Easter's Challenge to Empire (by N.T. Wright)
Jesus came with a job to do, to complete the work to which Israel was called. This work, from the call of Abraham onwards, was to put the human race to rights, and so to put the whole creation to rights. As the gospel writers tell the story, this task was to be accomplished by Jesus bringing about the sovereign healing rule of the creator God. Jesus was addressing the question, "What might it look like if God was running this show?" And answering, "This is what it looks like: just watch." And then, "just listen." In what he did, and in the stories he told, Jesus was announcing and inaugurating what he referred to as "the kingdom of God," the long-awaited hope that the creator God would run the whole show, on earth as in heaven.
But the problem was, and is, that other people are still running the show. Other kingdoms, other power structures, have usurped the rule of the world's wise creator, and the forces of evil are exceedingly powerful and destructive. Jesus' task of inaugurating God's kingdom therefore necessarily led him to meet those forces in direct combat, to draw upon himself their full, dark fury so as to exhaust their power and make a way through to launch the creator's project of new creation despite them. That is one clue at least to the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion, though that event, planting the sign of God's kingdom in the middle of space, time, and matter, remains inexhaustible. But let's be clear. As the gospels tell the story, Jesus' death was the culmination of several different strands: a political process, a religious clash, a spiritual war, all rushing together into one terrible day, one terrible death. And in the light of that, according to Jesus himself and his first followers, everything in the world looks different, is different, must be approached differently. With Jesus' death, the power structures of the world were called to account; with his resurrection, a new life, a new power, was unleashed upon the world. And the question is: How ought this to work out? What should we be doing as a result?
If we are to think Christianly, then we must think according to the pattern of Jesus Christ. And that means that the first place we should look for God in the "War on Terror" would be in the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers, and then in the ruins of Baghdad and Basra, the shattered homes and lives of the tens of thousands who have through no fault of their own been in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the angry superpower, like a rogue elephant teased by a little dog, has gone on the rampage stamping on everything that moves in the hope of killing the dog by killing everything within reach. The presence of God within the world at a time of war must be calibrated according to what Paul says in Romans 8, that the Spirit groans within God's people as they groan with the pain of the world. The cross of Jesus Christ is the sign and the assurance that the God who made the world still loves the world and, in that love, groans and grieves.
But God wants his rebel world to be ordered, to be under authorities and governments, because otherwise the bullies and the arrogant will always prey on the weak and the helpless; but all authorities and governments face the temptation to become bullies and arrogant themselves. The New Testament writers, like other Jews at the time, saw this writ large in the Roman empire of their day. Those with eyes to see can see it in other subsequent empires, right down to our own day.
It is the task of the followers of Jesus to remind those called to authority that the God who made the world intends to put the world to rights at last, and to call those authorities to acts of justice and mercy which will anticipate, in the present time, the future, coming, final victory of God over all evil, all violence, all arrogant abuse of power. And where the world's rulers genuinely strive for that end, the Christian church declares as the ancient Jews did with the pagan king Cyrus, that God's Spirit is at work—whether the authorities know it or not.
Insofar as the last five years have constituted a wake-up call to sleepy western Christians to think urgently about issues of global justice and governance, we can see God, I believe, in that new stirring, warning us that we have a task and that we haven't been doing it too well. In particular, we must face the deeply ambiguous question of the present power and position of America. I am not anti-American when I criticise some policies of some American leaders, any more than I am anti-British when I criticise some of the policies of my own elected leaders. To suggest otherwise is simply a cheap way of avoiding the real questions. The creator God allows societies to rise and fall, empires to grow and wane. And though things are massively more complicated than this, we could see in the rise of America as the current sole superpower some great possibilities for bringing justice and mercy, genuine freedom and prosperity, to the whole world. Empires always carry that possibility. But empires also face the temptation to use their power for their own prestige and wealth. The challenge now is to provide a critique of American empire without implying that the world should collapse into anarchy, and a fresh sense of direction for that empire without colluding with massive abuses of power.
Where then is God in the war on terror? Grieving and groaning within the pain and horror of his battered but still beautiful world. Stirring in the hearts of human beings the desire for a more credible structure of global justice and mercy. Burning into the imagination of human beings a hope that peace and reconciliation might eventually win out over suspicion and hatred, that the world may be put to rights and that we may anticipate that in the present time. The Christian gospel, revealing the mysterious God we discover in Jesus and the Spirit, offers a framework for discerning where God is at work in the midst of the dangers and opportunities that confront us. All of us in our different callings are summoned to this task; some of you, perhaps, to make it your life's work. Jesus is Lord. The Spirit is powerful. God is doing a new thing. Let's get out there and join in.
Dr. N.T. Wright is a New Testament theologian and the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. He is the author of many books, including Surprised by Hope, and Evil and the Justice of God. This post is adapted from his lecture "Where is God in ‘The War on Terror?'" and is used with permission by the author.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
N.T. Wright wrote:
And that means that the first place we should look for God in the "War on Terror" would be in the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers, and then in the ruins of Baghdad and Basra, the shattered homes and lives of the tens of thousands who have through no fault of their own been in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the angry superpower, like a rogue elephant teased by a little dog, has gone on the rampage stamping on everything that moves in the hope of killing the dog by killing everything within reach.
Whatever one's opinion of the War in Iraq (I'm less certain the initial invasion was justified than I was when the war began) Wright has no grounds to accuse the US of indiscriminate slaughter -- "killing everything within reach".
More to the point, that "little dog" did more than "tease" the elephant -- it plotted murder and succeeded 3,000 times. One can argue that the Iraq invasion wasn't justified, but please, let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the US wasn't sorely provoked.
This exercise in denial and hyperbole does N.T. Wright no credit.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 24, 2008 4:28 PM
Wolverine, the U.S. has inflicted many more deaths on Iraq than the U.S. suffered itself on 9/11, and Iraq is not the culprit in that crime.
Every analogy breaks down, but this one is fairly apt.
Posted by: Jeff W | March 24, 2008 4:46 PM
Beautiful message. Thanks so much for expressing clearly what I've felt so deeply for the last five years. Let's hope many people are listening.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 24, 2008 4:55 PM
Wolverine -
The idea that we are thrashing about wildly in the hopes of killing the dog by killing everything within reach seems to me the perfect metaphor for the way our foreign policy has been carried out since 9/11. You can call it hyperbole if you want, but where's the denial? Sure, the dog has been injured. So what, if in the process we're undermining the very fabric of the Gospel? (And if I weren't absolutely convinced that that's what we're doing, I wouldn't be writing this.)
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 24, 2008 4:59 PM
As he does so often, Wright knocks it out of the park. A towering intellect.
"The challenge now is to provide a critique of American empire without implying that the world should collapse into anarchy, and a fresh sense of direction for that empire without colluding with massive abuses of power."
The history of empires suggests that it's not likely the American empire will adopt a "fresh sense of direction." But, of course, the history of humanity suggested that it was impossible that Jesus would rise from the dead on that Sunday morning.
That is fundamental to the Resurrection message addressed so well by Wright in "Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church," a wonderful book that in part is a popular distillation of his massive "The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God)."
Posted by: carl copas | March 24, 2008 5:55 PM
Wolvie - I see President Cheney was/is once again over kissing up to the Saudis. Wonder if he asked them anything about the origins of 9/11 since some of their laddies were apparently involved.
Maybe one of the Saudi big shots who just paid $14 million for a license plate that reads Saudi #1 could make a contribution to the war on terror seeing as how they're such good buds w/ Dick.
America legitimately claims to be many things. Nonetheless, any claim that links it to NT Christianity is listing. Badly!
Posted by: canucklehead | March 24, 2008 6:06 PM
Amazing, I've had five responses to my first comment, and not one touched on my main point.
Let's try this again: by attempting to portray terrorists as a harmless "little dog", and the attacks of September 11, 2001 as "teasing", N.T. Wright fails utterly to acknowledge the evil and capacity for murder that extremist Islam has exhibited in the past and for all we know is capable of unleashing again.
I think there is a case to be made that the invasion of Iraq was ill-advised, but that case is not advanced by trying to portray the smashing of airliners into towers as a form of "teasing".
Wolverine
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 24, 2008 6:46 PM
Correction -- three responses, not five.
The main point still stands: describing terrorism as an act of "teasing" is entirely inappropriate.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 24, 2008 6:53 PM
Wolverine -
Look at it this way. Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than were killed on 9/11. This makes me and a lot of other people angry: angry enough to do many things to cut down on drunk driving fatalities and punish those who drive drunk.
Nobody has suggested, though, that we address the problem by launching a frontal assault on Interstate 40, even though doing so would arguably reduce the number of fatalities from drunk driving considerably.
Here's why: Drunk driving is a force of nature, and everybody understands that. Nothing we can do is going to stop it completely. Terrorism, I submit, is also a force of nature. We can take steps to slow it, and attempt, through proper legal channels, to punish those who commit it. But that is all we can do.
So let's pay attention to the main thrust of Wright's essay, which is that "God is doing a new thing. Let's get out there and join in." Amen.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 24, 2008 6:59 PM
It's called collateral damage. Shock and Awe wasn't just smart bombs going down exhaust shafts for TV. If all the civilian deaths in Iraq are not indiscriminate, were they intended? God causes rain to fall on the evil and the good. Do not our bombs do the same?
Posted by: dlowen | March 24, 2008 7:27 PM
Wolverine: "The main point still stands: describing terrorism as an act of "teasing" is entirely inappropriate."
Is a metaphor a comparison that suggests a one-to-one correspondence?
For argument's sake, let's agree that Wright should have used a more apt metaphor; let's change "little dog" and "teasing" to "lone wolf" and "attacking." Now, what is the thrust of Wright's piece, do you agree, and why or why not?
Posted by: carl copas | March 24, 2008 8:10 PM
This exercise in denial of reality does Wolverine no credit
Posted by: meurig | March 24, 2008 10:32 PM
2800 dead in 20 minutes accomplished what?
4000 U.S. soldiers + ???000 Iraqis dead in 5 years accomplished what?
the Saudis continue to pull in billions in oil royalties and Osama lives on
so, what, precisely has changed since Sept 10/01 apart from GWB alienating most of the U.S.'s former military allies?
Posted by: canucklehead | March 24, 2008 11:50 PM
I think the word teasing is quite apt. Teasing can be very cruel and provocative. When violent and powerful entities interact violence is often part of the tactic used to provoke a response. I don't think Wright is making a moral equation, but using condensed language to describe the actions of large or aspiring powers.
My critique concerns Wright's idea that the empire can be directed for good. Jesus teaching was fundamentally antithetical to earthly empires. I think Wright earlier and more strongly suggested the same, that Jesus was the incarnate message of a better way. The ideas don't cohere at this point. The whole message dashes to pieces on this incompatibility. Why is he sure people need an imperial authority. He suddenly substitutes the Phariseeism of Paul for the example and teaching of Jesus.
All empires are predicated on obedience to the imperial program of stealing from and subduing those who are weaker. They are not organized around wisdom and persuasion but compliance, efficiency and power . Most empires fall for the same reason as Babylon. They can't see the writing on the wall. We need new models, experiments in grace and freedom, communities that measure themselves by the health of the weakest member, and see the inherent wisdom of the ecology of the creation. Species diversity, not the deadening monoculture of empire.
Posted by: jonabark | March 25, 2008 12:36 AM
Thank you, N.T. Wright, for an excellent commentary. I appreciate your insight and your metaphors were right on. I see you have attracted quite a response from the resident "word pharisee."
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 25, 2008 3:42 AM
Thank you for your faithfulness Tom.
Grace and peace,
Jarrod
Posted by: Jarrod Saul McKenna | March 25, 2008 6:38 AM
"...the angry superpower, like a rogue elephant teased by a little dog, has gone on the rampage stamping on everything that moves in the hope of killing the dog by killing everything within reach."
I will side with Wolverine and his critics.
I deeply appreciate the commentary.
If we are to think christianly, as Wright asks, and note the war of the kingdoms--for which kingdom is the elephant and the dog fighting?
I am not sure if it is even wise to attempt to frame the actions of a government in Kingdom terms. I do it for my internal understanding--but pushing that language into the public sphere is difficult.
In my mind 9/11 and the devastation in Iraq are collateral damage of the Enemy's assault. I believe we are a fat, lazy, intoxicated society unable to make basic decisions of morality and justice. It has rendered our policy-making to be shamefully flailing about--in a world that at best, is no better.
I opposed war from Day 1, and can barely listen to G Bush (I don't even try). Nevertheless, I believe, he believes in his "Freedom" argument.
G Bush is a moral giant in a lost society where the Church is asleep and not humbled before God. When I say he is a moral giant, I mean his grabbing onto "Freedom" is the best he can do, and is better than the social fabric in which he is operating.
Would one war stop if the United States fell off the planet today?
The point of agreement between Wolverine and critics is the amount of devastation that the kingdoms in opposition to the Creator's desires are heaping on the Earth. Does it truly matter whether it is the Elephant or the Dog??
I, probably like Wolverine, got hooked by the "killing everything within reach" comment. No, this is the bull walking through the china shop as peacefully as a bull can walk through a china shop (and bulls shouldn't be in china shops)
Part of the need for sober heads and hearts is the immense danger of an all-out war. And in this I think persons like Wolverine may feel profoundly misunderstood. The attacks on 9/11 were not the run-of-the-mill suicide bomber or pipe bomber, nor the equivalent of the first Trade Center bombing, or attack on US barracks in Lebanaon.
What would the elephant have done if the plane that landed in a farm field had landed in the US Sentate or the White House? These were direct, dramatic, and deadly attacks at a global system and at 'decapitating' the US nation (and the US as international police force). This was not a teasing dog, but a Pit Bull going for the jugular.
The problem is the jugular belonged to a powerful drunk man who is flailing about; and frankly is not even concerned he may need to sober up and stand on his two feet. And this flailing IS immensely evil--drunk with oil.
I believe Wright rightly calls us to see the battles in a sober Kingdom light--and be about the work and warfare of the Kingdom.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 25, 2008 7:15 AM
Posted by: canucklehead | March 24, 2008 11:50 PM
so, what, precisely has changed since Sept 10/01 apart from GWB alienating most of the U.S.'s former military allies?
No additional attackd on the US that kills 100's if not 1000's of innocent people that just want to have a job to support their family. There are several nations around the world that are supporting the efforts in the Mideast. Butlets face it - Russia doesn't give a %^& if the US is attacked and neither do the French. So - you have to be vigilant within your own country.
Sleep tight tonight
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 25, 2008 8:49 AM
"God is doing a new thing. Let's get out there and join in." NT Wright
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
That my heart so often says, "No, let me lie in my bed and rot away into destruction," causes me great sorrow. Praise God it is no longer "..I but Christ who lives in me."
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 25, 2008 9:14 AM
No additional attack[s] on the US that kills 100's if not 1000's of innocent people that just want to have a job to support their family.
This is a bogus argument. Sorry, but true. Al-Qaida can't exactly launch an attack at will. They never could. They don't command a large armed force or rule a powerful, militarized nation (e.g., imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, with which they are often quite erroneously compared). It took them years to plan the WTC attacks and it will likely take years to plan any similar attack. Their only weapon is fear, and they won the first round because they made our government afraid, and so we lashed back. The Bush admin. played right into their hands and did exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do, which was to take steps that would further alienate and infuriate the Islamic masses. Wright's analogy is correct.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 25, 2008 9:43 AM
"No additional attack[s] on the US..." of course that's what it's all about, protecting my way of life, doesn't matter how many "foreigners" have to die, as long as I'm OK. Since 9/11 the death toll due to the war on terror has escalated to an unbelievable level.
"No additional attack[s] on the US..." try telling that to the families of the 4,000 plus military who have died since 9/11 or the thousands more injured overseas. The US may not have had any attacks on their home soil but more Americans have died as a result of the war on terror than died in the attacks of 9/11
Posted by: Neil | March 25, 2008 9:59 AM
..." of course that's what it's all about, protecting my way of life, doesn't matter how many "foreigners" have to die, as long as I'm OK." Neil
That, in a nutshell, describes the ethic of the neo-conservative apologists for this war. Sad, pathetic, but true.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 25, 2008 10:04 AM
Canucklehead asked:
so, what, precisely has changed since Sept 10/01 apart from GWB alienating most of the U.S.'s former military allies?
Let's see: Canada replaced Martin with the Tory Stephen Harper, who has shown no interest in removing Canadian troops from Afghanistan. France replaced the staunchly anti-American Jacques Chirac with the openly pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy, and in Germany the solidly anti-American Gerhard Schroeder lost power to the mildly pro-American Angela Merkel.
To be fair, Tony Blair stepped down in Britain in favor of Gordon Brown, but that was in the works for years. There was a definite setback in Spain where Aznar, an American friend, got booted out in favor of the Socialists.
Otherwise, I'm not aware of any proof that our allies are all that cheesed off at us. If anything, we've strengthened ties to many of our allies, even in "old Europe".
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 25, 2008 10:13 AM
I am not anti-American when I criticise some policies of some American leaders, any more than I am anti-British when I criticise some of the policies of my own elected leaders. To suggest otherwise is simply a cheap way of avoiding the real questions.
Hear Hear!
with the Tory Stephen Harper
Largely because the Liberals were involved in a massive corruption scandal. Have you seen the polls on the Canadian public's low support for the Afghan war? For the most part they want the troops out of Afghanistan now!
Wolvie I don't think that the elephant-dog metaphor seeks to dismiss the loss of 3000 American lives. It is just a (very) apt analogy of the world's only superpower and a shadowy terrorist organization.
Posted by: splinterlog | March 25, 2008 10:40 AM
Before Jesus, the people of God had this command, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.". This was actually to prevent violence right? If a violent man broke your arm, you could not break his arm and knock out all his teach! So if we stopped at this command. 3000 were killed in 9/11 therefore we would not be permitted to punish more than 3000. BUT Jesus went further and said, I want you to love your enemies and pray for them.
What can WE do to love those who hate us? How can we provide for their real needs? How can we as Christians embrace our responsibility and not pass it on to the government? Let's not forget the prayer part too.
Jesus absorbed sin and violence. He didn't trade sin and violence like we so often do.
Posted by: Big Ben | March 25, 2008 11:09 AM
Correction: "knock out all his TEETH"
Posted by: Big Ben | March 25, 2008 11:12 AM
Wolvie - if you honestly believe that the changes in gov'ts in Canada, France and Germany are entirely due to the anti/pro U.S. thing, man, yuz smokin' some good shhhhhtuff!
Posted by: canucklehead | March 25, 2008 11:19 AM
Wolverine -
You are living in denial. I have traveled to
"old Europe" recently, as have many people I know, and the reputation of the US there has never been lower.
What breaks my heart, though, is that we had such an *opportunity* after 9/11. The incomparable outpouring of goodwill from around the world could have been used to forge a new alliance of purpose to allow God to act in ways that only such a crisis can precipitate. Instead we took the agnostic option, trusting in our own brute force and not even asking (believe me, I know; I tried) what the Gospel would have us do.
What I find so encouraging about Wright's piece is the suggestion that it's not too late.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 25, 2008 11:45 AM
You are living in denial. I have traveled to
"old Europe" recently, as have many people I know, and the reputation of the US there has never been lower. Anotheranonymous
Yeah- when I am in Europe, I try not to speak in English. I'm afraid they'll take me for one of the neo-conservative reactionaries who post comments on this blog.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 25, 2008 12:02 PM
Where do we see in the bible that God wants us under human authorities and governments? As someone who leans towards Christian Anarchy, I don't think God's ultimate desire is to have us live under earthly rule and governments, even if we can convince them to "do good" and act morally. Yet I'm assuming that Wright has some strong biblical backing when he says
"But God wants his rebel world to be ordered, to be under authorities and governments, because otherwise the bullies and the arrogant will always prey on the weak and the helpless..." Yes... he wants the world to be ordered and just- but why under governments and not under Him? Anyone have some explanation or places I can look in the bible to shed some more light on this? Thanks.
Posted by: Maria | March 25, 2008 12:14 PM
Romans 13:1-7
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 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. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
---------------------------------
"...for there is no authority except that which God has established."
Prov. 21:1 also says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases."
God gives us strength for a little while. If we misuse or abuse that strength, He will hold us accountable.
For the Christian, war is not a "desirable" thing. However, regardless of what is desirable or preferable, war is upon us. And although we do not always agree or actively promote the causes of those who govern, we MUST submit and obey out of our reverence, submission, and obedience to Christ; lest we risk rebellion against the Lord Himself.
The world has gone awry, to say the least; and we Christians will not any time soon make it go aright. But the Lord will.
Our task in all of this is to set out in "prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving", making our requests known to God; crying out, as the people of God always have, "How long Oh Lord? How long?"
I am an American. I love my country, not because it is always right; but because it is always mine [tipping hat to G.K. Chesterton]. And the reasons I want things to be transformed, are the same reasons that I am angered and saddened by its lack of "rightness"... because I love it.
Nations will rise and fall, but only as the Lord wills it. We must do what good things we can, with the strength that we have and the time that is left to us.
It is our duty to trust the Lord, pray, seek His face, and turn away from wickedness. We must not bow to the mere opinions of others or even ourselves. We must let the truth of God shine through it all. "Let God be true, and EVERY man a liar." (Rom. 3:4)
Posted by: MooseKatt | March 25, 2008 12:56 PM
Canucklehead wrote:
Wolvie - if you honestly believe that the changes in gov'ts in Canada, France and Germany are entirely due to the anti/pro U.S. thing, man, yuz smokin' some good shhhhhtuff!
No, I wouldn't go that far, but you claim we've damaged our relations with our allies. So far I have yet to see any evidence of any damage.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 25, 2008 1:24 PM
Spain (now Poland) has pulled troops. Howard was turfed in Australia. Blair went through a significant decline in his own popularity before leaving office. In Canada the Tories are under immense public pressure to pull out of Afghanistan (never mind Iraq where even they wouldn't dream of going). Last I head Sarkozy wasn't beating the war drums, even if he is more willing to work with Americans than his predecessor.
It's a little ethnocentric of us to view changes in governments all over the world purely as a reaction to American policy in Iraq - these countries have their own issues, political dynamics etc.
So either way, I see little support for your argument (if you have indeed made it) that there has been a gradual vindication of our foriegn policy by the election of sympathetic governments in other countries.
Posted by: splinterlog | March 25, 2008 2:54 PM
"So how about being less quick to take offense at his choice of words and actually responding to what he says. "
Another has a point, Wolverine. I too would like to see you post comments about what you agree with, rather than always narrowing in on what you don't agree with.
Wright makes many important points, but I suspect all you saw in his article was his (apparent) attacks on Neoconservativism.
Posted by: squeaky | March 25, 2008 3:01 PM
Late to the game here, but I will respond to Wolverine's initial comment.
Firstly, setting aside for a moment that violence begets violence--a principle lost on neo-cons--let's remember that the relevant fact that the invasion of Iraq was desired by neocons long before 9/11 and was put on the table seriously by Rumsfeld two days after 9/11. Therefore these "plans" of the US were indiscriminate, in that they were not a response to a direct attack. This wrong was pre-conceived and morally willed.
Secondly, I remember vividly when the US tried to "decapitate" Saddam's regime within the first few days of the invasion. Acting on "intelligence" as to Saddam's whereabouts, they chose to bomb a Christian church thinking he was hiding there! Knowing full well it was a church, knowing full well that churches are in civilian areas, they dropped a bomb. That's as indiscriminate as it comes, and on and on.
As for your claim that we were "provoked," would you also extend such legitimate claims to people's of the Middle East who feel we had it coming? I doubt you would. Geopolitical complexities tend to get lost on those not paying attention, even when they get slapped in the face with them. Self-reflection and a humility born through recognition of a sin nature, so valued in Christian thought and praxis, are lost on the neo-conservative movement. That alone puts them in opposition to God. In the case of 9/11, arrogance came before a fall quite literally.
Posted by: Matt W. | March 25, 2008 3:16 PM
Squeaky, et al,
I'd be less inclined to disagree with Wright's depiction of the September 11 attacks if he would be willing to apply the same sort of minimization to American activities in Iraq.
As it is, I find the antics of a mischievous puppy a less than adequate symbol for terrorism. But if you're willing to equate Iraq with "something the dog did", well, at that point we can talk.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 25, 2008 4:37 PM
Article is on track, but very weak. It's time for some resurrection appearences of Jesus within his church. We are so "Theologized" religious and doctrine oriented, that a living breathing Jesus in our midst would be very unwelcome. Sure kindly church members would take him on as a project and attempt to remold and remake him, but the living Jesus, principled, passionate and powerful would be highly unwelcome. That we have draged his name through the mud of a war of agression, and called the drestruction of a nation "liberation" is an unspeakable tragedy. God help us, Woe unto us. We speak loudly in his name, but our actions prove that we do not and have never know him. America repent before it is to late.
Let's not just attack each other, and symbols. Lets take the courage to discover Jesus, alive and powerful and still preaching good news to the poor, the sick, the oppressed, and still pointing out the hypocracy of the powerful and respected. It's way to late to call for judgment, we could not survive judgment, it's time to call for mercy and to repent, that God's grace might cover and remove our great sin and shame.
Posted by: jmndodge | March 25, 2008 6:19 PM
I think most of us are missing Wright's intention here.
His emphasis is not on the war (though he does talk about it at length). His emphasis is on the person and power of Christ; following Him. Not war. Not liberals. Not "neo-cons". Just Jesus.
Also, I'm not a fan of all of these old/new labels we have for each other. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am not a neo-con. I am not a socialist. I am not a democrat. And I am not a republican.
As a Christian, one should wish to be named by the name of Christ more than any other name under heaven. He is the one that identifies and defines us. His name is the only name that determines who I am and how I live.
Posted by: MooseKatt | March 25, 2008 8:48 PM
"Jesus is Lord. The Spirit is powerful. God is doing a new thing. Let's get out there and join in." Wright
"Article is on track, but very weak....We are so "Theologized" religious and doctrine oriented, that a living breathing Jesus in our midst would be very unwelcome." JMDodge
JM--I fail to grasp your point about a weak article. Explain please.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 26, 2008 12:03 AM
"No, I wouldn't go that far, but you claim we've damaged our relations with our allies. So far I have yet to see any evidence of any damage."
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 25, 2008 1:24 PM
EDITORIAL
The Toronto Star.com - Khadr's unjust ordeal
Feb 06, 2008 04:30 AM
If Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs an excuse to demand that Omar Khadr be freed from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, he has it now. The Pentagon has just released information that shows that Khadr was not the only fighter who might have killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan five years ago. Someone else might have done it.
For Canadians concerned about Khadr's fate at the hands of a discredited military trial process, this is the last straw.
At a hearing at Guantanamo this week, Pentagon officials mistakenly handed reporters the transcript of revealing testimony from an American soldier or security agent who was at the battle in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, in which Khadr, then 15, allegedly threw a grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer. The U.S. witness says he believes Khadr threw the grenade, but didn't see him do it. There was another fighter on the scene, who was shot dead after the grenade was thrown.
Whatever U.S. military judges may make of this report, which was known to Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, Khadr's military lawyer, the Pentagon looks bad trying to keep it from the public.
"There's no openness about this process," Kuebler rightly says.
There is also huge embarrassment to Canada because of Harper's refusal to intervene. If convicted, Khadr faces up to life in prison for an act he committed as a youth, under the influence of his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, an alleged Al Qaeda founder and financier.
The United Nations special representative for children in armed conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, has taken up Khadr's case. So have the Canadian Bar Association, British legal experts, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Church and other groups. The French government, admirably, has urged Washington to regard Khadr as a minor who deserves consideration because of his age. The American Civil Liberties Union has called the military tribunals "a mockery" of justice. Countries such as Britain and Australia have sprung their citizens from Guantanamo.
Yet Harper refuses to bestir himself.
As the Star has written before, Khadr is a poor poster boy for human rights. But he is a Canadian citizen who faces a military tribunal that does not meet American or Canadian standards of criminal justice.
If convicted in Canada even of planned, deliberate murder, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act Khadr would have faced no more than six years in custody. By July 27, he will have spent six years in the Guantanamo brig. In Canadian terms, he will have served a full sentence for a crime for which he has not yet been tried, much less convicted.
This is indecent. Few Canadians have sympathy for Khadr and his family. But what is happening in Guantanamo is not justice. It is vindictiveness. And the Harper government's acquiescence is profoundly disturbing. Before Canada suffers yet more embarrassment, Khadr should be shipped back home, under a bond to keep the peace.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 26, 2008 12:56 AM
"I'd be less inclined to disagree with Wright's depiction of the September 11 attacks if he would be willing to apply the same sort of minimization to American activities in Iraq." Wolverine
You can't compare the two. 3000+/- deaths from 9/11 compared to what are at least 80,000 to 90,000 deaths caused by our war in Iraq.
Based on the proportionality, N.T. Wright's comparison is an accurate one.
For some it doesn't matter that our country caused the deaths of at least thirty times as many people in response to 9/11 as lost in that tragic incident. I find it unconscionable and I stand with N.T. Wright and the others who have denounced it for what it is- immoral, illegal and unconscionable.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 26, 2008 6:23 AM
It matters nothing if America was justified in any of its actions. The real issue is what is God saying in these events and as Kingdom citizens what is our response. 9/11 had many messages for the Church but I don't know how well they have been heard. First, through the very predictable US response Afghanistan is now open to the Gospel in a way it has never been before. Before 9/11 there were no Afghan led churches for Afghans. Today there are many and the number is growing. Second- and this hits close to Wright's point I believe- the Church should have heard the message that our security is not based in the strength of our military, our brilliant foreign policy, or our money. We are not to trust in riches. 9/11 was a message sent by God through evil men- just like the Assyrians sent against Israel. As Kingdom citizens we must wake up and follow Him who calls us. So far, many in the US church have responded with fear and more looking to the Govt for their salvation. If 9/11 did not wake up the Church what is next?
Posted by: Strider | March 26, 2008 6:53 AM
"If 9/11 did not wake up the Church what is next? " Strider
Answer: The War on Terror
If the WOT does not wake up the church, what is next?
But then, maybe the church is awake--in many invisible places. "Your Kingdom come--Lord Jesus."
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 26, 2008 8:11 AM
""Otherwise, I'm not aware of any proof that our allies are all that cheesed off at us. If anything, we've strengthened ties to many of our allies, even in "old Europe".
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 25, 2008 10:13 AM""
Sorry, do not agree. Politically this may have happended, but at the level of the common person I would strongly suggest not so.
For what its worth, Howard’s endorsement of the war contributed to his downfall. Honest John was shown to be anything but, and this help to discredit him.
I would also suggest that any one who would suggest that the above comment is an accurate reflection on reality would be laughed out of the pub in my suburb of Perth.
The comment above suggests that the media is not properly conveying the intensity the underlying scepticism of the motives of and incredulity about the perceived inept implementation of US world policies that exists in Australia. It seems to be similar to attitudes expressed by many of the non US international travellers, both business and tourist that I have met recently.
Posted by: JohnH | March 26, 2008 9:28 AM
The real issue is what is God saying in these events and as Kingdom citizens what is our response.
Agreed. But what was the message?
"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, 'Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen [three thousand] who died when the tower in Siloam [the Twin Towers in NYC] fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem [America]? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'"
--Luke 13: 1-5; annotations mine
Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 10:58 AM
Don,
I agree 100% w/your meaning in the previous post. But we have to be careful: quotes such as "But unless you repent, you too will all perish" can be twisted by Falwell and Robertson types into "the Lord has punished Americans for the liberal humanist homosexual agenda and lifestyle, therefore we must repent and get strict constructionist judges on the Supreme Court, etc."
Then your point (as I take it) about the evils of imperialism, militarism, and war-mongering gets swallowed up by the Religious Far Right's hateful, Pharisaical message.
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 12:03 PM
Carl:
My primary point is the need for repentance. Jesus didn't specify what those in his audience were to repent 'from'; he just said, "Unless you repent..." "Repent" means "turn around, you're going the wrong way."
Falwell and Robertson were right that 9-11 was being used by God as a wake-up call, but they were dead wrong in their understanding and interpretation of it, because they wanted to lay the blame for America's problems on others--as you note here. That was what was pharisaical about their response. "I'm glad I'm not like that tax collector over there." If they had been serious about heeding Jesus' call to repent, they would have said nothing about other's "sins" and instead looked first at themselves, asking God to show them how they were to repent. The same goes for me--and you, and everyone else.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 12:21 PM
I should clarify: I don't believe that 9-11 was God's "punishment" on America. Nor was Katrina. This is a theologically difficult area and I'm certainly no expert, but God doesn't normally punish people and nations that way (though of course there are examples in Scripture, especially in the Old Testament.) I do believe God used 9-11 as I said--to get our attention--but God is not responsible for the disaster itself, and he wasn't using it as "punishment."
I believe that God's "punishments" more normally occur when he allows us to suffer the consequences of our sin. In that case, one perhaps could say that our nation is currently being "punished" through things like our current economic difficulties, our increasing indebtedness, our loss of national prestige and moral voice in the world, and of course the continuing, unending nightmare in Iraq.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 12:34 PM
So far I have yet to see any evidence of any damage.
Wolverine
I may be a bleeding-heart liberal (though I prefer to think of myself as a "hardline moderate") but I minister to a largely conservative (small c socially and big C politically) congregation, many of them former members of the UK armed forces. Since March 2003 the level of anti-Americanism in my congregation has gone off the scale. No damage, Wolvie? Really?
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM
"No additional attacks on the US that kills 100's if not 1000's of innocent people..."
Moderatelad, be careful before you credit the bumbling Bush administration too much for this. Did it ever occur to you, that if McCain or Gore had been president, that PERHAPS there would not have been a 9-11 attack? After all, the intelligence warnings had been given the previous August.
Of course, if 9-11 happened on Clinton's watch, the Republicans would have blamed him. Right?
Posted by: I and I | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM
"If they had been serious about heeding Jesus' call to repent, they would have said nothing about other's "sins" and instead looked first at themselves, asking God to show them how they were to repent. The same goes for me--and you, and everyone else."
Amen, esp. "and you."
Thanks for the thoughtful responses Don. And your observation that divine punishment of nations and people "is a theologically difficult area" is an understatement, to say the least. I've been reading Greg Boyd's God at War and his Satan and the Problem of Evil; while i disagree with much, Boyd has much to offer to a discussion of divine of punishment.
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM
Some good comments here- I like Don's reaction to the disasters that have come, Repentance. As far as God's 'punishments' I think we need a word of correction here. God's judgments do not punish us in the sense of an angry parent who really wants to wail on the disobedient child (I am a father of four and you can deny it all you want but all you parents know what I am talking about) no, God's judgments reveal and set aright. The evil of this world has been here since the fall, the point of God's judgment is what will we do in response to the evil. In that sense, Aids was not a judgment on the homosexual community as much as it was a judgment on the Church. People suffered horribly and our response was not in line with Jesus response- hence His judgment on us was to reveal how unloving we are. Many have seen this and become compassionate as we are called to be- many more remain unmoved. I will repeat myself here by saying the Towers fell. And our response was again not in line with Jesus' response. American's- even men and women of faith- live in fear to this day. This fear is not of God hence it is His judgment on us that reveals that our faith is not in Him but in 'chariots and horses'. Muslims around the globe fear us and hate us. Is our response in line with Jesus? Again, in most cases it is not. While hundreds of men and women have gone to Afghanistan and other Muslim countries to share the Gospel and have sacrificed greatly to love the Muslim people many more have responded with angry bitter words. Evil is revealing who we really are and for the most part His glorious Church is not yet what it must become. I conclude this too long comment by returning to Wright's article,
"The Christian gospel, revealing the mysterious God we discover in Jesus and the Spirit, offers a framework for discerning where God is at work in the midst of the dangers and opportunities that confront us. All of us in our different callings are summoned to this task; some of you, perhaps, to make it your life's work. Jesus is Lord. The Spirit is powerful. God is doing a new thing. Let's get out there and join in.
Posted by: Strider | March 27, 2008 1:27 AM
Okay kids, lets see which of these reports is more indicative of the state of US diplomacy:
1. Anecdotal reports of extremely high levels of Anti-Americanism at a church in Britain and a pub outside of Perth.
2. In a speech to the British Parliament, French President Nicolas Sarkozy confirms plans to commit an additional 1,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Look, I'm not saying that the Iraq War hasn't complicated our relations with a lot of countries, but "alienating most of our allies" was a stretch.
And yes, relations with a couple of countries actually seem to have improved a bit. You would be wise to acknowledge that.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 27, 2008 8:49 AM
Sorry, Wolverine, but I go with no. 1, for two reasons. The first is that I have heard overwhelming numbers of such anecdotal reports, which make those 1,000 troops seem piffling by comparison. The second is that the leader of my country shows absolutely no interest in what I, or the two-thirds of my fellow citizens who believe that the Iraq war was a mistake, think. To me, this damages the fabric of our democratic society, just as the disapproval of vast percentages of their citizenry damages our relations with our allies. Since your claim was that there has been no damage to those relations, I have to disagree, in very emphatic terms.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 27, 2008 11:00 AM
Wright has an interesting use of the word "empire" to describe the United States. The United States is a representative democracy and a superpower, not an empire. Though Wright appears to see superpower and empire as the same thing. The U.S. is an empire only if we redefine the meaning of the word.
Posted by: SPS | March 27, 2008 11:51 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?