If Jesus truly feels this way about children, why didn't his parents give him up to Herod in order to save the lives of the Innocents? Why did he take the name of a leader who killed every single person in the land he wanted? Why did he meet with Moses who killed the innocents in Egypt and in an earthquake in the wilderness? Why does he threaten pregnant women with death? Why does he say that it will be worse than it was in Sodom where many children and pregnant women died? I just don't see the Jesus you describe in Scripture.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 7, 2008 7:03 PM

Most Christians believe that Romans 13 gives any government anywhere the right to kill innocent children in a pre-emptive war. So, it is difficult to see Jesus as trying to shelter children when he supports the government which causes their deaths.

If the innocent Iraqi children were stem cells, Jesus would protect them. In fact, if the Iraqis were smart, they would keep a vial of stem cells in each house because then we would no longer be able to drop bombs on them for fear of killing stem cells. If all they have is children in their house, then Romans 13 says it's OK to drop the bombs.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 7, 2008 8:11 PM

Shane --

You and I would disagree about a lot of things, and it's possible that this post would be one of them. Let's talk about something we might agree on.

You say you were surprised to see "thousands of Christians from all over the Middle East gathered just before Easter" in Iraq. Why did that surprise you?

Posted by: Frank Turk | March 7, 2008 8:42 PM

"Most Christians believe that Romans 13 gives any government anywhere the right to kill"

More properly, it's interpreted in a more dispensational way - "gives 'my' government the right to kill anywhere."

Not all of us believe either. Sometimes, I know, it seems as if we're a minority of those who call themselves by His name, and that is discouraging.

I've just reread this passage. It seems to me, prayerfully, that's an exhortation not to engage in rebelliousness but to acknowledge that there is a proper order and function to human affairs. It's an amplification of what Jesus taught, to do good rather than repay evil with evil, to overcome evil with good.

The authorities ought to be treated as if we believe they are instituted to do good - that is the only authority they can have. And we need to recognize them and as we submit ourselves to do good, make sure that they know that is why we do, and that so ought they. We can hold them accountable to their responsibilities only if we are accountable too.

Verse 8:

"Owe no one anything except to love one another for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

And finally, verses 13 and 14:

"Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkeness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and in envy.

"But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts."

Our Christianity in America is influenced by our history and culture, a lens of greed, rebellion and violence through which we filter the gospel, and which makes us see the truth distorted through an obscured and oddly tinted window. Much of our political history is simply verse 13 above, the way of the world - and has nothing to do with my Jesus.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 7, 2008 9:10 PM

Thank you Shane.

As we work to start CPT (Christian Peacemaker Teams)in Australasia these stories are so important.

grace and peace,
Jarrod

Posted by: Jarrod Saul McKenna | March 7, 2008 11:30 PM

Thank you, Shane. May this unjust and unconscionable war come to an end.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 8, 2008 6:56 AM

Ashpenez--There can be a huge difference between seeking Truth--and asking questions. Which are you doing?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 8, 2008 9:03 AM

"You know, the Vatican has spoken out strongly against the Iraq war, and it outright condemns abortion.

"So please, don't speak for the "majority" of Christians. Especially when the majority (1.1 billion out of the 2 billion Christians in this world) are Catholic."

The Pope may have spoken and written, but those 1.1 billion are hardly monolithic or consistent in their commitment to non-violence or against abortion. In fact, one could say that the majority of those only nominal Catholics are supportive of war and abortion in certain situations, especially where being against them causes difficulties - which is most of the time.

The Vatican itself is a latecomer to being anti-war - for most of the last two thousand years, it was a promoter of wars and violence to serve its own political power, from the time of Constantine through the Holy Roman Empire and well into the twentieth century. Unfortunately, "Just War Theory's" high-sounding principles have in practice just meant war.

Romans 13 does not promote blind obedience to authority in defiance of the authority of God, revealed to us through Christ. The writer, the apostle, in fact was disobedient to authority where it tried to command what was contrary to God's command; however, he never took up arms against authority, only disputed peacefully for truth and righteousness, placing his own life at risk, not those of others.

If we examine Paul's own history, after He recognised the One he was persecuting was Jesus, misusing authority himself, we find that his subsequent actions are in living out non-violent resistance to evil, that people such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama in modern times have emulated with great success, and that Christians including all the martyrs, did until the time of Constantine.

"I'm trying to point out that those who say that every verse in the Bible is literally true and means exactly the same thing in every context, past, present, and future do not, in fact, read the Bible that way."

It is certainly true, that those who have made the loudest claims for the mantle of scriptural conservatism and fidelity to inerrancy, have in reality been as much cherry-pickers taking seriously only what conforms to their own psychological predelictions.

As one conservative Christian commentator ruefully observed, "We are conservative theologically only because we are conservative generally." In other words, many of us seek a religion to buttress our pre-existing existential position and are predisposed to reject, ignore or explain away any inconvenient scriptural truths, just as much as liberals with the same intent might their own inconvenient truths.

In the same way that some always assume that God blesses the nation in its morally unexamined aims, and ask for God's blessings on the path that has already been chosen without consulting Him, people with a troubled conscience don't want a religion that calls them to repentance for sin but one that soothes their consciences by pretending to attribute a divine mandate the most selfish of actions. This is the religious equivalent of washing one's hands to try to remove and externalize accountability for one's own practice of immoral choices.

Yes, political and economic conservatives who claim to be biblically conservative most often reject Matthew 5, 6 and 7, the core of Jesus' teachings, because His clear teachings there unmask conservatives' own humanistic outlook as unfaithful, only masquerading as religious fidelity.

Certainly liberals with an axe to grind, trying to find justification for their own pre-existing bent, have a splinter in their eye similar to the log in the conservative eye. And don't we all?

The purpose of God's radical invasion of our territory isn't to provide any of us the cover we seek for for our sin, but to demand we all recognize our own need for repentance and then offer us the way for redemption from that sin.

He's near, He's here and He's in our face.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 8, 2008 11:22 AM

Shane - Keep dreaming

Those bombers are responsible for peace

I know its hard to imagine it, but, the sword is mightier than the pen.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 8, 2008 12:15 PM

"I don't deny there are Catholics out there who support the war and/or abortion, but please stop making such broad generalizations - and not just about Catholics. Your attacks against conservatives tend to be equally, if not more so, broad as to discredit yourself."

The point is, that God's own method is a broadside attack against all our own self-justifications that appropriate religion to buttress them.

Jeus' own harsh words were reserved for the traditional religious leaders of his day who had appropriated God's truth to create a syncretic religion made in their own image. Neither conservatives nor liberals of that day come off well, neither Pharisees nor Sadducees.

I think it's very fair to say that there has been a serious attempt from all sides to avoid any real consideration for living a life in the Kingdom, of non-violent resistance to evil, as Jesus taught in Matthew 5, 6 and 7, in which context all the rest of the New Testament can only be understood properly.

In all these millenia, for the majority of the religious, even according to G.K.Chesterton (who converted to Catholicism), it's not that real Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, but has been found difficult and therefore not tried.

I will cite Thomas Merton as a person within Catholicism who understood this, and was silenced by the authorities of the Catholic Church for speaking out in conscience.

Please understand I am approaching this from the position that non-violent resistance to evil, which is a minority position within historical Christianity after the time of Constantine, is absolutely essential to the Gospel message - although it was the orthodox position before the merger of church and state under Rome. This is the current faith position of the traditional peace churches, such as Mennonites, Brethren and Amish, among others, and which certainly people in other faith communities are free to, and have, believed.

Yes, among most Southern Baptists (with a membership of 16 million) this is anthema. And we have the record of World War I, where millions of Christian soldiers whether Catholic or Protestant were commanded and obeyed their Christian leaders' commands to slaughter other millions of Christian soldiers whether Catholic or Protestant.

So yes, Christian non-violence as a committed principle is a minority position, which would tend to discredit anyone advocating it as essential to following Jesus, among the majority of the nominally churched.

However, I think it's incumbent upon those who've followed the unexamined precepts of Holy War and Just War over the past two millenium, with all the consequences following identical to and indistinguisable from pagan, atheist or other religions and their military conquests, to prove that it is consistent with Jesus' clear teachings to Christians, and that it genuinely offers the true path, rather than simply an ethnocentric or culture-centric alternative of the same old sin-based failures of violence.

All that said, I do offer my apologies for any hint of personal attack that may have been taken, but is unintended.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 8, 2008 12:52 PM

Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk, had already been a popular American author, when his writings came increasingly to be seen as threatening to the majority political opinion as the decade of the sixties opened.

Therefore, he was forbidden to publish, yet his typewritten manuscripts then circulated as a kind of American "samizdat" - dissident thoughts on the nature of violence, nonviolence and war that seemingly didn't serve preconceived militaristic cold war sensibilities, which paradoxically gained them more spiritual and intellectual currency due to their suppression by the establishment. In some ways, this process shows just the kind of obedient tension inherent to Romans 13.

Here is an overview of his life's contribution, as excerpted from the Merton Institute. I could write much more, but a more complete assessment of what he has contributed to my own spiritual journey is beyond my time constraints just at this moment. An internet search should whet an appetite for this wonderful saint's spiritual meat.

"At the core of Thomas Merton's spiritual writings is the search for the 'true self' and our need for relationship with God, other people and all of creation. He finds that when we are apart from God we experience alienation and desolation. He concludes that we must discover God as the center of our being to which all things tend and to whom all of our activity must be directed.

"Merton's interests were prophetic, for they are the major issues that confront society today, and they illustrate the alienation he foresaw. Whether it is war, social and racial injustice, violence, or religious intolerance, the source of the problem is that man 'has become alienated from his inner self which is the image of God.'

"The degree of humanity's alienation is reflected in the unrelenting violence of our time. Wars and acts of nations around the globe caused the death of more than 500 million people in the 20th century. Closer to home, schoolchildren kill their fellow students in schools, and incidences of racial and domestic violence and child abuse occur with appalling frequency. The violence is all around us. We must change direction or perish. This requires a social conversion, a turning away from destructive behavior. The first step in this turning is a transformation of consciousness and Thomas Merton is a preeminent guide to us in this first step.

"There is in the world today a thirst for God. People are seeking a reversal of the trends toward consumerism and materialism, prejudice and violence. They are discovering that what one does must be a means of both self-fulfillment and service to others."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 8, 2008 2:07 PM

"I know its hard to imagine it, but, the sword is mightier than the pen."

The written, spoken words of our Lord-- beg to differ.

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Hopefully, most know He was speaking of His Word--which would be written for all humankind.
Followed by...

Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

And...

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

A true delusion would be if humankind believed it was greater than God. Yes, one can be killed by the sword. But is that what Jesus spoke was the worst that could happen?

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So, if one is lucky they may live a hundred years, followed by eternity. Can one imagine how long that is? And what is the worst of that?

Mark 14:21
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good Were it for that man
if he had Never Been Born.

Only God's judgement is always correct. Within that balance, it is true evil can deceive us. But God is there, as well. It is one thing to be deceived, but another to be given truth time after time, yet we continue--eyes wide open. It is damning.
Where does that get us? And what is the point, in the end?

2 Corinthians 5:3
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

And if we claim to follow Jesus-- shouldn't we actually follow Him, especially what is most important--what is first? Remembering that
there is No more an eye for an eye? (Matthew 5:37-39)

And...

Revelation 2:4
Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because Thou Hast Left Thy First Love.

What's the First Love? What did Jesus say was first?

Luke 10:26-28
"...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind;"
"...this do, and Thou Shalt Live."

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 8, 2008 2:35 PM

Sojourner Truth,

You previously wrote that Merton had been silenced by Church officials, but nothing in your last post or anything I've found online verifies that statement. By whom was he "forbidden to publish?"

"I am tired of everyone promoting their religion as the reason they are right and you are wrong mentality" Mick

I hope you don't think I was doing so. I'm married to a Baptist, so theological debate is pretty common around our house. I don't think any single denomination of Christianity has corner on the market of Biblical interpretation or doctrine - Catholic or otherwise.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 8, 2008 3:21 PM

"I never felt proud to be of my religion."

"And I am proud to be an American."

That is what I pointed out are the priorities of many: my country right or wrong first, faith second. This tends to skew our loyalties in favor of the state over church and blinds us to our failings. That's no different than the repeated errors of any nation. Love of other people, or of a nation, doesn't mean never being able to say you are sorry. We point out sin precisely to save the sinner, not condemn him.

"We also have a history that has liberated many countries from oppressors, not just the imperalistic pigs some have portrayed . Thats not bling patriotism , that is just the facts ."

I think that's a pretty descriptive and accurate malapropism - "Bling patriotism." (The "pig" reference is a gratuitous straw man attack impugning the patriotism of the critic, an old scoundrel's last trick.)

Is that when we sacrifice for America by shopping and consuming, while others are dying and being maimed? To encourage us, we are receiving notices announcing we are being stimulated with up to $1200 per family to get out there and spend. I'm reading right now how we can determine how much we can expect to be stimulated.

This all has such an aura of unreality and irresponsibility as politicians vie with one another to give out gifts of taxpayer money at a time when it's our materialism and greed that got precisely out of control.

"We have a more diverse people then any other nation."

Canada has more diversity, actually. Some European nations are extremely diverse and the EU taken as a whole certainly is. To many, that is seen as a threat, just as is the influx of migrants who speak other languages, especially from south of the border is viewed here by many conservatives.

"The continent of Africa for example sees us as a good and noble people right now."

When the President met with leaders there recently, it was widely viewed by people there with suspicion that he was attempting to get commitments to place permanent American military bases there - something that has, indeed been sought.

Truth be told, polls in every nation show America's
image to be at the lowest ebb ever in over 200 years of history. Now why would that be?

"I believe we have the highest standard of living for the average citizen."

Not so. It is not the highest in the world. Moreover, this nation has extremes of wealth and poverty, skewing that average into being misleading and making the middle class not as high a percentage of the entire population as other western democratic nations. And our average citizen's wealth is a chimera, for debt exceeds savings for the average person, unlike other nations. Most families make less, even in absolute dollar terms, than they did in 1999 and downwards pressure on wages as jobs are offshored relentlessly to Asia, along with the new nightmare of stagflation, has most economists predicting no wage growth for the average person for at least another decade.

I think that America is not the most religious nation in the world, but it is the nation in the world that talks most about Christianity. G.K. Chesterton characterized it as "a nation with the soul of a church," but worried about the dark side to that that could lead to tyranny.
I believe it was American journalist H.L. Mencken who added that the soul of the church resided in the heart of a prostitute.

Americans by historical habit wear religion on their
sleeve, as part of national patriotism. This sentiment has been passed down from the Puritans, who
were motivated by a messianic sense, heightened by their exile and alienation, that America was perhaps humanity's last best hope to show God's mercy before the end of the age. Thus, President Eisenhower's 1954 pronouncement that "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a
deeply-felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is!," appropriately without critical content of theology or particular morality. So, also, modern religious conservatives who believe America was, and still is, a "Christian" nation.

However, do actions speak louder than words? Could the prophet accuse us, as God did ancient Israel, "This people praises me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me?"

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 8, 2008 5:31 PM

I found 14,100 results returned for a search with "Merton silenced" - here is one result from www-catholic-org.

I do apologize for the long posting for those not interested, but statements have been made questioning the truthfulness of my assertion that Thomas Merton's conscience was silenced by church authorities on the matter of controversial issues of conscience and it is important for integrity which has been questioned on other matters than this.

"Silenced Trappist struggled with obedience while trying to lead the church on peace
By Father Robert Nugent
5/7/2006

NEW YORK (America) - Thomas Merton spent almost half his life in the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani, a Trappist monastary in Kentucky.

By the mid-1960’s the Second Vatican Council’s renewal of religious life reached even contemplative orders, relaxing the rigorous observance of silence. Even then he managed to maintain lively contacts through written correspondence and personal visits with an international parade of prominent literary, ecclesiastical and political figures.

Merton had a deep need to express his thoughts and sometimes his inner life through an avalanche of published writings and voluminous correspondence. Contrary to the fear of his literary agent, who said at his entrance to the monastery, “Oh my God. He will never write again,” Merton never stopped. Fans of his early spiritual and devotional books were not pleased with his turn to cultural and social issues like racism, war and liturgical renewal during the volatile early 1960’s. And his unpopular stand on nuclear war eventually provoked criticisms from church authorities.

"His world-famous autobiography, The Seven Storey Mountain, was initially rejected by Trappist censors because of the numerous references to sex and drinking that might scandalize pious Catholics.

"As his vocation of writer-monk matured, Merton’s attitude to ecclesiastical censorship changed. He grew more irritated by restrictions placed on what he could say about controversial issues facing the church and world. Even some of his most successful spiritual works, like The Sign of Jonas, The Secular Journal and The New Man, were initially rejected or held up from publication. Often it took months or even years of wrangling and rewriting to receive permission to publish certain pieces.

"By 1961 Merton’s reputation and image as a spiritual writer had undergone significant alteration. By then he was engaged in the public debate on war and mused about writing an unambiguous statement of his own position. In November, Merton clearly realized that he must definitely commit himself 'to opposition to, and noncooperation with, nuclear war.'

"Some of his devotees quickly labeled him an 'activist' — if not a Communist — for his positions on racial justice and nuclear disarmament. He was not unaware of the growing opposition. 'It will certainly not please many people,' he commented on an article about peace in October 1961. In December he wrote to W. H. Ferry at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions that he was having 'a bit of censorship trouble.' He could avoid this, Merton suggested, by having his materials circulated along with Ferry’s writings. He did not view this as a violation of censorship rules.

"Circulating his writings through others 'would not be wrong unless it had been expressly forbidden.' For Merton, the circulation of a few hundred copies was not, technically at least, 'publication.'

"Merton's increasingly vocal antiwar stance began to draw fire. One significant critic was The Catholic Standard, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. In the March 16, 1962, issue, a lengthy editorial challenged an article of Merton’s that had appeared in Commonweal in February, accusing him of 'a startling disregard of authoritative Catholic utterances.' Privately, Merton claimed he had been misquoted and dismissed as an 'absolute pacifist.' He did not suggest that the pope had made a statement against all war, as the editorial implied. (The paper’s editor was the auxiliary bishop of Washington, Philip Hannan, a former Army chaplain and paratrooper who some surmised had written the editorial. Bishop Hannan was later one of the most vocal critics of the U.S. bishops’ pastoral letter on war and peace.)

"Merton had, however, compared the traditional just war theory to 'a boat that has slipped its moorings and is now floating off in mid-ocean a thousand miles from the facts.' But he did not reject the teaching outright. In fact, he had earlier penned an essay in the context of traditional Catholic moral teachings specifically to pacify the censors and the traditionalists.

"Nevertheless, Merton’s own pacifist view was evident in his Cold War Letters (October 1961–October 1962). These were Merton’s private mimeographed articles that were widely circulated among friends and correspondents. The Cold War Letters referred Catholics to papal principles on war, though it was evident he would have preferred a clear, strong church condemnation of all nuclear war:

"'One would certainly wish that the Catholic position on nuclear war held as strictly as the Catholic position on birth control. It seems a little strange that we are so wildly exercised about the 'murder' (and the word is of course correct) of an unborn infant by abortion, or even the prevention of conception which is hardly murder, and yet accept without a qualm the extermination of millions of helples s and innocent adults, some of whom may be Christians and even our friends rather than our enemies. I submit that we ought to fulfill the one without omitting the other.'

"Behind the scenes, ecclesiastical events were unfolding that would eventually affect Merton directly. On Jan. 20, 1962, Dom James Fox, the abbot of Gethsemani, received a letter from the French abbot general in Rome, Dom Gabriel Sortais. The letter, addressed to Merton, was withheld from him for almost three months. (Was this Fox’s way of providing Merton time to publish more articles, as some have surmised?) Finally, on April 26, Merton saw the letter. Opposition from Trappist censors and no doubt from some bishops culminated in the decision that Merton confided to his private journal: 'I am to stop all publication of anything on war. In other words I am to be in effect silenced on this subject for the main reason that it is not appropriate for a monk and that it ‘falsi! fies the message of monasticism.’'

"Writing to the peace activist Jim Forest, Merton angrily explained: 'The orders are, no more writing about peace. This is transparently arbitrary and uncomprehending, but doubtless I have to make the best of it... in substance I am being silenced on the subject of war and peace.'

"Merton wrote to Sortais immediately asking for a modification. The manuscript, 'Peace in a Post-Christian Era,' was ready for publication. Could he submit the manuscript to the censors? Sortais responded on May 26, 1962, ordering him 'to abstain from writing in any way whatsoever about the subject of nuclear war.' Merton's feelings soon surfaced: 'I have written a whole book but it has all been forbidden without even going to the censors. I have just been instructed to shut my trap and behave which I do since these are orders that must be obeyed and I have said what I had to say.'

"The stencils of the banned book were finished just as the silencing order arrived, and Merton lost no time in making use of them. 'I will send you a mimeographed copy of the book if I can... with the [Cold War] letters, you can use them discreetly....' Friends who received copies included Jim Forest, Daniel Berrigan, SJ, Dorothy Day and the publisher of the British peace bulletin Pax."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 8, 2008 6:09 PM

Thank you, Shane for sharing. And also for your work in Kensington-- I hope the new mayor can make a difference.

Blessings to you- Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 8, 2008 7:10 PM

Sojourner Truth,

Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit and was not allowed to publish much or all of his work during his life time. Pere Teilhard was a paleontologist who wrote about evolution. Even though the Church has given tacit recognition of evolution (one of the reasons I'm still a Catholic), Teilhard's ideas about the development of human consciousness conflict with the Church's teaching of Humani Generis. As I said, the Church has never condemned Teilhard's work, but a warning remains in effect.

My Grandmother introduced me to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin at a time when I was a 'recovering Catholic' and very interested in human consciousness, telling me, "I think you're ready for this." Although some of his ideas about evolution are dated, his ideas of consciousness fascinated me and led me to read more of his work. I may not have come back to the Church if I hadn't read TdC. My grandmother was right.

Anyway, if you're interested in Merton, you should take a look at Pere Teilhard.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 8, 2008 7:58 PM

To neuro_nurse,

Are you familiar with a sci-fi writer named Dan Simmons? His books are very much influenced by TdC. Specifcally, Hyperion, Fall of Hyperion, Endymion, and Rise of Endymion. It was Simmon's books that got me reading TdC.

Posted by: Eric | March 9, 2008 1:12 AM

"The gospel writers disagreed with each other, included factual errors, and made things up to suit their message. "

If you say so.

"Paul never stopped being a Pharisee."

Yikes. Paul suffered and died for Christ, which would make him not a Pharisee by definition. But, if the whole thing is made up, why believe any of it? He could have been a painter, or not existed at all.

"Orwell was right."

Argumentum ad Orwellium?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 9, 2008 1:12 PM

Dear jonabark,

"and made things up to suit their message"

With all do respect-- How do you know this?

Human beings wrote the Gospels. None of us are perfect, regardless of whether one is chosen by God or not- such as the apostles or prophets. They are who they are. But I am certain they did do the best job they could to write the truth concerning God in flesh--
Jesus Christ. How could anyone ask any more of them? They did their job and we were given what we needed. I am certain because the
Jesus in the Gospels is exactly the same God that I have witnessed in a near-death experience and many other spiritual experiences that
followed through my life. They are, indeed, the same.

And as far as God placing a star-- anywhere he likes, is hardly any effort what so ever for him. I believe this because I have seen things even greater than that. If God's word has been tainted since the Gospels-- it is because humankind has made it so. I also believe the prophecies are correct-- but historically humankind's interpretations of them have not been. Just because we don't understand something--doesn't mean it is wrong.

The God that I have met, doesn't care so much about "our" historic or textual scrutiny. It is what it is and he is what he is. He thinks and sees clearly, while we think and see through a hazy glass of water--and, of course, will say otherwise. God beats to his own drum- thankfully so.

Humankind kill humankind. It is in our power to stop. It always has been. For some, personal interests weigh greater than human life. But
that's not God's fault- it is ours. And those who are against the behavior of those in charge-- are made to tolerate it. I know it's not fair-- as Jesus spoke it rains on the good and bad. But regardless, it belongs to humankind--not God.

You are right-- the truth can set us free. But as I was told by a clergy person just recently- it seemed to him that many don't want the truth,
unless the truth fits them. As Jesus spoke, some like the darkness and/or prefer being blind--free will.

Blessings to you- Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 9, 2008 3:07 PM

"I believe some folks here really need to be carefull. God will not be allowed to be mocked."

I couldn't agree with you more, Mick. You have said it. Let it be as you say, in Christ's name.

Blessings to you- Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 9, 2008 3:47 PM

"Either Paul was in fact subversive and did not always follow his own advice, or the government was wrong and therefor should not logically always be obeyed."

Or, the government itself was not even obedient to, and violated its own standards.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 9, 2008 6:54 PM

Mick, on one hand you're for "the hammer" in The War on Drugs.

On the other hand, you say the Word is a gift, not a "hammer."

"I believe some folks here really need to be carefull. God will not be allowed to be mocked. being more lieteral in my understanding of the Bible"

When will you read about God's gift to us of a far better way, in Matthew 5, 6 and 7? Are the Lord's words meant to be taken literally, or no?

If not to be taken literally, then of course there will be endless armed forays by the Coast Guard, now not just in domestic US waters, but in Costa Rican and other faraway foreign water thousands of miles away from the United States, as the US tries harder and harder to control the behavior of all of the rest of the world, through the supposedly countering force of its own violence.

The FBI is now a world police force, and US courts try people for crimes elsewhere in the world who have never set foot in the US.

The War on Drugs escalates instead of being won. Despite huge amounts of foreign aid to nations like Colombia, used to then subsidize purchase of and inject into their nations ever greater weaponry from U.S. companies like Lockheed and General Dynamics, the price of cocaine declines and floods the market. No doubt the "busts" you are so proud of will generate even greater pride in the future, because our misguided actions are making sure even bigger ones are in store.

That's because as Jesus says - taking the scriptures literally - that violence only begets violence.

Not only that, but when war becomes a highly profitable enterprise for financially and politically well-connected elites, on different sides in each nation, the profit incentive ensures that it will continue to have reasons to be waged. Much like abortion under a political regime that claims to be against it, yet never ends it, it becomes a useful tool to be used to justify continuing power and profit.

Wars and the weapons they depend upon, have become more essential in an economy whose good jobs depend
increasingly upon weapons manufacturing - the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of - an infrastructure that is now 85% of our remaining total value as government and business together allowed civilian production to vaporise to Asia in the name of unaccountable corporate greed.

Why do people in the United States consume so much drugs, legal and illegal? Are we such a weak-willed, morally addled people that we find we cannot restrain ourselves from any self-destructive indulgence should it be put in front of us?

What is it about our materialistic, uncaring and unfulfilling society, despite its comparative wealth to the third world, that causes so many of our people to prefer oblivion of the senses to the life our nation has to offer? Our seemingly only answer is to incarcerate and punish - a continuation in the belief in violence as a solution. Thus, we have 25% of the entire world's incarcerated population, largely non-violent offenders - levels never reached in the most draconian totalitarian regimes - in a nation that pretends its highest value is freedom. What a way to be our brother's keeper.

Let's have a little history lesson, whose object is to reveal some truth - which reveals our own hypocrisy in these matters, and perhaps will help us be less self-righteous as to our being "good guys" in opposition to other nations always being "bad guys." Surely no one can seriously propose that the navies of any nation, including this one, are exclusively directed and staffed by Christians following the example of Christ, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, rather than simply the political and economic conveniences of national self-interest.

"In the early part of the nineteenth century the Yankee Clipper opium traders included the progenitors of prestigious American families with names like Astor, Forbes, Perkins, and Cabot.

"Opium was crucial to the balance of trade at least until the early 1900s. In fact, it solved a deficit problem. Huge quantities of tea, silk and porcelain were purchased from the Chinese, but westerners had nothing to barter with in return that the Chinese wanted. Then it was discovered that the poppy, which could be grown in the nearby colony of India, had a ready and increasing market in China. However, the Chinese mandarins declared it illegal. Westerners were outraged at the disruption of their profitable trade and declared war.

"To most Chinese, a century of humiliation began with that Opium War, in which Westerners sought to force a deadly drug on an Asian people, and then imposed an unequal treaty that pried open their country and annexed the island that became Hong Kong.

"Along with the slave trade, the traffic in opium was the dirty underside of an evolving global trading economy. In America as in Europe, pretty much everything was deemed fair in the pursuit of profits. Such was the outlook at Russell & Company, a Boston concern whose clipper ships made it the leader in the lucrative American trade in Chinese tea and silk.

"In 1823 a 24-year-old Yankee, Warren Delano, sailed to Canton, where he did so well that within seven years he was a senior partner in Russell & Company. Delano's problem, as with all traders, European and American, was that China had much to sell but declined to buy.

"As an ingenious way to reduce a huge trade deficit, merchants bribed Chinese officials to allow entry of chests of opium from British-ruled India, though its importation had long been banned by imperial decree. Imports soared, and nearly every American company followed suit, acquiring ''black dirt'' in Turkey or as agents for Indian producers.

"Writing home, Delano said he could not pretend to justify the opium trade on moral grounds, ''but as a merchant I insist it has been . . . fair, honorable and legitimate,'' and no more objectionable than the importation of wines and spirits to the U.S. Yet as addiction became epidemic, and as the Chinese began paying with precious silver for the drug, their Emperor finally in 1839 named an Imperial Commissioner to end the trade.

"Commissioner Lin Tse-hsu proceeded to Canton, seized vast stocks of opium and dumped the chests in the sea. This, plus a melee in which drunken sailors killed a Chinese villager, furnished the spark for the Opium War, waged with determination to obtain full compensation for the opium.

"Warren Delano returned to America rich, and in 1851 settled in Newburgh, N.Y. There he eventually gave his daughter Sara in marriage to a well-born neighbor, James Roosevelt, the father of Franklin Roosevelt. The old China trader was close-mouthed about opium, as were his partners in Russell & Company."

I take that as a literal fulfillment of, "He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword."

Or as even Mae West could have put it, "Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 9, 2008 8:02 PM

I too have had a terrible dream. Barack or Hillary is elected and we have an almost immediate pullout in Iraq. The Shiite majority in Iran joins with the Shiite majority in Iraq and commence to wipe out the remaining Sunnis in Iraq, including the Kurds. Iran develops nuclear capabilities and we have to intervene to help Israel and our European allies. No wait, never mind. That wasn't me, it was The Watcher. But the possibility isn't really that hard to imagine; speaking of which, John Lennon had it right: "And no religion too". If only.

Posted by: Cads | March 9, 2008 8:54 PM

"I too have had a terrible dream. [Such or such] is elected and we have an almost immediate pullout..."

It must have seemed like awakening from a long nightmare last century, as England, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Russia were forced out of the colonial satrapies they dominated. All the ungrateful wretches of the world, unappreciative of the largesse of their betters... biting the hands that had so long and so well fed them.

A Kipling, a troubled imperial dreamer in London, Paris or Brussels, might well have awakened distraught by such a portent, the prophecy of such loss... of power.

A blithe blue-eyed innocent once told me straight-faced, "Why you Gunga Dins would still be sitting under trees eating worms if we hadn't generously brought you civilization."

What would they all have done... without us?

"Now in Injia's sunny clime,
Where I used to spend my time
A-servin' of 'Er Majesty the Queen,
Of all them blackfaced crew
The finest man I knew
Was our regimental bhisti, Gunga Din.
An' for all 'is dirty 'ide
'E was white, clear white, inside.
So I'll meet 'im later on
At the place where 'e is gone --
'E'll be squattin' on the coals
Givin' drink to poor damned souls,
An' I'll get a swig in hell from Gunga Din!
'Though I've belted you and flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!'"

Even in matters of empire, nature abhors a vacuum. At least those of a certain nature.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 1:32 AM

Who more wants the US military in Iraq?

Automobile owners in Beijing and Peoria;

or

US Military??

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 10, 2008 9:10 AM

Much as I respect Shane Claiborne, his having a dream is a poor springboard for a reasoned debate on foreign policy. For one thing the imagery, interesting as it is, is open to all sorts of interpretation.

Maybe it's an indictment of US policy.

Maybe it's his subconscious trying to fit the Iraq War into a larger context.

Maybe it was only tangentially about the US. After all, America is not the only nation to have ever done aerial bombardment.

And maybe it was meant to convey the message that the American invasion was not as great an evil as it is sometimes imagined because God will protect his children.

Or maybe all of the above. Who knows? How does one argue with someone else's subconscious?

As I said before, it's a very powerful image and I'm glad Mr. Claiborne shared it with us, but I hope he'll understand if we're not persuaded by it.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 10, 2008 12:07 PM

Some of them may contain an allegorical truth, but I suspect many are cultural legends.

POSTED BY i AND I

I remember listening to a person explain their view of the Bible as a newspaper , you have the news , editorials , funny pages , obits, etc .
Obviously your newspaper is the NY Times and mind is the Limbaugh Newsletter . ;o)
Just curious into your understanding I and I , do you believe then the Bible is not inspired or the word of God . When I read the old testament I see much Jesus in it , and so many scriptures pointing to him . I have always believed the bible was th word of God , even the parables which were allegory have a reason for being written down .

"I just don't see the Jesus you describe in Scripture."

Posted by: Ashpenaz

I do notice quite a few scriptures that appear harsh myself . When they were moving the Ark of the Convenant and the man was struck dead by God because he went out of the way to make sure the ark would not fall , therefore doubting the power of God . David was ticked about that one himself .
In my understanding the man appeared to be just holding the Ark up as important , yet God snuffed him out .

Have you ever considered in taking in a bible study class , sometimes having someone who has studied , understanding the cultural surroundings the scripture was written in , and full of the Spirit of God can help us understand the cultural barriers that stop us from understanding better.
You ask some great questions , but sometimes it appears like your angry at God .

God Bless ,

Posted by: Mick | March 10, 2008 12:51 PM

Wolverine--Actually Shane's 'unconvincing' piece attracts me to listen.

Because I find Jesus to so often be that way.

We fight our battles, seek our goal, and slay our opponents.

And Jesus seems to come at us sideways so much of the time. He has this way of operating in a completely different dimension and yet sneaking up behind us in our own dimension.

I think the primary ways of Jesus to be these sideways, unpredictable, ever-creative ways.

Shane can depend on the Spirit to either use the words to cast light--or allow them to just fall to the wayside.

Maybe we need more insight and less overwhelming arguments. (there is a time and a place......)

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 10, 2008 1:10 PM

"Almost makes me wish I could be a Christian."

Posted by: Rebecca Davis Winters | March 10, 2008 9:13 AM

Rebecca - good news! You can be!! Just send me $3,000 in a stamped, self-addressed envelope and I will forward some literature to you concerning the free gift of salvation.

Posted by: canucklehead | March 10, 2008 2:35 PM

Mick: "Just curious into your understanding I and I, do you believe then the Bible is not inspired or the word of God?"

Actually, I believe it is both, but I take a more liberal view of it because I think we can lose sight of its lessons if we get caught up in having to interpret everything as literal truth. For example, I think the Adam and Eve story is an inspired truth to show us the nature of our relationship with God, but I don't think it necessarily follows that we have to believe that htose events literally happened. I think there is more danger in not understanding our sinful nature and the fact that we are created and loved by God, then in not beleiving certain "facts" about our creation. I happen to believe God created us through the evolutionary process, but that does not mean I believe the Garden of Eden story is any less true or real.

Posted by: I and I | March 10, 2008 3:24 PM

“please don't think that I advocate a libertine/libertarian misconception of reality in which misuse of drugs is not an evil to be combatted.”

I don’t.

“You bring up alcohol addiction, which is appropriate. However, alcohol is allowed in this country as a recreational drug.”

Yes, and alcohol and nicotine are not only the most frequently abused drugs in the U.S., they also contribute the most morbidity, mortality, health care and societal costs of any other drug of abuse. One could easily argue that they are the most destructive drugs of abuse in the U.S. – but in most parts of this country, manufacture, sale, and consumption of these drugs of abuse is perfectly legal and, as I mentioned above, their use is encouraged not only in subsets of the population, but probably most heavily by the advertising industry. It comes down to money – someone makes a buck off of it, be it alcohol manufacturers, tobacco companies, or drug dealers.

You really don’t want to know what I’ve seen in my 16 years of nursing (do the math, the answer is yes – it goes with the territory), the absolute horror of alcohol withdrawal and the panic I see in the eyes of those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease just trying to breathe.

I’ve also seen the callousness of my colleagues towards patients with advanced disease related to substance abuse. It’s really tough to take care of someone who has “done this to her-/himself.” If there is any area of ministry that is closest to my heart, it is in taking care of patients with diseases associated with substance abuse – I’ve been there.

So, please don’t think I lack compassion for people with addictions. I don’t believe non-violent drug offenders should be in prison or stigmatized for their history of abuse. God gave me a second chance!

In a perfect world we would find ways to decrease the demand for drugs of abuse, including alcohol & tobacco.

I have to tell you, I often wonder why God wants anything to do with the human race. I am not optimistic about the direction our country is going – and I don’t believe that anyone in particular is to blame for it – not conservatives or liberals. I believe we’re all just as much responsible as the next guy. I would like to believe that the human race is moving towards the “Omega Point” described by Teilhard de Chardin. My wife argues that scripture teaches us that the world is going to get a lot worse before Christ comes.

I refuse to put the weight of the world on my shoulders however. It’s futile, but I also don’t believe that we should throw up our hands in disgust. I believe we should recognize not only, as Dirty Harry advises, our ‘limitations,’ but also the strengths and gifts God has given us and use them in the places where we are – not where we want to be or think we should be, but always moving forward.

In short, I can’t offer a solution to the problems of substance abuse. I can, however, use my experiences and my position to help that one person to whom God may be offering a second chance. Knowing that, I understand God more than I am able to by any other means.

Likewise, if Mick’s son-in-law is in a position to interrupt the supply of cocaine coming into this country, and he believes that is the right thing to do, I think we should bless him. In that way, to the capacity that he is able, he is part of the solution, just as you were in your community.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 10, 2008 5:57 PM

Thanks for your considered reply. I felt a brush of cold dread pass over as you described the things that you must have seen, all out of proportion to what I've personally experienced. God bless you for your compassion. People turn away from the horrifying, afraid to look into eyes which will be mirrors of their own souls.

"Likewise, if Mick’s son-in-law is in a position to interrupt the supply of cocaine coming into this country, and he believes that is the right thing to do, I think we should bless him. In that way, to the capacity that he is able, he is part of the solution, just as you were in your community."

Except, there appears to be no forward movement, no winning, just escalation without solution. On one hand, we have the destruction without end - as you describe - of the consequences of legal drug abuse - and on the other, we have ships at sea interdicting a tiny fraction of the drugs that are only its competitors. Our main criteria doesn't seem to be morality, but manufactured and arbitrary legality.

Are we doing something effective, or do we just want to look like we're doing something, for political grandstanding, no matter how ineffective, because taking steps to really solving the problem might raise some pretty influential hackles, instead of pretending to do so?

So we have impoverished people in the Andes and elsewhere growing coca. It seems, just like us in the 19th century in regards to the Chinese whom we plied with opium, that they have nothing we are interested in buying from them but the eventual product of those plants. With all the millions - even billions - that our American CEOs each get in personal income every year, how much will they share in support of solutions for these impoverished fellow human beings? The answer is - nothing. Nor does our burgeoning military budget, with its insatiable consumption of military hardware, have anything productive to offer but drain off financial viability for anything other than the production of more military hardware. It appears there is no limit to trying to slake the thirst for more violent conflict. I do not call these solutions.

And the governments of those people? They have nothing to enable them to buy from us, except with foreign aid conveniently denominated in coupons for taxpayer-subsidized purchases of weaponry from those same CEOs' munitions factories. Are we helping them, or are we practicing government-supported crony capitalism, that feeds this entire problem, a nexus of greed, drugs and guns that ends up perpetuating itself - to the apparent continuing interests of certain economic elites?

If we could make changes in which our own corporations are accountable to something outside of their ownership, serving the interests of society instead of just greed, with their products' consumption only incidental to and in service of that greed, we might be able to break the cycle in favor of the interests of all instead, including Jesus' "the least of these."

We could act against entrenched interests by supporting the interests of average workers, not those of an entrenched oligarchy that owns almost everything worth owning. We could vest trade and investment in enterprises that do not involve violence and militarism, but spread wealth. Truly free trade that's fair for those people could empower them. They would have something to sell us that would help both of us. We could supply their governments with something other than weapons to roil their lands with. Instead, now, we have a mutual trade in death and destruction, profitable to some elites in both countries.

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 6:34 PM

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Amen.

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 10, 2008 8:57 PM

Thanks for sharing the story of the family member . Good thing the attacker was able to calm down , Glory to God .

Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 1:06 AM

"Thanks for sharing the story of the family member . Good thing the attacker was able to calm down , Glory to God ."

Thanks, not an easy thing to share. May we all meet again in Heaven. I have reason to believe we might.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 11, 2008 4:28 AM

Yes,we have domesticated Christianity in America BUT it's not remaining tame and comfortable forever. The truth (that Jesus talked about to Pilate) is constantly moving in and through his church by the Holy Spirit nudging us to get us to see. It's been happening to me for 40 years now, ever since I first met Jesus. Once I suspected what following Jesus would cost, I first tried to pretend I didn't hear it and then second, I tried to reach some mutual compromise with God that would allow me to keep Jesus and still stay somewhat comfortable living in the matrix. So basically I did consciously what most christians do subconciously. But it's becoming harder and harder to hide. There are just too many atrocities and injustices ongoing in the world and this country to ignore. And it's getting to the point where the rocks are going to start crying out to God if we don't start being who we were called to be. Avoiding risks is no longer an option. The line is drawn in the sand. The Christians have to stand up now and be a voice of Jesus. We can't blend in to the status quo any longer. My prayer is for God to free me to do His will.I'm grateful for Shane Clairborn for his good example and sharing his gifts. It's refreshing to see someone emulate Jesus in this modern day.

Posted by: Jerry | March 13, 2008 1:59 PM

Thank you, Shane. I believe your dream illustrated profound truth about Jesus. People are especially likely to be given such profound insights when they have responded to a call to risk much for the sake of the Gospel, as you did in Iraq.

Merton had, however, compared the traditional just war theory to 'a boat that has slipped its moorings and is now floating off in mid-ocean a thousand miles from the facts.'

Very similar to the view of Pope Benedict, who has questioned whether there could be such a thing as just war today, and has suggested that the theory needs to be revisited.

Merton was faithful in his prophetic witness at a time when that was very difficult. It is fitting that decades later someone who has expressed some similar views, and was himself an army deserter, was chosen to head the Church of which Merton was a part.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | March 13, 2008 9:59 PM

This is the first time I've ever posted a comment on any blog. Just want to say Shane, your story is poignant and full of the compassion of Christ for all peoples. Its a story worth passing on in contrast to "Christian fluff" that we get from folk. My son who attends Mars Hill appreciates your influence too.
Darrell, Cambodia

Posted by: Darrell Caldwell | March 13, 2008 10:50 PM