An Alternative July Fourth Celebration (by Shane Claiborne)
'Twas truly a gift to be at the 25th anniversary of the Cornerstone Festival, hosted by our friends at Jesus People USA. It was a mighty fine line-up of presenters--folks like William Cavanough, Mimi Haddad, Jonathan Case, Miroslav Volf, Jim Fitz, and the Christian Peacemaker Teams (oh, and some fine bands too). We especially enjoyed the company of our new friends Karen Sloan and Anthony Smith. Anthony had all kinds of insights to share about how our little campaign speaks into (and draws from) the historic black church. In fact, his session was on what it means to be "A Blues People," and what the blues and negro spirituals teach us about lament and hope. Anthony said our presentation was "all about the Blues"--probably one of the greatest compliments we've had, especially as we work to communicate the radical politics of Christ across all barriers of race and class.
We followed up the Psalters' one-hour show with Jesus for President. It was fun to be in a big-top circus tent, sort of reminiscent of the old time revivals. We had to sacrifice the powerpoint, but we made up for it with a great intermission show with all sorts of friends, including our brother Aaron Weiss from mewithoutyou. And it was the fourth of July, so we had a little surprise at the end.
Near the end of the presentation we emphasized how we, as a Church, have a new calendar with new holidays, not just the festivals of the Caesars. Our social body was born, not on July 4, but on Pentecost. Our heroes are not just kings and presidents and war heroes ... but they are the heroes of the Church--the martyrs, the saints, all those women and men who have embodied love, grace, and the goodness of God in this world. Chris explained that the word "vote" comes from the same root as the words "devotion" or "votive." Many folks light votive candles to remember the little lives that have lit up the world with grace. So as we remembered the heroes and sheroes of the Church, we lit up about 600 sparklers--a peculiar little way to celebrate the fourth of July.
After the smoke cleared, we were met with the usual cloud of folks wanting to talk (which we genuinely love and find very fruitful) ... and through all the faces, we noticed our friend Jesse near the back with tears running down his face. Jesse is the young man whose story we tell in the book and in the tour-show--a young man who felt God didn't want him to carry a gun, and he left the army to follow Jesus. With tears streaming, he thanked us for sharing his story. And we thanked him for allowing us to share it--a beautiful reminder to the hundreds of other soldiers who feel the same collision, that they are not alone. It is folks like Jesse that have helped create our alternatives to military resource--Centurion's Purse--one of our little experiments of political imagination as we try to build an Army of Conscientious Objectors and Peacemakers.
Shane Claiborne is the author of Jesus for President, a Red Letter Christian, and a founding partner of The Simple Way community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank you Shane for this reminder about who the Master is we should truly serve day in and day out.
Posted by: Eric | July 8, 2008 11:27 AM
Anthony Smith has a great blog:
http://www.postmodernegro.com/
Check it out.
Posted by: Steve K. | July 8, 2008 12:12 PM
Steve K.: "Anthony Smith has a great blog:
http://www.postmodernegro.com/"
"Postmodern negro" LOL gotta love it. and you're right, Steve, it's an interesting blog.
Now, sit back and wait for whites to attack Smith for referring to race in his blog's title.
Carl Hussein Copas,
pomo hipster
Posted by: carl copas | July 8, 2008 12:38 PM
I am glad you had a great time with friends at your celebration. I believe that everyone should be able to celebrate in their own way.
Good luck in building your Army of Conscientious Objectors and Peacemakers may their ranks swell. I am not sure how they would fair against an Iranian attack much less anyone else. Should the case arise - do you want to be in front or in back of the army that has the guns that have made it so that you can form you own army in safety here in the US?
You want to talk to people that understand peacemakers with conscience. Talk with a person that faught in WWII. They know what the cost really is for the freedoms we have today. There are many others you can talk to in our millitary - I just used WWII as it is something that most of us know what went on.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 8, 2008 1:46 PM
Moderatelad,
Can I ask you something? I've come to notice that you are basically against everything that is written on this blog. I appreciate the fact that you are giving insights into how you feel on certain issues, but why does that require railing against everything that you read?
It seems as if every day I come to this blog to find you making some statement against that days writing. Is this because this is how you truly feel, or is it just because the authors of this blog have left leaning views?
It's fine with me if you disagree on certain issues, but I feel as if you are only disagreeing with them because they are not displayed in a conservative light. Correct me if I am wrong.
If you spend all of your time being against everything, you have no time to be for anything.
Posted by: Nich | July 8, 2008 2:50 PM
Steve K - How dare that guy refer to race in the title of his blog!!?? I can't believe the nerve! I'm totally amazed. What is this country coming to?
Rob Hussein Whites
Posted by: Whites | July 8, 2008 3:19 PM
Okay,here's an honest question.
Are pacifists and anti-war types hypocrits?
Hold on with the flaming until I get where I'm going, okay?
Here's an observation; a good example of pacifism would be the English pacifist movement during World War II who taught that about the greatest evil the world was facing was not Nazi Germany, but for the English to go to war against Nazi Germany. Instead, they taught that if the Nazi's invaded the British Isles, they should be met not with an army but by a group of Christians who would convince the Nazis by their love that the invasion was completely unnecessary, and presumably cause the Nazis to go back to Germany and disassemble the Jewish death camps.
Now you could certainly disagree with the English Pacifist movement, but you must admit they had the courage of their convictions to advocate such an action.
Today a typical leftist pacifist (is there anyu other type?) would be admantly against any attempts to bring Saddam Hussein to justice and do away with his rape squads, and would also be horrified by the actions of Nato in Afghanistan.
And yet, the same pacifist, expects police protection for their activities.
You have to recognize that the police departments are really just a form of a domestic military. In fact, when the US isn't at war (such as since 9/11), the police in the US will kill many more people in the US than the US military will kill in the entire world.
So why aren't pacifists, who are so concerned about military action against the Taliban, also concerned by the continuing "military action" by police departments against citizens of the US?
Why aren't pacifists demanding that the police departments be dismantled, much in the matter that they want the US Military dismantled?
Could it be that they really aren't all that concerned about victims of the Taliban, since it doesn't really directly affect them, but they are quite concerned about the street gangs in LA, since their activity might terrorize them.
Is this anything other than rank hypocrisy?
Posted by: Narniaman | July 8, 2008 3:24 PM
Narniaman,
"the Nazis by their love that the invasion was completely unnecessary, and presumably cause the Nazis to go back to Germany and disassemble the Jewish death camps."
I think you know this is a bit of ridiculous hyperbole at best. Do you really misunderstand pacifism or non-violence so much as to think this?
" In fact, when the US isn't at war (such as since 9/11), the police in the US will kill many more people in the US than the US military will kill in the entire world."
Oh really? I wasn't aware that the police in the U.S. had killed over a million criminals (rough conservative estimate of enemy causualites) over the last 5 years. I think killing a million americans might have made the news (nevermind torturing and raping them...).
And I personally believe that killing people is a bad idea- even if it's poor angry criminals in the U.S. I imagine it equally pisses off God. So yeah, I'm all for police going to non-leathal weapons or whatnot to reduce killing people. You aren't?
Posted by: tad DeLay | July 8, 2008 3:57 PM
I think it's possible to have an intelligent debate on Christian pacifism v support for a Just War . However, the British certainly did not go to war against Nazi Germany to get rid of concentration camps nor were they that vexed about the suffering of the Jews in mainland Europe. To achieve our and the USA's political objectives we allied with Joseph Stalin under whose evil regime many more millions died than under Hitler.
I don't think all pacifists are leftists. Some are simply idealists like Gandhi. I seem to remember the missionary Jim Elliott who was speared to death by Auca Indians in 1955 was a concientious objector and he and his family would hardly be described as "left wing".
Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice,whatever that means, certainly hasn't brought peace and stability to the suffering people of Iraq. The position of women in both Iraq and Afghanistan is deteriorating rapidly week by week.
Posted by: Annie (UK) | July 8, 2008 4:00 PM
Today a typical leftist pacifist (is there anyu other type?)...
Yeah, we need to take a long look at those Amish and Mennonite leftist pacifists!
And never mind that the late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed mostly peaceful resistance bringing an end to Communism in eastern Europe. Yeah, of course, we all know that non-violent means don't work.
Whatever...
D
Posted by: Don | July 8, 2008 4:04 PM
Pacifists have heard of Nazi Germany, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, radically evil Islamic terrorists, soldiers who died at the hands of wicked enemies, and the possibility that someone could invade our homes in order to commit atrocities against our wives-daughters-sisters...
There were two "wars to end all wars" in the last century. Seems that slaughter and brutality followed in the wake of those "ultimate ends to war."
We begin this century with a "war on terrorism". Seems like fighting evil with evil only infects the world with more evil.
So... both the "realists" and the "pacifists" have some explaining to do. Meanwhile, a better question might be, "Which is the Way that Jesus embodied, taught, infected others, died and rose for?"
Uncomfortably, the latter seems closer to the Way.
Take up your cross.
They will arrest you, persecute you, and members of your own household will mock you for following me.
Religious people= do good to those who do good to them
Jesus people= do good even to those who do evil to them
Don't expect Jesus to be elected president of the USA anytime soon!
Come, Lord Jesus,
Duh-----sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | July 8, 2008 4:13 PM
Who's the blonde?
Posted by: P*Towne | July 8, 2008 6:57 PM
Posted by: Nich | July 8, 2008 2:50 PM
I'm not against anything or negative. I glad that he had a great time like we all did on the 4th. I spent mine with family and friends eating - a few beers - and some fireworks. Thanking God for a country that allows me the freedoms that we enjoy and praying for those who do not have these freedoms and that someday they may have a country with a gov't that will allow them to enjoy life like we do.
I am glad that he formed an 'army' - I just wanted to know if we can count on his support and where in the formation they would like to be placed.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 8, 2008 7:23 PM
I don't know about you, but I am thankful that our forefathers fought for our right to be a free nation, free from the tyranny of the British Kings. Read your history - read the Declaration of Independence - and see the charges laid out.
You say that Jesus came to set the oppressed free? Then why do you criticize the birth of the most free nation on earth? Why do you mock what God has graciously given? Why do you sit smugly criticizing those [eg. our military men and their families and those who support them] who defend your rights to speak your own opinions so openly and would die for you and your family? You should be rejoicing that you are not being arrested and thrown into dark prisons and tortured for speaking your minds!
Celebrations of freedom - That is what July 4th is all about - celebrations to remind our children and their children and their children's children about the liberties we have in this country thanks to George Washington and countless others who have literally given their lives to safe guard YOUR/OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights through the past centuries. This one holiday every year keeps in the forefront what our nation is all about. Since you say that you are Christian, even the Hebrews celebrate times when God intervened to save the nation of Israel (read the OT and the NT and about the Jewish holidays). So, such celebrations are not sin - and - just because you're not celebrating it with the usual fanfare does not make you any holier.
As for using the name of Jesus in vain, ("Jesus for President") - How heretical and blasphemous! You are creating an American version of what you think Christianity is all about. In other words, you have made Jesus, the Son of God, into your own image based upon your own western culture worldview. I do not know about you - but the Jesus, the One and Only Son of God, who died for your sins and mine, is much bigger. He is the Victorious One, the Lord God Almighty, who defeated sin and death once and for all, who so loved the world (all nations) that whosoever believes in Him will never perish, but have eternal life.
So, why do you want to destroy this nation with your rhetoric? Would you prefer that our nation be overtaken by socialist-marxist-dictators in the future? Would you like for our nation to be demolished and overtaken by the Stalin's, Hitlers, Saddam Hussein's, Che Guevara's, Castro's, Ho Schi Minh's, and Bin Ladens of the world?
Upon reading the Sojo's blog and magazines for some time now along with many of your books (Wallis, Claibornes, McClaren's, and Campolos to name a few)- it seems you would all be happier in a communist nation.
As for me, I am extremely grateful for living in such a free country who seeks to free others from oppressive regimes, and, to which many in the world flee to for their freedom.
Posted by: BetsyRoss1776 | July 8, 2008 8:27 PM
betsyRoss,
"As for using the name of Jesus in vain, ("Jesus for President") - How heretical and blasphemous! You are creating an American version of what you think Christianity is all about. In other words, you have made Jesus, the Son of God, into your own image based upon your own western culture worldview. "
I cracked up laughing when i read this bit. And if you had actually read "Jesus For President," you should understand why what you accused Shane of is so hilarious
Posted by: tad DeLay | July 8, 2008 8:36 PM
I read Shane's comments, first in agreement, and then with a sigh at the direction he seems to still be locked into, that being a Christian, and being in the military or even in the police forces, is not possible for Christians of good conscience. Ironically, Moderatelad tried to bring up a valid point, and seems to have been shot at for expressing differing ideas.
I believe that there is a needed place for conscientous objectors, and for deep and committed prayer against aggression of all kinds, whether homegrown or war. On the other hand, I am not prepared to condemn all military personnel as being non-Christian, unless they are trying to leave the active duty they agreed to, back when they voluntarily joined an armed service and accepted their training, education and other benefits.
The other day a young man at church, who had attended the justice revival with me in Columbus, finished reading "Jesus for President" by Shane, and then informed me that Shane says you cannot be a Christian and also be in the military. (I asked about the police, and he thought this was also a no-no.) I told him that I had heard this point of view when I attended a Christian Anarchist Convention in Indiana, with one of my daughters. This is truly part of our daughter's peer group, and besides being an ardent pacifist like them, she also enjoys being considered a friend and one of the "group". This being said, I was so proud of her at one of the discussion groups when she stood and said that, though she is a pacifist, she doesn't feel prepared to condemn all the military as being non-Christian. She said that her father (my husband) is one of the most deeply devoted men of God that she has ever known, who has lived his life sacrificially and lives his love of Jesus. And he is a retired Air Force officer.
Annie from the UK says, "To achieve our and the USA's political objectives we allied with Joseph Stalin under whose evil regime many more millions died than under Hitler." This is her opinion, but to sweep this all under the phrase of "political objectives" is a bit disingenuous. Chamberlain gladly turned his back on the plight of one European country after another, in the hopes that placating Hitler would keep him from the door. Countries that chose to be neutral were rapidly overrun by the Germans and atrocities occurred there, as much as elsewhere.
Don says, " And never mind that the late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed mostly peaceful resistance bringing an end to Communism in eastern Europe. Yeah, of course, we all know that non-violent means don't work." Absolutely true! Prayer and non-violent means were completely essential. And over the years that hearts were softened/changed, there were men and women who stood as literal watchmen, making those who would have liked to move back into all of Germany, think twice, to name only one place.
I also think it is interesting that Shane and his friends use the name "Centurion" in their website. When Jesus spoke with the centurion and healed the man's servant, He didn't say, "now go and sin no more". Instead He commented on the extraordinary faith of the man.
Before you all are so quick to judge and condemn every member of the armed services, consider that pacificism must be of the heart and not just an outward stance. A condemning heart that takes on the position of judge against the hearts of others, is just as aggressive in its own way.
Posted by: janible | July 8, 2008 8:55 PM
Narniaman,
I think the point of Shane's pacifism is that the greatest event in the history of the planet was a man that would rather be killed than fight back. Aren't we called to be like him? Aren't we called to take up the cross? That can be interpreted in a lot of ways, but the idea of "I'd die for you, but I would never kill for you" is a very viable one that a good amount of celebrated martyrs took up.
"Why do you sit smugly criticizing those [eg. our military men and their families and those who support them] who defend your rights to speak your own opinions so openly and would die for you and your family?"
I've read Shane's work and emailed him a few times and this is very far from his view. Shane supports the men and women of the military (in my view, what better way to support troops than to have them NOT fight?) in that he doesn't want them to become part of the "myth of redemptive violence" especially in today's society where joining the military and possibly dying for your country is much less a patriotic choice and much more an economic one. Maybe you should look into the reasons why people join the military. If you think that every soldier we have in Iraq or Afghanistan is fighting for a flag and for freedom, you're mistaken. Very often you'll find that these people come from poor families who could offer them no chance at education or a way out of American poverty.
"You should be rejoicing that you are not being arrested and thrown into dark prisons and tortured for speaking your minds!"
In the face of injustice (like the kind of injustice that forces American citizens--from a whole lot of minorities--into military service thinking that it is their only hope of creating a better future for themselves and their family) I hope I'm strong enough to choose the dark prison and the torture...like Jesus.
Personally, I can't kill anything or anyone. I think that when Jesus disarmed Peter, he disarmed all Christians. I hope that if I'm ever faced with evil so great that I have to choose 'die' or 'fight' I'll choose to die rather than fight like Christ did. That's what I want with my life. To be more like him.
Posted by: Robb | July 8, 2008 10:49 PM
This whole conversation is a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
If liberals and progressives choose to take their country and freedoms for granted, it's their right to do so. God forbid I accuse any of that here! Regardless, Patriots gave their blood, sweat, tears and last dying breaths for people to hold their own thought processes and to express them freely and without recourse. Many peoples of many nations do not have that freedom.
Whether one thinks that the Iraq war is just or not, or whether pacifism is a better option, or the option of Jesus, just remember that Jesus is the same God who commanded the destruction of the Amalekites, Hittites, Philistines, etc. He is the same God that commanded Israel to go to war to defeat evil.
Regardless, I thoroughly cherished my 4th of July celebration of American Independence. I took my kids to a parade and watched heroes walk by - old men who fought in foreign wars. Men who protected my right to exist. We got together with family and praised the almighty God for our right to gather and disagree peacefully. We closed the night with a rousing display of fireworks.
I found myself fortunate enough to sit next to a young man who is a veteran of the Navy. When I thanked him for his service to this nation, and wonderful conversation began...
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 8, 2008 11:22 PM
Whenever I hear a "peacemakers" talk about how bad war is I think of this John Stuart Mill quote:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Posted by: DITE | July 9, 2008 1:49 AM
eh... i guess you could also use that quote to say that Osama bin Laden and his selfless army of jihadists are the best of all men- certainly willing to die for their beliefs and for their community
Posted by: tad DeLay | July 9, 2008 2:51 AM
Posted by: DITE | July 9, 2008 1:49 AM
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
I think this is unfair...and I, while committed to peacemaking and reconciliation as part of my calling, am not a pacifist in principle. I occurs to me that fighting takes place on many fronts...picking up a rifle is not the only way to fight. The assumption here appears to be that those who choose to fight in other ways (and I assume that Shane and his friends, along with so-called pacifist Mennonites, etc, fall under this category) must be automatically those who aren't willing to fight for anything but their own skin.
I live in a rather violent place right now, and I struggle often with the issue of protecting my family, and what I would have to do if my family were endangered. It is not an abstraction here. But I am also aware and take very, very seriously that "we fight not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Rather than assume the worst of those we agree with, we should see that perhaps a both/and is critical here. I respect Shane and his work greatly, and admire him alot, and I know others like him who share his stand, but who are also people who are downright dangerous with their prayer lives. Believe me, and I have had the privilege of working with the same, they have not picked up a rifle (and will never do so), but have given evil a severe whupping, only in conjunction with the Spirit.
Folks, let's stop the rock-tossing and remember what the battle is all about...and there is a battle.
Ahem...
Posted by: Ahem... | July 9, 2008 3:30 AM
"eh... i guess you could also use that quote to say that Osama bin Laden and his selfless army of jihadists are the best of all men"
No because Mill is talking about men that fight to protect freedom. Jihadists are not fighting for freedom, but against it.
Posted by: DITE | July 9, 2008 5:52 AM
ugly and ugliest
This is the difficulty about what we are involved in today. It is not one country against another. It is ideologies. There are many reasons for and against war and I will admit many make perfect sense and others do not and it is determined for most on this site by your world amd political view.
I supported our actions in the Middle-East as I saw it was the last chance of bringing stability to that area and for the most part the world.
If we pull prematurly like Obama and his supporter have talked about and things go south in Iraq and there could be a chance for Osama and Co to take over. I believe that I would join 'code pink' to keep our troups home. Nancy and Harry have done a great job at making this a political football and dividing the country - in my opinion. I will not let them have a second chance to do it again. Although with Obama in the White House they may not because their party is in control. You see for Nancy and Harry this issue was a political one not a moral one.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 6:51 AM
Shane wrote: "Our heroes are not just kings and presidents and war heroes ... but they are the heroes of the Church--the martyrs, the saints, all those women and men who have embodied love, grace, and the goodness of God in this world. Chris explained that the word "vote" comes from the same root as the words "devotion" or "votive." Many folks light votive candles to remember the little lives that have lit up the world with grace."
This is a beautiful thing. We should take the time to honor the everyday heroes who lived Christian lives of love and service, who worked for peace in a troubled world. Coming from a family that is no stranger to military service and war, I strongly agree that we can use all the peacemakers we can get! Yes, in a troubled world of imperfect people, some wars are necessary. Frankly, however, it is little people living little lives who get swept up to fight our wars. If those little people are dedicated to peace in ever growing numbers, fewer will be inclined to fight.
Do the feelings and beliefs of little people matter on a global scale? Can they shift the balance? Take a careful look at your own lineage. If yours is anything like mine, you are a mix of peoples from nations who have often been at war with one another on the national scale. Yet here you are. Love knew no boundaries when your forebears married despite the political differences of their nations.
Christians everywhere should celebrate the dedicated lives of the many generations of Christians who went before them, who loved God and Jesus, who were motivated by the Holy Spirit, who strove to bring Good News to the world and worked for a world community of peace, a world community closer to the community of God, the community of the inbreaking Kingdom.
Posted by: J.S. Brooks | July 9, 2008 6:56 AM
I always wonder why Jesus didn't tell the soldiers who came to him to desert the military, but instead told them to do their jobs honestly. Maybe he hadn't figured out yet that protecting the people from attack and keeping the peace is not a viable vocation for Christians.
Posted by: Josh S | July 9, 2008 6:56 AM
When did this become an either or proposition: soldier or peacemaker? Do soldiers not work for peace as well, seeking an end to conflict? The world is not black and white. Celebrate the believers who strive for peace in every profession and every walk of life.
Posted by: J.S. Brooks | July 9, 2008 9:36 AM
I'm not understanding - is the Moderate One saying that we need to do our Second Amendment thing in preparation for the aggressive nation of Iran launching an invasion and occupation of the vast continent of North America?
Or is he saying, we need to make war everywhere in the world and invade everywhere, so that we can be forever safe and secure here from invasion inside our gated community nation?
When was the last time that there was any serious threat to a takeover and being conquered by a foreign nation?
Answer - NEVER.
The only wars fought here were either to steal the land from the people already here, or an anglo family turf battle for internecine control, as in the fight against the Mother Country, England, or against fellow Americans in the Civil War.
Mighty paranoid, and a danger to self and others, wouldn't you say?
Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 11:36 AM
So if I'm getting the gist of the comments right, you "Christian Lefties" don't think it's possible for a Christian to be either in the military or the police.
Is that correct?
Unless, possibly, sort of like an undercover operative to cripple the military or the police?
So why aren't you Christian Lefties more upfront about this?
I mean, shouldn't you openly be advocating disarming the police?
Or is it you are concerned that people will question your sanity, so you limit your Pacifist activities to trying to disarm our military?
Just before the Iraq war started, there were a number of "Peace" demonstrations where large groups of women got completely nude and laid down on the ground to spell out the word "Peace".
Maybe you Christian Lefties should try that approach with the inner city crime problem before you do away with the police departments.
And let's look at Anne of the UK's statement:
"However, the British certainly did not go to war against Nazi Germany to get rid of concentration camps nor were they that vexed about the suffering of the Jews in mainland Europe. To achieve our and the USA's political objectives we allied with Joseph Stalin under whose evil regime many more millions died than under Hitler."
So let me see if I understand what you are saying, Anne. Since England did not go to war because of the extermination camps were killing Jews in Europe, but went to war trying to ensure their own survival, than England was engaged in an immoral war? Even though it resulted in keeping the Jews in Europe from being completely exterminated?
Or was England immoral because they allied themselves with the largest Socialist nation in the World at that time, the Soviet Union? Or was it because the allied themselves with the same Joseph Stalin who was lauded by leftists of the time (like the New York Times) as a progressive leader?
Posted by: Narniaman | July 9, 2008 12:17 PM
Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 11:36 AM
I am not sure who the 'Moderate One' is that you are talking about. But in chatting with people on this site - most of them would not agree to go to war even if Iran invaded the US. The old 'Better Red than Dead' has changed to 'better Islamic than dead' for the most part.
I personally do not want to be at war with anyone. But we are still in the Bulkins thanks for Pres Clinton. I believe that we might be able to leave Iraq before we get out of the Bulkins.
Not sure that I will support any conflict anywhere in the world except if the US is attacked. I would rather sit on my back side and just talk about what needs to be done in the world like Wallis and Co. That way no US citizens die - Nancy and Harry can't moan and groan about people being killed in a war that the US is a part of. Too bad for the poor suckers that have no hope of getting rid of the oppressors that they are dealing with - they are stuck. Wonder what would have happened if the French had stayed home in the 1770's? I believe we could have won as the war was almost done by the time there got here.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 12:33 PM
Someone please inform me precisely where in "Jesus for President" Caliborne and Haw tell us that Christians can never serve in the military or as law enforcement officers. Page number and paragraph, please.
I read the book and cannot recall their ever saying precisely this. I do recall their discussion of conflicting values between military expectations and Christian beliefs, but that's not saying the same thing. Neither is their testimonial of one soldier-turned-conscientious-objector who became convinced that Christ was leading him out of the service.
Methinks some folks are reading stuff into what Claiborne and Haw wrote that isn't actually there.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 12:34 PM
Don,
Thanks for that imput! I loaned out my copy before I got a chance to read it and can only attest to the statements of someone else who did read it. Considering you didn't get the same impression he did, I obviously need to get my copy of Jesus for President back, to see for myself. (Listening to Shane at the justice Revival was one of the highlights for me, so I'm glad that this is still up for discussion!)
If my young friend was not literally quoting something said by Shane, were there things said in the book that could have misled him to believe that he was stating Shane's beliefs?
Posted by: janible | July 9, 2008 12:49 PM
Janible:
I don't have my copy at hand; that's why I posed the question. Besides, I believe that those who are telling Claiborne and Haw wrote this should themselves tell us where they picked up that understanding.
But the things I mentioned above about conflicting values and the conscientious objector story might have led some to think that is what they are saying.
D
Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 1:08 PM
Why don't we just have Claiborne and Haw answer the question.
It's not all that difficult a question.
"Can a truly dedicated Believing Christian be part of the United States Military?"
Or
"Can a truly, dedicated believing Christian be a sniper for the US Military, whose function is to kill people from long range?"
Or
"Can a truly, dedicated believing Christian be a bomber pilot for the US Military, whose function is to kill people with bombs and guided missiles?"
Or
"Can a truly, dedicated believing Christian be a sniper for a local police department, whose assigned function is to kill police suspects in certain situations?"
Perhaps another question for the esteemed "Jesus for President" author is. . .
"Can a truly, dedicated believing Christian function as a chaplain for either the military or police, knowing full well that they will be expected to provide comfort to either soldiers or policement who kill people?"
Posted by: Narniaman | July 9, 2008 2:34 PM
I asked for page number(s) and paragraphs.
D
Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 2:37 PM
For those with enough courage, watch this video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25559012?pg=9#DTL_911
It's a recap of something that happened here in Salem, Oregon about 15 years ago (Note -- the location isn't mentioned in the video, but I remember it quite well).
Briefly, what happened was there was a individual who kidnapped a little girl from a day-care center and shot the gal running the day care center in the process. A high speed chase followed, and he rolled his car when he lost control on the freeway. Amazingly, neither he nor his kidnap victim were hurt, and he stayed with his victim hunkered down in the overturned car, with the gun to the child's head threatening to kill her right then unless the police left and let him have the child.
A police sniper brought the episode to an end when he quite skillfully blew the guys brains out when he had turned away from the child for an instant. The video recounts all of this.
And so the question is. . . .what would Claiborne's (and the other "Leftist Christians") counsel be in this situation? Certainly, it appears that most Pacifist Christians feelings would be that the real tragedy here is that the police were so violent and took a life before negotations could have accomplished something.
Right?
Posted by: Narniaman | July 9, 2008 2:48 PM
Narniaman:
I's a tragedy that you are so ill-informed about Christian pacifism that you have to resort to categorizing all Christian pacifists as "leftists." This mis-characterization on your part comes close to slander, in my view.
An answer to your question may be found in the late John Howard Yoder's excellent little book, What Would You Do? (Herald Press, 1992). In this book, Yoder gives a reply to the common questions asked of pacifists, such as, "What would you do if your loved one were threatened?" I think you will find his answers enlightening.
Yoder was no leftist. He was a theologically conservative Mennonite theologian.
Since you didn't provide me with page numbers for your quotes from Jesus for President, and since I don't have my copy lying on the desk beside me, I can't respond to your list of quotes with anything like a definitive comment. However, it appears to me that the questions you lifted from Claiborne and Haw's book are rhetorical questions designed to illustrate the inherent conflict of values between Christianity and military service that I mentioned above. At least to me, they do not appear actually to be counseling anyone against service in the military or in law enforcement. But I would have to re-read them in their contexts to be sure.
But maybe Claiborne and Haw are simply asking those young Christians who are considering military service to ponder this value conflict before deciding to sign up. And maybe you should consider pondering that value conflict as well. Is it indeed in line with the values of Christ (as illustrated in the Sermon on the Mount) to submit oneself to training to be a killer? Think about that for a while.
And please think twice before attacking your brothers and sisters with slanderous words.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 3:21 PM
Nothing like a little bloodthirsty entertainment for the War Jesus crowd.
Would that the weapons worshippers spent as much time learning about and practicing peaceful conflict resolution instead of going off half-cocked on what amounts to wet dreams of violence and vengeance.
Maybe I'll believe the monicker "pro-life" is more accurate when some are less sanguine about finding any excuse to indulge in what they really want to do, which is have their cake and eat it too - morally sanctioned revenge and violence.
Murder without tears.
We are all descended from that first murderer, after all, and our spiritual death came from listening to that angelic murderer's lies.
"The lusts of your father you will do" and "He was a murderer from the beginning."
Just who is the War Jesus?
If that's who you follow, you will find at the last, the Savior telling you to "Depart from me you accursed - I never knew you."
Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 3:27 PM
"So let me see if I understand what you are saying, Anne. Since England did not go to war because of the extermination camps were killing Jews in Europe, but went to war trying to ensure their own survival, than England was engaged in an immoral war? Even though it resulted in keeping the Jews in Europe from being completely exterminated?
Or was England immoral because they allied themselves with the largest Socialist nation in the World at that time, the Soviet Union? Or was it because the allied themselves with the same Joseph Stalin who was lauded by leftists of the time (like the New York Times) as a progressive leader? "
I think I am saying that nothing is completely black or white. Britain went to war to achieve it's own political objectives, some of wich were good but others were not. Britain (not just England) and the US sadly allied with a power equally as evil as Hitler to achieve these. The plight of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, dissidents etc in the German concentration camps was known to us and the US from the early 1930's just as the suffering of people in Darfur and Zimbabwe is known to us now. If the Uk and US had really been as concerned as they sometimes claim about the oppression of Jews under the Nazis we would have allowed far more to enter our countries as refugees than we did. Anna Frank's father Otto tried to get his family to the US in 1938 and 1941 but was refused visas for them.
Posted by: Annie (UK) | July 9, 2008 3:33 PM
Narniaman: "A police sniper brought the episode to an end when he quite skillfully blew the guys brains out when he had turned away from the child for an instant."
And no doubt there was joy in Heaven, right??
After all, Satan had won another battle: the little girl likely will be scarred psychologically for life; the police officer may wrestle with the issue of killing another human being, even if "for a good cause" (it's not uncommon in such cases); and the kidnapper's lost soul is consigned to some sort of Hell for eternity.
"Certainly, it appears that most Pacifist Christians feelings would be that the real tragedy here is that the police were so violent and took a life before negotations could have accomplished something.
Right?"
No (btw, I'm not a pacifist), the lack of negotiations is part of the very real tragedy that took place.
Posted by: carl copas | July 9, 2008 3:34 PM
btw, I'm not a pacifist
Thanks, Carl, for reminding me of something. Narniaman, I should mention that I am no ideological pacifist either. But I know some, and I have a son who attends a Mennonite college.
D
Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 3:40 PM
It may bear repeating that there are four positions those who call themselves Christians have held since the time of Jesus, two of the latter only since the time of Constantine co-opting Christianity into a state religion:
Pacifism
Non-violent resistance to evil
Just War Theory (though never quite consistent with the ensuing reality)
Holy War (kill them all as infidels and let God sort it out)
Since our own nation was founded upon driving out the original peoples by violence then in a crucible of rebellion and killing
our own in a fight over which of our own ethnic and cultural family would get the spoils of what we stole and then finally a suicidal bloodbath to keep it all intact, one would reasonably expect that our own cultural preference is for the latter, violent theologies.
In that we are not very unlike some others who have equal propensities to violence - we simply use cultural Christianity as the idiom, as our vehicle to express and carry out what we by nature and nurture already want to do.
Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 4:06 PM
Let me rephrase this:
In that we are not very unlike some others who have equal propensities to violence - we simply use cultural Christianity as the idiom, as our vehicle to express and carry out -
AND EXCUSE - what we by nature and nurture already want to do.
Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 4:11 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?