Terror is just another enemy of clear thinking. We need clear thinkers in these desperate times. Not revengeful warmongers. .>

David Tinberg “Further, I wonder if it is biblical to forgive a person who is not repentant? If we do it- are we not exercising a higher form of forgiveness than the Savior?” Luke 23:34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.>

When are we as Christians going to ditch the idol of security? Jesus knew that our security came from the father. Maybe we should do the same. As I recall Vietnam was started on a lie too. Should we then keep this pattern going w/ Iraq and possibly Iran? p>

Thank you, Diana, for holding up such a miraculous vision for the future of our earth! Let us pray together, that each of us in our home communities will practice the forgiveness the Amish modeled for us until that day we can respond as a nation in the way you described.>

To clarify: A neo-conservative is a new type of conservative, who will give up freedoms in order to gain what is seen as additional security, thus giving the government much greater power over the lives of the citizens. This contrasts with the old-school conservatives, such as Goldwater, who felt that government infringement on freedoms was dangerous and sought out less governmental involvement. Read “Conservatives Without Conscience” by John W. Dean for a greater understanding of this term.>

justintime In addition to clear thinking, I would add humble to my wishlist for leaders. It is often pride that drives us over the cliff, rather than turn back and admit we were mistaken.>

American revenge was just what Bin Laden wanted to happen. Recently intercepted communications reveal that Al Qaeda wants us to stay in Iraq. Terrorism thrives on violence. “Bring it on.” We need to start thinking clearly about terrorism. .>

This is from a post I wrote a couple of days ago in honor of their sacrifice and committment to the Gospel of reconcilaiton and peace. The Beauty of the Amish The Amish are beautiful because the glory of God is upon their homes. The Amish are beautiful because the Holy Spirit lives in their hearts. He is their life. The beauty of the Amish is my father’s spirit. The Holy Spirit poured his love on a grieving and broken people. I had not allowed myself the grace to grieve and mourn w/ them. I was selfish and proud. But Father forgive me for not noticing the magnificence of your grace upon them. They raised funds for the family of the man that killed their children and have reached out to them in love and solidarity. They are teaching me more about God’s grace and how to love than all the contemplation I have studied in the last two years. Will the world listen? Their beauty is in their grace, their forgiveness, their love. They have chosen the holy route of not getting angry. They have chosen the route of loving your enemy. I have much to learn from them. We have much to learn from them. May their beauty crowd out all the darkness in our hearts. May we live life and live it abundantly full of the grace they are teaching us. Amen. p Great post BTW>

Right on, Leonard, Pride is another enemy of clear thinking. .>

What if, after 9/11, we had behaved in a Christian way instead of like vengeful war-mongers, would Osama been able to sustain his Jihad? Our violent reaction to 9/11 has just fueled the flame, a flame that perhaps a more intelligent response could have extinguished.>

Loving your enemy is thinking clearly about your enemy, free from all destructive emotions. .>

Leonard, Are we then to hold those outside the community of faith to a lower standard than those inside? Luke 17:3-4 “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” NIV>

Thankyou so much for writing that… This is Christianty, This my Father’s Kingdom, this why Jesus died for and why we have been saved. Jesus gave his life for sinners, for murderer, for muslim terrorists… How can a christian decide to kill someone,actually, thousands,who don’t know the love of God? Phil>

s holmgren asks, What if, after 9/11, we had behaved in a Christian way instead of like vengeful war-mongers, would Osama been able to sustain his Jihad? Our violent reaction to 9/11 has just fueled the flame, a flame that perhaps a more intelligent response could have extinguished. I agree, if we had just focused our intent on bringing Osama and Al Qaeda to justice and kept the good will of the entire world on our side, we could have snuffed out this flame long ago. And we did have the good will and sympathy of the world on our side right after 9/11. Not any more. As Daniel put it, partnership works better than domination. Bush’s fantasy of an American Empire is finished. .>

I am not sure if I agree with Diane, but I know I don’t agree with Bush either. I agree in defending our nation, but I don’t see striking out at another nation who didn’t have any “weapons of mass destruction” in the first place as the answer. I wish I knew what the answer was. Leigh Anne>

The Beauty of the Amish. Thanks, payshun .>

Kevin, you know that this “verse” is not in the Bible. Rom 13 says clearly that we are called to love our neighbour as ourselves… love worketh no ill to his neighbour therefore love is the fulfilling of the law… Jesus died the same death for the 9/11 terrorists than for you and me. Corrie Tenboom, when she met the officer who murdered her sister in a concentration camp told him that she had forgiven him… Bombs and guns cannot seperate us from the love of God manifested in Jesus-Christ… This is we as Christians want to forgive our ennemies… If we can’t, who can?…>

Folks, there’s nothing out there to stop you from emulating the Amish yourselves, right now. Take up a collection, distribute it to the families of the hijackers. Issue your own proclamation of forgiveness to Osama bin Laden. Everyone here seems to forget that much of the beauty of what the Amish did (and I wholeheartedly affirm that what they did was very admirable) was that it was sacrificial — they gave of their own money and their own time. You demand that the goverment do this and that. Don’t you have anything of your own to give? Whatever happened to being the change you want to see in the world? Wolverine>

Phil, I think you are being coy. the part I reference comes immediately before Romans 13:8. “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Romans 13:4>

David I think you may be making my point for me, or rather you are making the same point Jesus made 2000 years ago, which I was trying to re-iterate. Luke 17:3-4 “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” NIV Jesus in this verse is telling us that no matter how many times a person sins against us, no matter how many times they give us reason to hate them, no matter how many times they give us reason to give up and shut the door on them, we are called instead to forgive them. It is a testament to the depths of love and forgiveness we should strive for. Christ makes the same point in a number of ways and places throughout the gospels. The verse also implies that in this case, you are dealing with a believer or follower of Christ. That is why the first course of action should be to rebuke the person. In no way does the verse imply that if the person snubs you it is alright to become violent. This same event is told in Mathew 18:15-17 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to t he church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Note that treating them as pagans or tax collectors, would mean treating them as someone who needs to be saved. Not someone who needs to be exterminated. If you read the verse immediately preceding this in Mathew you can see where Christ makes this very clear: Mathew 18:10-14 10 “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. 12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. The verse following this tells us what we should expect if we refuse to forgive: Mathew 18:32 32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.” I am not sure how Jesus could make it any plainer to us. Forgive as you are forgiven by God.>

Wolverine you are absolutely right. p>

From the moment the world knew about this terrible tragedy, the Amish community has modeled for us the Christ-like forgiveness and care for their neighbor that Jesus talked about and lived. The whole world is marveling at that grace and forgiveness. If only we all had the courage to do the same. Our vengeful retaliation (remember George’s Bush’s press conference when he explained why he wanted to go after Saddam Hussein, “He tried to kill my daddy!”?) This came after we were trying to find Asama Bin Laden, and suddenly all attention and action was focused, instead, on Hussein. A war that much of the world opposed and that we were lied to in order to gain support, began and now we are hated even more. Some Iraqis who for a time appreciated our efforts have said, “Enough–no more bloodshed. We are worse off than we were before!” We have lost our moral authority because we have let things like torture and abuse taint our behavior and tried to cover it up. May God forgive us and our so-called “Christian” policies!>

kevin I would be careful in the way you read that verse. For one thing the authorities in Rome beheaded Paul the author of the verse. I am assuming you don’t believe that Paul had it coming. The same authorities that Paul was talking about there, later when on to use Christians as human candles. I am assuming you don’t believe that they had it coming either. Paul also believed that the second coming would happen within his lifetime, and that shaped some of his steatements, especially regarding slaves needing to be obedient and women needing to submit. You can imagine that if you thought Christ was coming this afternoon, it might shift some of your priorities and outlooks.>

Leonard, So the verse isn’t true? Would Paul not have uttered it had he known the Romans would kill him? Did he, until that point, have a positive view of the Roman empire?>

First things first…great piece and right on the money. Second, I disagree completely (but respectfully) with wolverine’s comment that terrorists must be treated differently than a deranged and murderous neighbor. No matter who you’re dealing with, the Christian response must be to repay evil with good. Period. There can be no exceptions, no matter how much it flies in the face of worldly “reason” or common sense. We are either followers of Christ or not. If we do not walk His walk then we’re liars as John tells us in 1 John 2:4-6. If you don’t subscribe to the Christian point of view, them by all means continue to try and justify the deaths of over 40,000 innocent men, women and children in Iraq as a way to prevent the deaths of more innocents here at home. The “War on Terror” is totally illogical and has created a body of growing violence that shows no signs of slowing. Ms. Bass’s piece suggests a response that works…the problem is getting our government to try it. Imagine $300 billion spent on humanitarian causes. Imagine if we’d been doing this before 9/11.>

“Imagine $300 billion spent on humanitarian causes. Imagine if we’d been doing this before 9/11.” They might have been able to train even more pilots. But seriously, Osama has plenty of money to disburse. The notiont that this attack arose because people don’t have enough money is absurd. there is simply no evidence of this.>

You missed the point entirely, Kevin…by a mile, in fact. I was suggesting that if America had been involved in humanitarian goodwill around the globe instead of constantly and covertly looking for ways to secure resources and protect strategic interests so that we might feed the gaping maw of our consumer culture, we’d have made far fewer enemies. Ever read bin Laden’s fatwah? He lays it out pretty clearly why he’s against us…and while I disagree entirely with his ruthless methods, I believe he raises some valid points about our presence and methods in other lands, which is something few Americans take the time to research. Cheers…>

Kevin I am going to trust that you are sincere and not simply looking to rouse an argument. It is not a matter of whether it is true or not, it is a matter of context. This was in a letter from Paul to the Roman church at that time. Romans 13:4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. The verse begins “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid.” Reading it as you do, I would have to conclude that you believe that Paul had it coming, since chopping his head off would hardly seem to be doing him “good”. I would say it is true that God sometimes uses sinful and violent people and goverments in His plans. This is made clear in Habakkuk. That should not be understood as God condoning violence. It should also not be understood to mean that EVERY goverment is ordained by God, or that he approves of EVERY authority, or that bad things only happen to bad people. This is really a deeper theological discussion than would seem to fit here. In no case is a believer, or follower of Christ advised to act in violence. Since the US is a representative goverment “of the people”, to the extent we support the goverment, we are responsible for the goverment as much as if we acted ourselves. We can not use the goverment as our violent alter ego which is allowed to go and take revenge on our behalf, while we stay home and profess our Christian faith.>

Kevin, You are right. God can and does use governments to discipline other nations. Quite honestly some people deserve to be wiped out. But then by God’s standards we all do. But as Christians we are called to something different than blanket support of a government that cherry picks information to justify an unnecessary war. If only we took the Good Samaritan to heart more than the one verse about God using nations to discipline one another. Which one will you choose? Mercy or judgement? p>

S Heriger, My point was not simply that we must treat terrorists differently, though that’s where I wound up. But the main thing was to point out that the parallel between Marie Roberts and Osama bin Laden just didn’t work. One still professes to hate Americans. The other never had any gripes against the Amish. There are two ways to commit an injustice. The first is to treat two things that are fundamentally the same as if they were different. The other is to treat two things that are fundamentally different as if they were the same. I would also point out a critical distinction between forgiveness and peace. I can forgive someone who hasn’t repented, (David Tinburg is wrong about this) but if that person is still determined to attack me we are not at peace, and I still need to watch my back. Wolverine>

Wolverine I agree with your point about forgiveness vs. peace. I think it’s dead on. And I’m not saying we should just lay down and take it because I believe we must respond because in the real world confrontations must be settled somehow. My point was that we still must be discerning in how we respond. It’s the choices we make in responding that define the level of commitment to our belief. Regards… sh>

I understand your point completely. But if you agree that Osama Bin Laden’s methods are insane, then how can you look for justification in his words? There are myriad reasons why terrorists hate us. But their actions are absurd, and have little to do with their reasoning. So how can we say what we could’ve done to assuage our enemies and prevent the attacks. Leonard “It should also not be understood to mean that EVERY goverment is ordained by God, or that he approves of EVERY authority, or that bad things only happen to bad people.” I never said it did. Neither is it inherent to my argument. I never said we MUST support governmental military action. Only that we MAY do so. In my view, we should support military intervention when it is just (I understand that many do no think the Iraq war is just, but that is a different argument). “In no case is a believer, or follower of Christ advised to act in violence. Since the US is a representative goverment “of the people”, to the extent we support the goverment, we are responsible for the goverment as much as if we acted ourselves.” So, representative democracies are NOT authorized to use the sword? I don’t see this in scripture. You are bending the logic to your desired end. One could just as easily say Government is constituted of the people, the government is able to use the sword, and so we are able to use the sword. “We can not use the goverment as our violent alter ego which is allowed to go and take revenge on our behalf, while we stay home and profess our Christian faith.” This wasn’t a revenge mission. If it were, we would’ve bombed Iraq, grabbed Saddam, and left. Is our ongoing presence now a continued act of revenge?>

Kevin, You say, “But if you agree that Osama Bin Laden’s methods are insane, then how can you look for justification in his words?” I do believe Osama’s methods are insane, and I’m not looking for justification in his words. Trying to *understand* what motivates him is far different than trying to *justify* what motivates him. A person can have a valid complaint and still be completely, greviously wrong in the actions they take to address them. Such is the case with Bin Laden.>

Kevin, Governments are authorized to use the sword. But we know what happens when they do. We have the entire old testament to show us that. So which is mercy or judgement? p>

A few comments on the discussion thread. First, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush administration has made that admission clearly. Second, no reason given for going into Iraq clearly explains why we are there. I do not see how it can be defended is Christian terms, based upon reason or faith. Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld said during Bush Sr’s and Clinton’s terms that we should invade, and when they rose to power we invaded. Third, Gandhi tried to use what he saw as Christ’s ideas of love and non-violence on a national scale. He held that the nation should continue this. It looked insane, but it worked while they remained on that course. The ways of God appear as folly to us. But it is the way of man kind that lead to destruction. We are children who cannot grasp the fact that our heavenly father’s teachings are actually right. “Yeah, I know that Dad said to do this, but he did not mean in THIS situation.” Following God’s path can be scary and difficult. However, not following him is running with the lemmings toward the cliff.>

“Following God’s path can be scary and difficult. However, not following him is running with the lemmings toward the cliff.” Was World War II right or wrong?>

Why can’t we take-on the War on Terror one ‘deranged terrorist’ at a time in the spirit of the Amish? This seems to me what we’re called to do every day of our lives, anyway! RickK Centennial CO>

The Amish example has been hijacked by those who oppose the Iraq war – and indeed all wars. Think very carefully before going down that road. It is a costly path. It means sitting back and watching while terrorists destroy buildings, murder children (almost anywhere in the middle east), rape women (as in Darfur) blow up airplanes (does anybody remember Lockerby?). Paul’s message in Romans 13 is a message of endorsement for law and order. This was the Rome of Nero and Caligula, not some liberal democracy with a welfare state like Sweden. It is the responsibilty of the state to protect its citizens. Unfortunately states often abuse their power. That does not detract from the fact that they have that responsibility. Without restraint anarchy prevails. It is like the end of the book of Judges. “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” Iraq is very like that now. The king that they had (Saddam) was a tyrant. When he was deposed America very foolishly dismantled all sembalnce of order. The Lancet today suggests that there have been 650,000 deaths since the war. The vast majority of these have been Iraqi killing Iraqi. This is what happens when restraint is removed. On an individual basis, small scale, undoubtedly offering forgiveness before it is asked for heals the victim and may lead the assailant to redemption. But offering forgiveness is very difficult and no-one can offer it on another’s behalf. As a state policy it is facile. It cannot be real unless endorsed by every victim.>

Terry, No one is saying it is not costly but so is the alternative and even moreso. The reality is that as Christians we must be willing to loose all for him. That’s the cost did not jesus say “Let the dead bury the dead.” p>

What if the passengers of United 93 had forgiven the hijackers of their flight while it was still flying toward Washington? I’m sure the hijackers would have landed the plane without further incident.>

You’re missing the point, Timbo. You don’t forgive to achieve a hoped-for result. You forgive because Christ tells us to forgive, regardless of the consequences, even if it means your own death. It’s a commandment, not a suggestion.>

S Heriger, I don’t think Timbo has missed the point at all. I think he has asked a pertinent question that deserves an answer. If the passengers of Flight 93 had chosen to make a display of forgiving the hijackers instead of attempting to take back control, would the hijackers have given up control of the plane or proceeded to smash it into the Capital Building? I may be wrong, but my guess is that the passengers of Flight 93 prevented a great number of deaths when they chose to fight back. Now tell me why I’m wrong. Or is saving lives not a good thing? Wolverine>

Wolverine… I had to smile when I read your post because it sounds like something we talked about earlier… I never said it was wrong to save lives. You can forgive the hijackers while still trying to thwart them from causing further damage. I never suggested that the passengers should have done anything differently. Remember, Timbo simply asked if forgiving the terrorists would have changed anything. The answer is no, of course not, but they still must be forgiven, even at this late date. That much is clear. The act of forgiving doesn’t exclude acting to prevent further loss of life, even if you have to sacrifice yours in the process (which is another Christ-like attribute, by the way). Whether any of the passengers actually forgave their hijackers or not, they still behaved in a manner consistent with sound faith by sacrificing their lives to prevent more losses. This was not a case of repaying evil with evil.>

“We can not use the goverment as our violent alter ego which is allowed to go and take revenge on our behalf, while we stay home and profess our Christian faith.” Well said, Leonard!>

President Bush adopted the way of the world and rejected the way of the Gospel in his response to 9/11, or what he claims is his response (Iraq really has no direct connection to 9/11, but he still claims it as part of his “war on terror”). And we can see the result. Hundreds of thousands dead, many more wounded, an impoverished and unsafe Iraq, an increase in terrorism (even the National Intelligence Estimate found that the Iraq War increased terrorism). This is the story over and over again. Those who claim the Gospel is impractical engage in “practical” courses of action which cause massive suffering and a perpetual spiral of violence and evil. It seems like incredible chutzpah for the advocates of killing to accuse the advocates of a peaceful way of being impractical. Can they point to any example of the way of the Gospel, the way shown by the Amish, as resulting in anything like the disastrous consequences of the way of the world? Why is it always assumed that the pacifists should have to prove no risk in the way of peace but never those who advocate for war? Why is the benefit of the doubt always given to the advocates of violence?>

I think Diana Butler Bass is drawing parallels with the success the Amish accomplished through their example of generous acts of forgiveness. The parallels came from a discussion with her husband: “‘…It is an amazing witness to the peace tradition.’ He looked at me and said passionately, ‘Witness? I don t think so. This went well past witnessing. They weren t witnessing to anything. They were actively MAKING peace.’ As she says: “…After all, actively practicing forgiveness and making peace are the only real alternatives to perpetual fear and a multi-generational global religious war…”. Sounds practical to me.>

S Heriger, I was making a point, not missing one. DBB seems to suggest that forgiveness on 9/12 would have led to a different situation than we have now. As one who has been forgiven for a multitude of sins, I think forgiveness is great! I completely agree that “forgiving doesn’t exclude acting to prevent further loss of life.” Where the few of us here who do support the war on terror differ from those who do not is that we view the war on terror as acting to prevent further loss of life! If it is possible for Todd Beamer to forgive the hijackers even as he fights them to prevent them from murdering others, then isn’t it also possible for us to forgive terrorists even as we fight them to stop them from murdering others? The whole problem with DBB’s post is that Bush’s response is framed as a failure to forgive when in reality his response is exactly what the people on United 93 did: fighting terrorists to prevent them from murdering others as they are determined to do. We must forgive them, as well as stop them.>

Diana- That was beautiful. Thank you->

What I found interesting was that the people who responded to the situaiton at the Amish school were not the peaceful Amish with their attitude of forgiveness, but the state police, with their implication of restrained violence. Tha Amish are free to live their lives the way they do because they are protected by the rest of us, with force if necessary.>

S Heriger, Thanks for clarifying that. Sorry to jump on you. Wolverine>

Timbo – Jesus’ explicit condemnation of violence — whether by individuals or by groups — is undeniable. That the U.S. has fallen disgracefully short of this standard is obvious. Especially when, in addition to the fabricated and misleading case for war, you consider our efforts to increase tolerance for torture, indefinite detention without charge and a morally lax and irresponsible management of the reconstruction effort (this documented in numerous books including Cobra II). It astounds me that you can look at what our nation is doing and say we’re doing “exactly” what the passengers of Flight 93 did. We are knowingly and consciously doing far worse.>

This is the first thing I’ve read that actively pointed out something that I’ve been thinking for a week – that this Amish community is doing an amazing job of embodying Christ. Thanks, Diana, for writing this posting.>

Gordon – You say “The Amish are free to live their lives the way they do because they are protected by the rest of us (and police who use force)” Force, police and wars don’t GIVE us the freedom to follow Jesus. They may give us longer lives. They may give us more stability. But they don’t GIVE us freedom. God gives us freedom. And Jesus never said we should have longer lives and stability. He said we should love God, love our neighbor and even love our enemy. Even at the EXPENSE of longer lives and stability.>

Timbo – I’d like to add that the passengers of Flight 93 chose SELF-SACRIFICE for the protection of others, as a LAST RESORT against a KNOWN ENEMY. But in initiating the Iraq war, the Bush administration AGGRESSIVELY AND PREMATURELY chose the SACRIFICE OF OTHERS (Iraqis plus our young American soldiers) against a SPECULATIVE THREAT. I would humbly suggest that those are not “exactly” the same.>

mattyd, The passengers on a doomed flight CHOSE to die?? Wake up and smell the jihad!! The Bush administration was most definitely agressive in Iraq. That’s why Baghdad fell so quickly. As for prematurely, regime change in Iraq had been official US policy since 1998, and the authorization to go to war was approved in October of 2002, four-plus months before the invasion. The passengers on United 93 didn’t wait four-plus months, so I suppose I have to concede that they aren’t “exactly” the same. Still, I think both responses are better than DBB’s suggestion that the Amish run the war on terror. I’d prefer it if the Amish ran al Qaeda, but I don’t see Osama dressing like a Quaker any time soon.>

Someone commented that the function of forgiveness is to clear the head of anger, which then allows one to make smarter choices. This world will only know peace when the majority of people believe in all thier being that anger, hostility, revenge all are undesireable, low-rent motives for action. That forgiveness points the way to a higher standard of life for everyone. We too easily accept violence as a legitimate response or motive. I rather expect that the passengers and crew of flight 93 had a pretty good idea of what the situation was and acted together, not out of anger but of self-preservation. It seems they were able to make more clear headed decisions in a few minutes than our leaders were able to do in the many months folloiwing 9/11. Some of the posts have suggested that one must make exceptions to Christ’s teachings, that His teachings are not always workable or practical. On the occasions when I find myself thnking that way, I realize that is a lack of faith in what He has tried to teach us, You either trust Him and what He said or you don’t. You don’t just trust when you can see ahead to the outcome. Real faith comes often when doing as He said seems foolish.>

Timbo – Sorry, I didn’t mean that Bush was aggressive in the *execution* of the war. I meant that Bush was aggressive in the CHOICE to go to war. Many have made a strong case that he, Rummy and Wolfdog had a DESIRE to go to war (and long before 9/11). Some may argue that’s “necessary”. But it is also clearly and undeniably contrary to Jesus’ commands as revealed in the Gospels. I’m sorry your fear of Al Qaeda inclines you to so readily reject His message.>

S H – I agree. Many of the posts here are attempting to make Jesus conform to their needs. Clearly Jesus asks and invites US to do the opposite. To have US conform to HIM.>

Nicely written Diana. It will not happen soon, but it is wonderful to think about. It is also wonderful to know that the Amish have been able to perfect and maintain the spirit of the 16th century peacemaking Anabaptists! It is also interesting to note the context of the Mennonites and Amish beginnings and their peacemaking traditions. They developed this tradition in reaction to the warmaking of some fellow Anabaptists. Jan Matthys and Jan Bockelson van Leiden created a bloodbath in Munster. They were going to create the Kingdom of God through force. Having seen the results of this effort, Menno Simons and his colleagues deliberately chose the other way. They developed instead a peaceful and loving way to build the Kingdom. Slower, but it works! Perhaps the intentional living of the Amish make it possible to clearly see what works and what doesn’t. They have generations to perfect their ways and the patience to take the time to do it. —Rich>

I think the few of you that support “The war on terror” (as if that’s a fair description) are afraid. That’s the bottom line. You are afraid of loss. Those that don’t fear it but trust Christ in a much deeper fashion. They seem to understand sacrifice in a much bigger way than those of you that support this war in Iraq. Forgiveness doesn’t mean one doesn’t have a responsiblity to save lives. What forgiveness does is pave the way for reconciliation and healing. It allows for God to be the righteous judge we know he is instead of us. It allows for total transformation from wounded victim to transformed Saint. That’s what forgiveness does. It heals and restores. It hurts and brings life. This war in Iraq is not saving lives (look at the recent numbers to prove that one.) Would it be worse if we weren’t there? yes. is it getting worse since we are there? Yes. So what’s the alternative? p>

MattyD, what makes you think I haven’t wrestled with what Jesus says and have simply come to a different conclusion than you? You repeat that His directives are clear and undeniable, but I’m simply not buying that you can get to “No war, ever” from [pick your favorite pacifist passage and insert here]. One of the first questions I’d ask Jesus is how the Good Samaritan parable would be different if the robbery was still in progress. This is a vexing question. While I suspect the priest and Levite would have the same reaction, what would the Samaritan do? Fight the robbers off and help the man, or wait until the robbers had finished kicking the crap out of him and then help him? Are we to have waited until Saddam died before coming to the aid of our “neighbors” in Iraq? What about our “neighbors” in [pick any other nation where we would have to remove a brutal dictator by force in order to help them]? It seems you’d prefer to let others suffer while you followed one of Jesus’ directives and felt good about yourself than risk looking like a non-follower even if it means the difficult choice of fighting for your “neighbors.”>

‘I think the few of you that support “The war on terror” (as if that’s a fair description) are afraid. That’s the bottom line. You are afraid of loss.’ What exactly am I afraid of losing, Payshun?>

Timbo In answer to your question, it would seem to be “control”. And a reminder, we purportedly invaded Iraq not to help Iraqis, but to chase down phantom wmd’s.>

Timbo – I’m not saying “no war ever”. But Jesus, essentially, did. I’m just citing Him – Love your enemy, turn the other cheek and suffer injustices peacefully. All of which He personally demonstrated for us, should be inclined to think he was just kidding. I start with what JESUS SAID AND DID. Not with what I WISH he said and did. Why would you need to “wrestle” with this question? Jesus could not have been more clear. To conclude that Jesus would condone some wars is to take the exact opposite of what he said. How can taking the opposite possibly be a valid “interpretation”?>

Of what do I have control that I would lose? And where did you get your PhD in psychoanalysis? According to H.J. Res. 114 (the legislation which authorized the use of force in Iraq) we went into Iraq for many reasons, including but not limited to the following: Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677′; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688′; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338 ) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;>

“Jesus could not have been more clear. To conclude that Jesus would condone some wars is to take the exact opposite of what he said.” So Jesus said He doesn’t condone war? Where *exactly* does He say this in such a way that “[H]e” could not have been more clear”? Jesus said nothing about that evil battle of Jericho.>

Timbo – Great question. What would The Good Samaritan have done if he had come across the robbery in progress? Here’s what I think The Good Samaritan would have done: 1) He would attack someone else who had nothing to do with the robbery. 2) He would claim that the robber (who actually wasn’t the robber) had weapons he didn’t possess 3) He would take the robber to secret intelligence locations where he could beat the robber, free from the scrutiny of humanitarian groups or courts. 4) He would label the robber a prisoner of war, but deny him the rights of war prisoners. 5) He would hold the robber without charge. 6) He would hold the robber indefinitely. You’re right, Timbo. Now I understand why we’re the way we are. It’s practically in the Bible.>

For those of you who are interested, here is the official legislation authorizing the war in Iraq: Public Law 107-243.>

Re: Jesus being clear. Jesus was entirely clear in this regard throughout his entire message AND his actions. But some key highlights are – Love your enemy, turn the other cheek and suffer injustices peacefully. Then add the fact that he DEMONSTRATED all of these for us. You are apparently suggesting that you can love your enemy, turn the other cheek and suffer injustices peacefully by bombing, shooting, mining, severing, burning and radioactively poisoning someone. Sounds like the opposite to me.>

MattyD, for the sake of analogy, the victim is the Iraqi people, the robber is Saddam Hussein, the priest and Levite are the Clinton Administration and the U.N., and the Samaritan is analogous to the Bush Administration. You seem to still think that the Iraq War is about power, when it’s really about giving the oppressed people of the world the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. But I suppose freedom is only for those of you who follow Jesus while walking on the far side of the road as others are oppressed.>

Jesus also said that He and the Father are one. When the Father spoke to Saul in 1 Samuel 15:18, He said, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out” (NIV). I grant that Jesus was peaceful, but I don’t think He ever intended His example to mean that we turn a blind eye to those who are oppressed by evil brutal dictators, such as Saddam Hussein.>

Timbo – Now I think we’re getting closer to the heart of the matter. Christ-like intention. Purity of intention. If, IF, we accept that the Iraq war was solely and selflessly intended to give others the freedoms we enjoy (as you claim), then I think we may be getting closer to a regrettable, but possibly moral, action. Though based on the Gospels, that bar is extrordinarily high. But I do not think the evidence supports the purity of intention you claim. Space doesn’t allow me to totally deconstruct that alleged intention – i.e. bringing freedom. But I have seen many honest analysts make a convincing argument that our motives were much more ambiguous. For example – IF Saddam was evil (his action clearly seem so) and IF Saddam was a brutal dictator for decades (again, true) then WHY DID THE U.S. INITIATE SUPPORT FOR SADDAM in the 1980s? Why did we ally ourselves with him? Wasn’t he an “evil brutal dictator”? If, in 2003, we use as a central argument that Saddam “gassed his own people” in the early 80s, it begs the question – WHY DID WE INITIATE SUPPORT FOR SADDAM IN THE 80S AFTER HE GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE? Why did we lift arms and help him buy more weapons with which to terrorize his own people? The answer is, to counter Iran. See, it fit our interests to support an “evil brutal dictator”. OUR INTERESTS. Not the Iraqis. Next, when we look at the facts, we see that the U.S. supports “evil brutal dictators” around the world when they protect our economic-strategic interests. And we overthrow “evil brutal dictators” around the world when they undermine our economic interests. For example, if our fight is against “Islamofascism” why attack Iraq – a secular nation? Why not attack Saudi Arabia which is far more “Islamo” and far more “fascist”. The human rights abuses are far worse. And they are more directly invovled in terrorism. Can you guess why Timbo? I wish our intentions were noble. I wish our intentions were to bring freedom to Iraqis. But, given different geo-political circumstances, I can assure you that Bush would care no more about “Iraqi freedom” than he does about the other 158 nations we didn’t invade.>

I am an intelligence officer working for the US government. I am also a Christian who believes that being involved in the “process” is more important than watching and complaining to friends and fellow bloggers. Ms’ Bass’s article was interesting and thought-provoking, but I have been amazed at the amount of wrong information and mis-leading statements that have been posted in response. It seems that most people are more interested in “proving” themselves right than actually having a dialogue about what it means to (hopefully) positively influence the world. I admit, it is hard to keep our emotions balanced…I find myself answering from an emotional response more that what I truly believe. And having the courage to admit that sometimes, just sometimes, we are wrong about issues is a real mark of maturity.>

Do you not understand that the terrorist do not wish us well.They do not want our understanding….they want us to convert to Islam or die….period.We can forgive them all we want to and they will still kill us.How brain dead can you be??>

anonymously concerned, Please expand your thoughts on: a dialogue about what it means to (hopefully) positively influence the world. You seem to be speaking with a clear mind on this. .>

MattyD, I never said that our actions were “solely and selflessly intended.” I am sure there is self-interest on the part of many. And I acknowledge that the United States supported Saddam in the 1980s. You seem to be saying that unless our intentions are perfect the best course of action would be to do nothing. Unless we can liberate all 158 nations with brutal dictators, we should not liberate any. The removal of Saddam from power was the official policy of the U.S. as far back as 1998, and it’s a start. Sure, the Bush administration grossly misunderestimated the strength of the resistance, and there have been many mistakes. The difference between you and me however is that where I can acknowledge the imperfection of our intentions, you cannot admit even an ounce of genuine benefit that has come from our liberation of Iraq and her people. I’ve appreciated these exchanges, and will give you the last word.>

fcsanders, I agree with you that these fascist terrorists do not want our understanding and would as soon slit our childrens’ little throats as look at them. But I’d like to defend Diana’s point here. When responding to violence, there is a cycle involved. Violence begets violence is a truism that we can’t ignore. When the terrorists claim that we are The Great Satan and then, even if it were necessary for our protection, we end up goimg over there and dropping bombs on residential neighborhoods. All the terrorists have to do to make more terrorists is point to a dead child or a burned up home and say, “See, we told you so.” As such, if not because it’s the right thing to do, we still must offer forgiveness and empathy because it is the practical thing to do.>

How many innocent Iraqi lives are worth one innocent American life? All of them. Next question?>

Daniel, But the forgiveness and empathy cannot preclude the possibility of armed conflict. Violence begets violence? Not necessarily true. If there is a gunman on top of a clock tower, and you shoot him, that is a) likely to end the violence b) likely to prevent future violence, as other would-be clock tower killers are forewarned. Thus, we take out the clock tower gunman. Honestly, among the “pacifists” on this board, I see a lot of toggling back and forth between “Christ told us to be peaceful” and “this is a bad war”. The first argument renders the second argument null. If Christ forbade war, and we are to heed his call, then wars are wrong, regardless of how history has judged them. Pacifism, as a theory, leads down rabbit holes that make it extremely difficult to defend. If one is going to make a principled defense of the theory, they should do so (beginning with an explanantion of what we should have done in the face of Hitler’s armies). Otherwise, I think we should discuss what I think is the real point of contention, which is whether this is proper military action.>

‘Honestly, among the “pacifists” on this board, I see a lot of toggling back and forth between “Christ told us to be peaceful” and “this is a bad war”.’ Excellent observation.>

Timbo, Youre way of life, the ability to feel “safe” as you walk down the street. I think you are afraid that your neighborhood is going to look like Bagdhad in a few years. I think you or others that support this war are afraid that your children could be killed or even worse converted to their way of thinking. I think that’s what you are afraid of. p>

It really boils down to finding the peace in our own hearts and creating a universal, collective peace. That will change the world regardless of whether the path to that peace is through Jesus, Buddha, etc. Is it okay to use force to defend or advance the cause of peace? This seems to be a major challenge for many of us. If we know beyond all doubt that our use of force is to defend and protect peace, then it MAY be justified. However, when I think of the situation in Iraq, I believe that we took the wrong road to expanding peace and justice. Too many have died and we have failed to achieve the goal of peace. As for the incident in the Amish school, my heart goes out to all of those who are feeling the pain of that terrible incident and have lost peace of mind and faith. Our society, if not the world at large, must realize that it is essential for as many of us as possible to open our hearts and minds so that people feeling pain and hurt can turn to just about anybody for unconditional, non-judgmental help. We might not be able to prevent all tragedies that way, but it may be a more effective, long-lasting means of combating what we are seeing in the world – people acting out their pain and hurt by causing harm to others. Let us all pray for peace and understanding in our hearts.>

Kevin, We are actually talking about a war. That’s the context of the discussion. Unless we plan on killing everyone that could possibly become an insurgent, terrorist or para military then Daniel’s point stands. This is not some existential exercise where you get to prove a philosphical point. This is war. Only peace can end war, that or genocide. So how far do we take this war? That’s my question to you. I know you won’t answer it and that’s fine but sitting here and having a conversation about the Iraq war being the proper course of action is silly. Many of us have already come to a conclusion on that. So you already know your answer. It’s been written across many different posts during so many different days. The real question is how can we as Christians bring life into a situation where death reigns? I would love to hear you answer that one. p>

Nice post. Lovely stuff.>

Kevin, I don’t think your argument about the clock tower shooter applies to the present situation. In the present situation we have a nearly unlimited supply of terrorists, eager to take the place of the last martyr to their cause and themselves become martyrs. You can never kill them all by using the dominator approach. Were you around when we lost the Vietnam War? We thought we could “Bomb them back into the Stone Age”. We were proven wrong then and we haven’t learned that lesson. We will never defeat global terrorism until we address the root causes of terrorism. I’m not a pacifist, I’m just being practical. And by the way, the terms “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamofascism” are gross misnomers, introduced as a slur by the alarmist, extremist right. I think these terms demonstrate projection by the extremist right, which is far closer to fascism than the terrorists. Fascism has little to do global terrorism and just throws us off track in searching for the true causes of global terrorism. Most terrorism is a reaction to the insult of foreign occupation and domination of the indigeneous culture and religion. I would refrain from the use of the term “fascism” in relation to global terrorism, Islamic or otherwise. .>

The clock tower scenario was an effort to diffuse this meandering pacifism argument. Islamic terrorism is a slur by the extremist right? Shall we call it happy-fun terrorism? The root cause is Islamic extremism. that is the unifying facotr. You can say that it is a perversion of Islam’s teachings (it sorta is), but that’s why we call it extremism.>

“Only peace can end war, that or genocide.” What ended World War II?>

Kevin, I’m sorry. You’re wrong. You’re just plain wrong. There’s terrorism in Islamic countries, there’s terrorism in South America, there’s terrorism in Sri Lanka, there’s even terrorism in America by those who think we are occupied by a Zionist controlled government. Hatred is everywhere. The origins of terrorism around the planet are reactions to the insult of foreign occupation and domination of the indigeneous culture and religion. Until we recognize this fact, we will be unable to adress the root causes of terrorism. We will just go on killing and bankrupting our own economy in a futile crusade against the symptoms of terrorism Bin Laden’s strategy is working for him and we are just plain stupid not to see that. And if you need a label, you could just use “global terrorism”. .>

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Isacc Asimov 1920-1992>

“Toggle,” said the Boggle meister…. Some Sojourner-types are pacifists, some are nonviolent (and believe in the protective use of force). It’s pretty natural for a pacifist to say a specific ar is bad. Pacifism need not be defended and developed over and over again, reinventing the wheel. For a thorough case, I recommend Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You: http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html. He’s got four others that fully develop his position as well. In short, he would say to non-pacifists this: 1. Jesus says ‘do not resist he that is evil’; 2. This is a disclosure of the way God wants us to relate to the world – this world is temporal and unimportant and our fear is all ego and attachment to it and a losing sight of the next world; 3. This cannot be brushed away by saying it is impractical and that we could die if we don’t violate it. After all, he who saves his life will surely lose it. I am not a pacifist myself because I do not read the Bible strictly literally. I don’t think nonresistance is the ONLY way of engaging evil. But I have immense respect for people who do and try to live this way – they are erring on the right side. And after reading some Tolstoy you, like Gandhi, might find yourself far more convinced of the reasonableness of pacifism.>

There seem to be some unquestioned assumptions here: 1. Peace and War are binary — one or the other must prevail. That’s a mistake. For instance, for a long time in American life whites held African-Americans as slaves. For the most part there was no armed conflict, certainly not on a large scale that we would think of as war. But would you call slavery “peace”? 2. The other unexamined assumption is that one can unilaterally opt for peace. The Amish certainly would prefer that sort of thing, but their wishes were not respected, were they? Refusing to fight a war does not always mean peace. Sometimes it means exploitation or slavery. 3. The “cycle of violence”. I don’t think this cycle is automatic. Consider Germany and Japan after WWII. There’s at least one way to break down the cycle of violence: first defeat your enemy, then refuse to exploit them as empires have tended to do in the past. Instead treat them justly, show them mercy, and help them to rebuild. That, ultimately, is our plan for Iraq. I can’t guarantee success, but it worked pretty well in Germany and Japan after the Second World War. Wolverine>

Timbo & Kevin – Regarding “toggling” between “pacifism” and “this is a bad war”. Daniel addresses this well, but I’d like to add to it. In short, it’s not “toggling”. Take an example. The eight commandment says “Thou shall not steal”. So I strive not to steal. But is it “toggling” if I’m an Enron shareholder and I say the Enron theft is a *particularly* disgraceful and rephrensible case of theft? Or to say “I MOST emphatically reject and condemn this theft more than others”? I don’t think that’s inconsistent at all.>

Wolverine, The binary choice is between Clear thinking and stupidity. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Thanks, Kim .>

Kevin – re: “meandering pacifism” I don’t think it’s “meandering” at all. It’s quite solid, direct and rooted in Christ. What IS “meandering” is to attempt to say that Jesus’ positon on force, conflict and violence is anything but clear.>

Daniel – Thanks for the Tolstoy suggestion. I look forward to reading it.>

Kevin, You still did not answer any of my questions. But out of respect and an attempt at dialogue I will answer yours. WW 2 ended in peace not war. After we dropped two major bombs on Japan ceded defeat. So you could say that nukes ended that phase of the war and you would be wrong. what ended the war w/ Japan was Emperor Hirihoto bypassing the government and signing Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Germany lost the will to fight and that brought peace. Fighting only begets more fighting until one side decides to turn away. Please stop comparing this war in Iraq or looking for validity or what have you by making allusions to World War 2. It really weakens your arguments concerning this war. But then again most arguments for this war in Iraq are pretty weak to begin with. p>

Payshun, Germany did not lose the will to fight — in fact, most commentators will tell you that German morale remained high in both military and civilians until the Battle of the Bulge was lost. On the Eastern Front German units fought fiercely all the way up to the Siege of Berlin. In Japan, Hirohito intervened mainly because Japan was clearly losing the war and the alternative was a bloody invasion that Japan would likely have failed to repel. Hirohito decided not to resist and deserves credit for that decision, but it was dictated by military reality and concern for his country, not an abstract love of peace. Germany and Japan did not choose peace in a vacuum. Both had lost the capacity to fight. The Axis nations were substantially defeated and opted to recognize the inevitable. The “cycle of violence” can be defused by defeating the enemy then treating them fairly and helping them to rebuild. Wolverine>

Have to comment on the idea of unilaterally wishing for peace – someone did indeed bring violence to the Amish, but the Amish were at peace before it happened and the Amish are STILL at peace. They let the violence die by not picking it up and carrying it forward. Yes, they have suffered a loss, but their TRUST IN GOD has allowed them to remain at peace. I see a lot of posts on here about how WE have to respond and WE have to protect ourselves and WE must fight a war against terrorism. In absolute faith and trust in God, ALL of the response, protection and fighting can be left to GOD. This is not an easy thing to do because it requires giving up personal control, but it was the whole point of Christ’s ministry, and the reason He willingly sacrificed Himself for us.>

I’m sorry, but I think that you’re a little bit nuts. Gandhi made the same overtures to Hitler. You can’t compare the Amish shooting to the war on terror. As someone who has worked with criminals, I can tell you categorically that bad people view kindness as weakness, and then exploit that kindness to spread more evil. You are unbelieveably naive to think that passive resistance would work with Islamic terrorists. William Lloyd Garrison tried to stop slavery with 35 years of passive resistance, but it took the Civil War to free the slaves.>

Well said. Yes I’ve been thinking the same about putting the Amish in charge of the World. But unfortunately, they are Real Christians and don’t meddle in the affairs (corruption) of the world. The irony of it all is that this administration was supposed to be the “Christian ones”. We really need to learn more from either the Amish or Jesus, (or your own deity) and respect & love each other, before we leave the whole world blind, and politicians get even wealthier.>

Crowepps – That is astoundingly well said.>

Jesus made the comparison that we would be like lambs to the slaughter. Why is some of you would rather be like wolves. Once Hitler committed suicide the new leadership lacked the will to continue. So yes they did loose the will to fight. Was Japan defeated? Yep and what brought peace? Was it a bomb? No it was command from someone they saw as a god. Either way the war in Iraq is not this war. Iraq never attacked us unlike Japan. Afghanistan made sense but this war doesn’t. p>

Crowepps, The Amish are at peace now, in no small part, because the assailant took his own life. Wolverine>

“I see a lot of posts on here about how WE have to respond and WE have to protect ourselves and WE must fight a war against terrorism. In absolute faith and trust in God, ALL of the response, protection and fighting can be left to GOD. This is not an easy thing to do because it requires giving up personal control” How about the posts arguing that this is less about protecting ourselves as it is about protecting the world from terrorists? Has it ever occurred to you that God has called US to protect others? Of course not, because most everyone here has presumed that those of us who support the fight are being driven by fear and by a desire to be in control. It seems that if there were legitimate arguments you would not have to resort to psychoanalysis (e.g., Payshun’s highly presumptive analysis of my psychological state). Perhaps when you drop the bulverism a fruitful dialogue can take place, but until then, this blog is nothing more than a self-righteous monologue. God have mercy on us, for we are sinners.>

Payshun, Yes, in both cases there was a “decision” to surrender. But that decision was not made in a vacuum. Both nations were defeated militarily. In Germany Berlin had been overrun, and Japan was on the brink of an invasion. You seem to want to pretend that the Axis forces didn’t really lose World War II, they just got bored with it. Wolverine>

Wolverine, they are not listening to you, even though your posts are clear headed. I think that Iraq was a mistake, but at the same time I believe in the just war theory. WWII was a just war. I’m afraid that bookish people have not had much contact with real evil, so they fancy that “being nice” will make the bad people go away. Utopian thinking doesn’t work in the real world. Further, I have my doubts about what the Amish did. I wonder of each and every individual Amish person felt a true sense of forgiveness toward the killer? Forgiveness takes time. No reason to blame the killer’s family, I’ll grant you. But would I have gone to the funeral of my child’s killer? No way. We’re getting into enabling territory here folks. It would be glorious if love could stop the jihad; but the jihad will cease only when every Israeli has been driven into the sea.>

Timbo – 1) I understand your desire to believe we have the noble intentions of protecting others. And I’m sure it is your motivation in supporting the war. Some others as well. And that is probably a good thing. But the evidence of what drove our leadership to war in Iraq just doesn’t support your “noble protector” theory. Some reliable accounts that undermine the assumption are “Against All Enemies”, “Cobra II”, “Fiasco”, and “State of Denial”. 2) I don’t “presume” that you (or other war defenders) are driven by fear and a desire to be in control. But I do see enourmous evidence that the Bush adminstration is driven by a desire to be in control. And a very low moral standard for justifying war.>

Mel – 1) By “bookish” people, do you mean people who actually read the Gospels? Because that is the source of my rejection of the Iraq war. As it is the source for many, many other Americans. 2) I didn’t see anyone suggest that we should “be nice”. But I have seen many people here suggest, as the Amish attempt to do, that as Christians we ought to — first and foremost — attempt to follow Christ. Not change what he said and did to fit our needs. 3) I understand the appeal of war, especially among those who aren’t actually in it. But if you object to being in “enabling” territory, take your objection up with Jesus.>

Payshun, i sort of used my agreements/disagreements with Daniel to answer your question. I think the path to providing a light to the Iraqis comes through democracy. I think the gradual (and it will be very gradual… how long did it take for Germany to become fully democratic?) shift to democracy will gradually reduce the power of Islamic extremist thugs. With these things in place, I think people will see the folly of Islam, which gives us a lot more wiggle room. It will also grant their country much more autonomy in terms of repairing and maintaining infrastructure, and establishing a healthy economy. At that point, we send missionaries (and we have been already) to the region to establish churches, which will spread the word of Christ.>

“But the evidence of what drove our leadership to war in Iraq just doesn’t support your “noble protector” theory.” Protecting other nations is part and parcel of preserving Democracy. It is not an either/or scenario.>

No we don’t think that evil will go away. Quite the opposite. The only difference is we are willing to live out the gospel in a way that you are not. You think bombing innocent countries will solve the problem of terrorism. We don’t think that at all. We know they will not go away and I am all for an actual war conducted in a way that actually makes sense. I believe in peace and will fight for it. But there is a cognitive dissonance w/n me. I know that we need to conduct a war done in secret where we actually fight cell to cell instead of invading countries. But as a Christian I hate that and that’s where I stand. I know that in my life I must be willing to lay down my life and any other entanglement before God but if someone were to harm someone I cared about I think I would do almost anything to save them. Then the words of Christ step in and I wonder if I would be able to do what both Abraham and God himself were willing to do. I know that I would be willing to sacrifice anything for him including my own children. p>

mattyd, I’m one of those “bookish” people who read all the gospels. What I saw in them was the life story of the Son of God and savior of mankind, not a political polemic or a pacifist tract. Yes, Jesus taught a non-violent ethic, but he was speaking mainly to his own followers, and never addressed his comments to political or military leaders. In fact, he specifically praised a Roman Centurion for the depth of his faith, without so much as hint that the centurion should resign his post in the Roman Army. Now I’ll admit that doesn’t prove the entire theory of just war, much less validate Iraq. But it does suggest that Jesus view of war might have been a bit more nuanced than “War is bad”. Wolverine>

Leonard Porcano Thank you for your post, you’ve put in a few simple words a simple truth that would have change the course of humanity if it had been accepted by the Church after the death of the apostles. No killing for the differences on the understanding of the Trinity, no Crusades, no Inquisition, no slavery trade by “Christian” European Countries, no apparteid “Evangelical Christian” government and Churches in South Africa… , no racial laws, no St Barthelemy in France, no Shoah, no Indians killing in South and North America, no over 600 000, mostly women and children dead in Irak since 9/11… More than Plus de 35.000 Iraki chr tiens have left Irak for Syria to flee the violences in Irak, according a leader of Christian organisation in Irak… All this and much more have been have been the fruit of decision made by governements who called themself “Christians” one way or another… on every continent… Phil>

The question I see presented in one of faith. Do we have the faith to set our son on an alter and begin to sacrificing him to God? Do we have the faith to walk upon the sea during a roaring storm? Do we have the faith to walk through the valley of death armed not with weapons but only with the belief that God is with us? The Amish community exercised extreme faith. After 9/11 did our nation actions place its faith in God? Or did it place its faith military might?>

Jesus was not against war contrary to what many pacifists say. But he did not want a war fought the way that many on the right think. he told his disciples to buy a sword. Why is anyone’s guess? Pacifists always forget that. But he was all about loving and visiting prisoners in jail and loving them. The right always forget that. The only recorded violent act of Jesus was because of greed, nationalism and racism of the jews. They blocked the gentiles from being able to pray in the part of the temple that they were allowed in. So again Jesus was for peace and willing to lay down his life because he loved his father. How many Christians today (in the west or on this board) are willing to do the same? That’s the question we should be all asking ourselves. Jesus was very clear about making disciples that would risk all and everything they loved to follow him. I don’t find the right (spiritually and politically) even paying attention to that. I don’t see the left speaking against complacency either. But the left is talking about loving the poor while the right says that people should work. If we are going to have a discussion about this then let’s see where each of us stands on the war and the just war theory. Just war theory is a joke to me. But justice is something we must pursue in war. Can we do it when we drop bombs? I don’t know. I don’t think so; I always thought they were different. p>

Wolverine, I absolutely agree. But notice how the discussion of war changes when we START by actually recognizing what Jesus said and did. To be honest, I subscribe to the Just War Theory as formulated by Augustine, Aquinas combined with the Gospels. The problem is that the ACTUAL Just War Theory is VASTLY different from the Just War Theory of common American usage. The true Just War Theory standards are EXTRORDINARILY HIGH. In mainstream American usage, the J.W.T. has become almost entirely gutted of any actual moral or Christian meaning. It now effectively justifies any military action that we can put a good PR spin on. It stops nothing. Like an alcoholic having a “just one drink” theory. Yes, there is room for interpretation of Jesus’ message. The problem is, we’re too lazy and self-serving in our “interpretations”. We’re too eager to change Jesus to fit us, rather than changing us to fit Jesus. Given all this, our “interpretations” end up FLATLY CONTRADICTING Jesus’ clear, consistant message. Thats why I think Christianity’s approach to war needs to move closer to the words and deeds of Jesus.>

Mattyd, Would you mind explaining what you meant when you wrote that “The problem is that the ACTUAL Just War Theory is VASTLY different from the Just War Theory of common American usage”? Wolverine>

Wolverine – The JWT properly understood is a check AGAINST war in all but the most dire and extreme circumstances (difficult to elaborate here). But the JWT as Americans often use it, becomes a JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR – as long as you can think of some reason. (Noriega is bad, Saddam is bad, communism is bad (Vietnam)). Those two “interpretations” of the JWT are terribly different. And the latter is almost entirely incapable of preventing ANY war/force or violence – just or unjust.>

why is it that pacifism just seems so dangerous?>

Joel, Because, if taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to anarchy.>

Diana, Good post. While I embrace, more and more, an anabaptist Christianity, I can’t completely track with your ending. That’s because passages like Romans 13 remain in our Bibles, and do take seriously the place of the state and of them wielding the sword. Nevertheless America and the Bush administration would have done so much better to take into account what you’re talking about here. Instead their actions have answered the attacks with what can, in itself, only result in more of the same, I believe. Thanks.>

I’d say we should run an Amishman for office. In fact, we should seek their way of life as a positive way to live in community with one another.>

In response to ‘Joey’, “So how do you balance a need for peace in the long term with security in the short-term?” Jesus never promised us security in this world. He taught that trying to hang on to the things of this world (to be secure here) was not important and counterproductive to seeking the kingdom of God. He DID say ‘my peace I give you’ and ‘blessed are the peacemakers’. Having been raised in an ultra conservative church, I joined a Mennonite church 7 years ago because there I found people truly trying to live as they believed Christ wanted them to. (By the way, Mennonite Central Committee has a fund to collect donations for the Amish community.)>

What Diana’s thoughts did for me, was to make me consider what needs to change within my soul, my heart, my thoughts, my lifestyle … those often unconscious motivators from which my actions flow. Should not my guiding principles become more Christ-like (Philippians 2) so that Christ-like peacemaking is part of who I am, like it is part of the Amish culture? It is easy to let our US cultural views and our patriotism color our personal religious fabric and cloud our understanding of who Jesus Christ was and is and is to come. Thank you Diana. Kathy>

Dorie, Mennonites use the internet? Apparently I don’t know enough about the culture, because I didn’t know that. That’s great! Welcome!>

I believe in non-violence even though I am torn. As a believer that has seen it work I know it can. I know that I will pay whatever cost needs being payed to make that work but I don’t know if I always will. That’s the hard part that troubles me. On the other hand the more intimacy I have had w/ the Holy Spirit the deeper my love for peace grows. So again I don’t know what I am trying to say except that the Spirit will guide us and if we listen to him then everything will be ok. p>

Before we can get to forgiveness we must first learn to grieve. What America did after 9/11 was first to turn in on itself and then try to rid itself of pain by giving it to someone else – Afganis, Iraquis, Muslums. What Jesus, and the Amish in this case, mamaged to do was hold onto their pain and live with it. Grief will take us through many emotions but if we act them all out we will only succed in spreading the pain and loss and violence around like a spiritual virus. For most of us, and I suspect even Jesus, we must first grieve and let go before we can forgive, that’s the first step in a process that can lead to reconcilliation rather than more violence.>

Kevin, I think you undersold your argument above about anarchy. Pacifism could lead to anarchy in a vacuum, but in a vacuum it wouldn’t matter because they wouldn’t need to defend themselves from anyone else. The problem is that in the face of evil expansion being a pacifist allows good to shrink. Jesus said, ‘resist not he that does evil’ and ‘he who lives by the sword will surely die by the sword.’ But remember his second commandment – love your neighbor as yourself. Would you have yourself defended from evil? If you think your neighbor’s life is not worth preserving from the attacks of an enemy, what does that say about our definition of love? As Rabbi Hillel said around the same time, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” The Gospels are filled with Jesus inflicting pain in people. Billy Bob, you have to sell your wealth. Ann, you have to leave your family. Francois, you are a hypocrite. And so on. Inflicting pain in people is the only way to get them to improve and change their ways. (See CS Lewis’ The Problem of Pain and Thomas Merton’s No Man Is An Island for a full development of this idea.) The sinful nature is Pride – we want what we want when we want it. But humans live together and our desires come into conflict with other peoples’ desires. Salvation, this side of death, is primarily the working out of selfishness and learning to value others as yourself. Pacifism does not argue with this. Therefore it is willing to inflict emotional and mental pain on people to influence them. Just not bodily pain. I’d like to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the types of pain. Spanking a child and gently denying and redirecting are both painful for the child. The moral distinction comes in the way of relating to the person. So, can inflicting physical pain ever come from love? Sure. When my 2-year old tries to kick my pregnant wife in the stomach because he doesn’t get the safety issue there, I can’t be satisfied to reason with him until he gets it. I have to restrain him to the point of pain (he’s strong!). I do so because I love my wife, my son, and my unborn son…. So imagine we are in the room with a madman and he is about to execute ten little girls in cold blood. Would Jesus have simply reasoned and pleaded with him while he went down the row shooting them in the head? I serously doubt it.>

A caveat to that last post. As I see it inflicting pain for punitive reasons is immoral but inflicting pain for protective reasons can be moral. I view spanking a child as punitive – they will behave out of fear and not because it is the right thing to do.>

non-violent does not mean non-active. violence tends to escalate. so why is fighting fire with fire the most rational or christian response?>

If this is a Christian country… then let’s act like Christians, peacemakers who love their enemies and forgive.>

Great article. I am again reminded of something Dallas Willard once said: “One is always safe in the Kingdom of God.” Not safe as the world sees it, but in a far deeper sense, rooted in the Creator who formed the foundations of the world, the eternal I Am. BTW, this is not just an academic point for me. I grew up in a country that is 97% muslim and have experienced plenty of less than ideal security as the world sees it. You want real security? Follow Jesus and seek first God’s Kingdom.]]> 2006-10-14T16:32:42-05:00 Jeff murwiz@gmail.com 216.163.42.45

I liked the article, and it’s an interesting way to think about the war. While the parallel is not perfect (most parallels aren’t), we should consider seriously what Christ said. While the disciples did carry swords, Jesus also rebuked Peter when he cut off the ear of one of those who were arresting Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane. Much of Christ’s teachings are contrary to what is considered prudent and comfortable, yet he didn’t just talk, He lived it out. What makes us think that we’re exempt from the teaching and example of Christ, even when it’s dangerous, unsafe, or otherwise inconvenient? In our walk with God, we were never meant to be safe. I’m not a pacifist by definition, but I do believe that war is only justified if it is to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. First of all, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, except for the fact that the president conflated the issues in such a way that many Americans couldn’t tell the difference. Secondly, the war on terror, and the war on Iraq for that matter, were clearly not waged to protect the world. The fact is that as far as terror goes, terrorism has been occurring all over the world for decades, way before 9/11. Did our government decide to wage a “war on terror” then? No. It is clear that the war on terror is to protect ourselves. And as the Word says “whoever tries to save his live will lose it.” As for the war on Iraq, our government did not care about “protecting innocent Iraqis” back in the 1980s when most of the most egregious atrocities took place. Why now? Because of lucrative private business contracts? Oil? The Bush administration is not a “Good Samaritan.” Last thing…those on United 93 engaged in self-sacrifice by taking on the hijackers knowing that otherwise the plane would’ve flown into another building like the other three (reports suggest that they did know beforehand about the other planes). On the other hand, Bush has taken the bravado attitude of “Bring it on!!” while he sends other people to fight rather than taking up the sword or sending off his military-age daughters, making me wonder if he even believes his own rhetoric. Even in the Old Testament, leaders themselves routinely engaged in battle. We reap what we sow…considering that this administration, which represents us, is sowing unjust violence, how can we expect to reap peace?>

Jessica, the “war for oil” argument is a canard. Iraq had oil interests in the 1980′s, and we didn’t invade then, either. Scripture allows for government to use the sword to protect itself. If we ut our faith in government, we are, in fact, clinging to this life, but it is not the same to say that we cannot defend ourselves.>

Why would we be forgiving anyone in Baghdad? Nobody there did anything to us before we invaded them, and they weren’t involved in 9-11. In fact, Saddam was ready to leave the country and allow the UN to hold elections, but we thought that invasion was what we really wanted. Real forgiveness would be if the people of Baghdad forgave us. And then, a 9-11 skeptic would feel the need to forgive our own leaders. The Amish were pretty cool, however.>

The Amish leach off the willingness of others (be it police or military) to lay down their lives and to take the lives of others so that the they (the Amish) can maintain their lifestyle of segragation and seclusion in tranquility. If others were not willing to take the actions that the Amish themselves will not undertake, the Amish would have perished long ago.>

Jason, history shows that Anabaptists have at times shed plenty of their own blood for sake of the Gospel. Many were martyred, but collectively they survived persecutors every bit as grim the current crop of radical Islamists. It’s unreasonable to expect the state to follow them, but it’s also fair to ask whether Christians should cooperate in the actions of a state which has the precise opposite of a New Testament outlook.>

The Anabaptists allowing their own blood to be shed is their decision. However, government institutions involve third parties. It’s fine for an individual to turn the other cheek. Buth does one have a Christian duty to in effect turn someone else’s cheek and allow that person to suffer injury in the name of non-violence? Should a police officer tell a crime victim to turn the other cheek?>

Amen! A very good piece of logic. I do not pretend to understand all the political rationalizations, and implications, But truth is truth, and you have told it.>

One more thing though, Many times God has used a Nation’s “War Machine” to enforce consequences on those who attack His people. God’s Love/Forgiveness is not without boundaries, neither should ours be. The proactive stance of the Amish is the biblical goal for us in individual relationships. However, a Government is many times led in different ways by that same God. Forgiveness is not necessarily defined by a lack of consequences (nor is peace necessarily an absence of violence) – I think the idea is to let God himself decide what those consequences should be as opposed to our designing them. If those in leadership are seeking His counsel in pursuing the terrorists – and I can not pretend to know – then God is using them to execute His judgement. God’s Word says, “As far as it concerns…us, we should… be at peace with all men.” There are times when we do not have the ability to control that. Still, it would be a great move toward world peace if we could just manage to extend this kind of forgiveness to our inlaws! lol God Bless you for your thought provoking artilcle.>

Jason The amish don’t leach off of anyone. They live independently and are completely self sufficient in every way. The same thing you said at the end could be said for any group. p>

I really cant understand – what is so difficult in following what Jesus has expressly asked us to do – to love our enemies – to the point of even forgiving them – for without forgiveness there is no real Love. Why is it so difficult for a Chritian to forgive (your enemy – who ever it may be) and then Trust GOD with the healing process. It is not for the Christian to speculate what the other party (your enemy) is going to do and base our present actions while speculating on the future. Just Forgive, Trust GOD and then leave it to the other party (your enemy) to decide what he wants to do. I am more than convinced that GOD will not let your faith down – and despite this if the Christian is attacked in return then its between the enemy and his conscience (or his GOD) to deal with. Why is it so difficult for a Christian to let GOD do what he wants to do ? That said – “turning the other cheek” probably sounds ludicrous to many Christians and Churches today !>

While I don’t accept some of the premises, I applaud the sentiment. In a similar vein, I think that we owe an apology to the Iraqi people for what we have done to their country. If we hadn’t tried to do it on the cheap, had waited and planned better, had listened to Colin Powell, had suppressed our egos in the interest of humanity, then maybe we wouldn’t have done it or if we had we might not have killed over a half million people in cold blood. I hope someday the Iraqi’s will forgive us.>

I’ve just found this blog and it is indeed interesting. What if this had been America’s response to Pearl Harbour? Then it would have continued to disregard the plight and suffering of Europe. Britain, was exhausted and broke (an indication of just how near collapse it was might be seen in the fact that we only finished paying you back our debts in the war on 31.12.2006), it wouldn t have been able to hold out for long. I for one and glad that you didn’t react in that way, or I as a Bible preaching minister would now be living in hiding and my Jewish friends would all be dead. The Amish are to be in admired, but their lifestyle exists only because of the protection afforded them by people who live by different rules. You talk of their toleration, but we know how they faired when they tried to live by their rules in a hostile society. It could not stand up against persecution and they fled from Europe to a place that would protect and tolerate them. This is why you have Amish in the US and we don’t have them in Europe. Without others being willing to fight and die for their right to live as they choose they would not exist. I think that US foreign policy has failed badly, if life were re-run we would do things differently, but with hindsight everyone has perfect vision. Are those who offer simplistic solutions willing to wager the lives of millions of people on their ideas and take the guilt if they don t work out? This is what our politicians have to do. Yes the Amish can withstand one attack with vast dignity, but what if such attacks happened every week, every day, every hour, until they vanished. Would we then seek to follow their example? Would we be willing to live knowing that because of our tolerance and forgiveness our children were going to die? Works are very cheap. Those who see the message of Jesus as an easy solution have never understood how truly radical and costly it is. I m not saying its this is the wrong approach, but are you willing to pay the ultimate price to lay your wives, husbands children and grandchildren unprotected before the wolves that would chose to slaughter them the Amish weren t they moved somewhere else; now there is nowhere to flee.>