----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is?
> Dan Minette wrote: > > Anyway, you're starting with a premise that I reject -- that we must > stop terrorism. Although that sentiment is not quite in a league with > wiping out all the evil-doers, it strikes me as a tempting distraction. > Let's do our best to stop terrorists -- from attacking and from coming > into existence -- with a humility that accepts the fact that we cannot > eradicate evil from the world. OK, I agree that we cannot stop all terrorist-type activities. But, I think it is a reasonable long term stretch goal to reduce terrorists to just another type of criminal...without the ability to alter society. >GWB's use of scripture and religious language says to me that he thinks he can, that we as >a nation can. But he's not God and neither is the United States. I'd give him a bit more leeway than that. While he and we are not God, he and we can be willing instruments of God's will for the world. The idea of the United States as "the last best hope of mankind" didn't begin with him or Reagan....it is a quote from Lincoln. This view has its risks of course. Calls are often mistaken for liscence. But, it is without doubt that the US is the most important single power in the world. It seems clear to me that this power's net effect has been more for the good than for the bad. Turn the US into Balkanized, feuding groups of states...a very possible outcome of the Civil War...and liberal democracies might very well be few and far between now. Discernment is a critical issue, of course. But, there are some things that are reasonably straightforward. The continuation of slavery in the US was wrong. The actions of Stalin were wrong. Some things we should end if it within our capacity. But, as you said, while the United States is strong, it is not all powerful. Thus, prudence must also be cautioned. We had to stand aside and not interfere with the invasion of Hungary and Tibet because going to war was not a reasonable option then. That is just a reasonable conservative view...which I think you express. > Are you thinking that I'm in favor of only helping people I happen to > bump into? I don't think that's my idea. It is a daily struggle for me > to have some glimmer of an idea of what's my business and what isn't, > but that's not based on who I bump into. OK, that's a good clarification. > > The faith of James. > > > > James 2:18-17,24 > > We're reading that quite differently, perhaps. This says to me that > faith calls and empowers us to good works, and to avoid the temptation > of simply offering "lip service." I understand that's a fairly traditional non-Methodist Protestant approach. But, quoting the Cost of Discipleship, about 1/4th of the way in the Call to Discipleship chapter: "The idea of a situation in which faith is possible is only a way of stating the facts of a case in which the following two propositions hold good and are equally true: 'only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.'" > The big problem I have with measuring morality by outcomes is that we > generally give in to our human desire to try to control things that are > beyond our control, such as the existence of evil. In my experience, > when I demand that things go the way *I* think they should, I'm playing > God. Not that I've managed to let go of much of that sort of habit in > myself. That's a problem. That's tied into our inability to earn salvation. But, that's only one of the potholes. The other, as Bonhoeffer elequently puts it, is "cheap grace." > Right now, I'm struggling with how to have this discussion without > demanding that you see things my way, for example. Not everybody > struggles with this, but everybody struggles with something. I'd be happy to see things how you see them; I'd just reserve the right to see things differently. You are right, we all struggle with something. My point is that this struggle is essential to accepting grace. > > For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face > > of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. > > There's some self-righteousness in Bonhoeffer, but not much -- far less > than in most of us. What I appreciate most about him at the moment is > his insight into how to live in community. I don't think he had pat > answers to our response to evil (did he talk about "duty" or reponse?), He called himself a soldier. > which earns my respect. "The Cost of Discipleship" describes very human > struggles with understanding the Beatitudes, which seems rather nutty > from a worldly viewpoint. We probably focus on different parts of the book, which is fine. > As for worrying just about our own sins, I think we're called to let go > of worry about anybody's sins, including our own, as they were nailed to > a cross 2000 years ago. I don't think so, not completely. The point to stop worrying is at the end point of the struggle, not the beginning. Well worry is probably the wrong word to use; wressle would probably be better. Let me give another quote from Cost of Discipleship...this time from the Costly Grace chapter "At the end of a life spent in the pursuit of knowledge Faust has to confess: 'I now do see that we can nothing know' This is the answer to a sum, it is the outcome of a long experience. But as Kierkegaart observed, it is quite a different thing when a freshman comes up to the university and uses the same sentiment to justify his indolence." Rereading it, I see he also talks about joining our suffering with that of Christ...a very Catholic concept. Its not that he argues that we are not saved by grace; its that he argues that we are only saved by costly grace. Thus, we can't just start by saying we are forgiven...that has to be the capstone..to quote him again. > Oh, I see now. I don't read that Psalm as "just pray." I think it > urges us to accept the world as it really is, instead of demanding that > it should be some other way or trying to control things that we cannot. OK, that's far more reasonable to me. > It calls us to put great trust in God to take care of that which is > beyond our control, trust that God is at work in the lives of our > friends and enemies, freeing us from playing God in their lives, > allowing us to be real with them. Again, that's a worthy goal...but we don't have to play God with them in order to respond. People like Bin Ladin have a vision for the future of the world...a vision I find abhorent. There is a real conflict...and he and other terrorists will be willing to kill millions to have the world as they want it. While they are less powerful than a Stalin, a Mao, a Hitler, they have similar outlooks. And, they have already suceeded in nudging Spain. In a very real sense, we are in a war with people over the general form of the world to come. If we suceed, dictatorships of various forms will continue to be replaced by various stages of liberal democracies. If we fail, there is a real chance of the non-polar world refered to in that article JDG ghostposted. But, since we are not all powerful, we cannot stop them without armed conflict. Sometimes it will be best to go in with massive forces and overturn a government...as we had to do in Afganistan. Sometimes, we will have to grind our teeth and play a containment/waiting game with a cruel and dangerous dictator...as we have to do in N. Korea. Sometimes the best thing to do is confusing. All this fits > > OK, but then what is the context when deciding whether to act? > > That's where prayer enters in, along with other means of piety, > discipleship, grace, study, etc. -- and faith, lots of faith. Not to > mention acceptance, perhaps especially acceptance that people of faith > disagree. I think more mundate analysis, thought, debate, etc. also plays a part. Indeed, I think non-theists who share my goals can even be better than me at coming up with answers. I agree with Tommy Aquinis in that God wants us to use our reason. > The real question for me is the extent to which I have accepted the fact > that I am acceptable as I am, that God loves me not despite my errors, > but comes to me in my errors, freeing me from the trap of guilt. To the > extent that I don't accept this, I tend to distract myself in worldly > things (Brin-L can be one sometimes). The more I let go of such > worries, the more free I find that I am to reach out to those around me > in love, the more I know where I am called. > > >>"Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to > >>repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace" (Martin Luther). > > > > OK, but is it OK to wage war to stop injustice instead of just repelling it > > from one's own home? I'll agree that great care is needed to be sure that > > this isn't just self-justification, but there are times when it is clearly > > true. Going to the Sudan again, my daughter Neli's best friend Naomi is > > from a family caught up in the violence there What would you say to Neli > > when she says we are called on to stop this genocide? Obviously, the > > popular thing to do, by world standards, is to publically say "oh my" and > > let it continue. But what is the moral thing to do? > > We'll never be certain, at least in this world (but there's Good News > about that). I sure don't know what the moral thing is for you. More > important, that's not for me to judge. My sense of what is the next > right thing to do is like what the guy said about advertising -- 75 > percent of it works, but we never know *which* 75 percent. In other > words, I'm sure that I'm wrong some of the time (perhaps more than 25 > percent -- I'm probably wrong there, too) but I don't know when. > > The next right thing for you do with regard to the Sudan might be to go > there and feed people. For me, it might be to encourage a new kind of > journalism in East Palo Alto. Still, it is very difficult for me to > trust that God is working through all of us, that I am not called to do > something about every injustice in the world. Yet when I accept that, > it helps me to be far more effective where I do apply myself. > > Sometimes it is helpful for me to remind myself that the list of things > God wants from me starts with thanking Him for this day, brushing my > teeth in the morning and such. > > It seems as though the less I try to do "big" things and the less > attached I am to the outcome I think things should have, the more peace > I have and the more good I do in the world. Go figure. It's certainly > not what the world teaches us. > > > I'd say that we are called upon to stop it, if we can. The UN General > > Assembly has given its tacit blessing to the genocide; so that's not a > > reasonable path to stop it. So, what is the moral action, when the world > > has given the genocide a green light? > > God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the > courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. > > What can I change about the Sudan? My vote, for one thing. Where I > donate money (Lutheran World Relief is in there, thank goodness). They are, but unfortunately the difficulties are mostly political. From what I've read from aid workers and from what I know from Neli, the problem with feeding people is not getting the food, not getting the food to the country; it's getting food to the people once it is in the country. The obsticles range from people who see that they can benefit financially by requiring payments to allow aid to procede to people who feel the benefit politically because people are starving to death. While I haven't checked on the effectiveness of Lutheran World Relief (not being a Lutheran), I'm sure it is a well respected, hard working NGO. But NGOs do not have the resources to deal with armed forces who are opposed to any relief. The US has threatened the government of Sudan with consequences if the genocide contineus. Alas, it had to water down its Security Council Resolution in order to get it passed. And, with the debacle in Iraq, its hard to believe that the US will streatch its forces to go alone in the Sudan. What I was hoping to get at with this question was some sense of what a reasonable response to evil actions is. You and I, by ourselves, the NGOs by themselves can do little to stop this evil. But, collectively, the people of the United States can...while simultaneously limiting other actions that may protect us and help the world. It seems to me that you are not against intevening against bad actions with force; you are arguing for prudence...knowing when we can be effective and knowing when action is likely to cause more harm than good....which is a judgement reasonable people can differ on in many cases. Is that accurate? > > Seriously, while it is worthwhile to have a healthy skepticism about one's > > own motives, being too scrupulous about it can lead to total inaction. > > No disagreement here. And I'm surprised that you got the idea that I'm > contemplating my motives. I realized a long time ago that I'll never > have a pure heart about anything -- I'm a two-sided guy. I seek to have > more of the loving, sacrificial side and less of the selfish side come > out. It's hard; I have many habits. My growing desire is to > contemplate (or really, be aware of) the presence of God. > > > I can't address my sins. Not in my power. Not that I don't try > anyhow... but that just another distraction, no better than addressing > your sins. We may be having trouble with semantics here, because I see you repeatedly "adressing your sins" in your posts...including this one. Obviously, adressing your sins does not mean taking care of them yourself. But, repentance is critical. We are called to work on our own spiritual development...which includes understanding and working on our habits of sin. I realize that you are not opposed to this, because you proclaim your need to do this. So, my conclusion is that we have a language problem. Going back to Bonhoeffer, if you look at cheap grace and costly grace...its the effort needed for costly grace that I am referring to. (I'm referring to him a good deal since he was one of the greatest theologians in the 20th century and we have both read him with admiration..he might thus prove a means for us to clarify our ideas with each other.) > > So, lets get back to Iraq. I was opposed to going in, even though I knew > > that if we didn't tens of thousands would die every year and tens of > > thousands would be tortured every year. The suffering of those people > > weighed on my conscience, even though I didn't think going in was the right > > choice. The reason is that I thought going in would cause, in the long > > run, more suffering. > > I got sucked in by the talk of nuclear weapons, which brought up my > childhood nightmares from the '60s. I can understand that. The reality was that we had large error bars on our intelligence...and the weapons he had were about 3 sigma low on the consensus estimation. Bush gave 2 sigma high as the norm...which didn't help his credibility at all. Instead, we found that Lybia was fairly close to an A-bomb and that Iran is well along. I think that there is a non-trivial chance of an atomic explosion within the next 10 years....say 20%. But, more germain to our discussion, this is a clear example of the usefullness of your statement that we are not all powerful. If we were, going to war would always be wrong...because there would always be a peaceful outcome. Indeed, harsh critics of the US often find the US's actions horrid by holding it up to standards that tacitly assume this type of power. I don't know how many discussions I've been in with folks who hold up the ideal and expect others to meet it. Bush can be faulted for not being conservative enough in his analysis. He underestimated the risks. I think his idea that freedom and liberty are God's gifts to humanity is fairly reasonable....it is a restatement of a key line in the Declaration of Independance. But, as president, he is responsible for more than having a good goal: he is responsible for how he works to reach that goal. There is a line of Paul's that is often misinterpreted: "if God is for us, who can be against us." I know of a number of people who think God guarantees sucess for those who truely try to follow him. Its not that they think they are God, its that God has made a promise: you choose to work towards a goal that fits with my will, and I'll make sure you suceed. Many Evangelicals believe that: have enough faith and God will work tangible miracles. I don't see God working that way. I see Him more as a source of strength during tough times than a guarantee that things will work out. So, I agree that Bush's retoric is off; but I differ with your analysis of what is wrong. I don't see him claiming the roll of God for himself or the US. I see him believing that God guarantees sucess if he is only faithful to his calling. > Absolutely. I didn't intend to contradict that idea. I'm criticizing > the idea of choosing an outcome -- e.g., ridding the world of evil-doers > -- and becoming totally attached to it. That sort of attachment is a > big hook for evil to snag. It is. In many ways I see Bush as still a Christian "of the milk" who doesn't appreciate the difficulties in discernment and balance. Also, one thing I find ironic and frustrating about all this is that you and Gautam have gotten into very heated arguements in this area....when it now appears that you have been arguing from similar starting points. He has frequently argued that the US is the most powerful nation, but is not all powerful and must act based on that reality. > > I don't mean to be evasive, but neither do I mean to give advice. Well, I don't mind friends giving me advise. I give and take it. If you give me advise, I'll take it with a grain of salt. If I give you some, then I expect the same from you. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
