Tag Archives: terrorism

Dec7

Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 6

Posted on by
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 6

Click to Order

For an introduction to the series, see here.

Another one? Another essay which takes a different slant than I want on war and terrorism during our time?

Written by Lt. Col. Tony Pfaff, a former philosopher teacher at West Point, this essay tackles the issue of noncombatant immunity in our pursuit of terrorists. What I didn’t know was, was the distinction between Police Action and War, and how civilians factored into the decision of force.

This distinction is easily summarized when Pfaff writes,

By enforcing laws, police maintain peace; by fighting wars, soldiers establish it. (p98)

Pfaff then goes on to structure his argument of when police is need versus the use of soldiers around the idea which we might associate with Ex parte Milligan. The point that he makes (97-100) is essential in understanding his essay and his view on the biblical response to terrorism. He goes on to differentiate between Criminals, Enemies and Terrorists, and does so within the tradition of ‘Nation of Laws’ approach we often hear about. This is a vital element missing in our national discourse on the pursuit of terrorists, and one which must be approached by our leaders. I had never really thought about the legal nuances, which is generally portrayed as a means of circumventing the Law, of terrorism. Instead, these little differences amount to the culmination of much speculation not only of international law but so too the Christian Just War Theory. The differences also amount to the immunity or damage afforded to noncombatants.

“It is important”, he writes near the end of the essay, “to remember that noncombatants are not subject to unintentional harm because they somehow deserve it. Instead, they are subject to unintentional harm because they are citizens of a state against who act of aggression the government must move in defense. (p106)” It is difficult at best for a rational population who professes the Christian attitudes of peace and compassion to all to watch as seemingly innocent populations undergo such military strategies as ‘Shock and Awe‘, but it would behoove us, according to Pfaff, to know our goal, the reasons of that goal, and how such actions are determined by law. The reaction to terrorism is dependent upon many things; it is important to understand the reason for the reaction, and that not all terrorists are the same. I believe that a reconsideration and a reminder of the War on Terror may help to solidify our current strategy, if one buys into what Pfaff is arguing. And if the buy in is made, the stance against total war is equally assured by the consumer.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

      

Dec1

Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 5

Posted on by
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 5

Click to Order

For an introduction to the series, see here.

Daniel R. Heimbach writes the fifth essay in this book, an essay which is immediately challenging to my political notions which developed over the past eleven years. He takes on the notion, developed during the lead up to the Iraqi War, that a Just War is in effect the same as a Crusade, making such a Crusade a morally righteous act. He tackles Plato, Aristotle and Augustine in (re)dividing Crusade from Just War, admirably.

It is his take on the Iraqi war that I am having a difficult time with. In this short essay (the shortest of the series, I believe), he lays out masterfully the theology which prevents a Crusade, or preemptive action, but then mercilessly writes,

I believe that the war with Iraq was indeed justified, that there was a legitimate just cause. (p87)

What? I don’t even like writing those words, and yet, he doesn’t go into the casuistic American stance of the time, nor the defense which developed afterward, but focuses on his one reason. For him, none of the other reasons offered amounted to a just case for the war, but his singled out cause did. He appreciation of George W. Bush is another thing which mystifies me, but sitting today, when the President I supported is under vicious and often times unfounded attacks, I try to calm my nerves a bit and listen to what Heimbach is saying. He is fair in criticizing those who kept to a conservative notion of Just War (ironically, the Liberals) and those who sought to liberalize it (or, the Conservatives), although I think that he may not be giving the ethicists their due.

He includes an appendix to his essay which shows the statements of those who believe and defend Just War and those who believe and defend Crusade masked as a Just War.

It is going to take me a while to digest this essay, to be honest, finding any support for the Iraqi War morally questionable; however, I need to think on his singular reason, and what they might actually have meant for the overall war mind-set.

      

Nov29

Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 4

Posted on by
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 4

Click to Order

For an introduction to the series, see here.

It was is looking to be a timely discussion tensions rising again around the Korean Peninsula, Rodas examines Isaianic impulses toward peace in a country at war. He first tells his story of how he came to his conclusions on biblical theology of war and the impetus of this search, followed by a thorough review of Isaiah’s prophecies dealing with Hezekiah, a king who in the midst of a war turned to human innovations instead of relying upon YHWH. It is not about what we can do, but about who we are that confirms what we should do.

Rodas begins his essay by detailing his personal pilgrimage during the years which he spent in war-torn Guatemala. It was in the midst of this struggle that he searched for ‘an appropriate evangelical response’ to what was happening around him, and as we know now, war and terrorism in general. In this struggle, he began to dialogue with voices such as Niebuhr who seemingly urged responses within the “ethics of responsibility” (p62). But, this was not to Rodas’ liking and was countered by the theology of Stanley Hauerwas. It was here that he formed his notion of response to violence as a test of identity. He expands this personal theology as he examines the attack faced by Hezekiah as recorded from the prophet’s viewpoint in the Book of Isaiah.

Throughout the remainder of the essay, Rodas is able to build up the notion that because those who hold to the legacy of Jewish monotheism as preached by Isaiah hold to a unique God, then we have a unique identity which requires a unique response to war and terror. And what is preached of a righteous king was never fulfilled an earthly king, which as we now live in the Kingdom of Christ, it behooves us to know our identity. If we identify with Christ, then we accept that while the Kingdom is come and is coming we must actively participate in it (p78).

In the end, maybe the best way to say what is happening so far in this book is “If God is our Warrior, then why not let Him fight?”

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

      

Nov18

Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 3 – Toward Shalom: Absorbing the Violence

Posted on by
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 3 – Toward Shalom: Absorbing the Violence

Click to Order

For an introduction to the series, see here.

Elmer A. Martens, a co-editor of this volume and a Professor Emeritus at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, brings us the second essay which attempts to answer, somewhat, Regina Schwartz‘s book which called for the end of Monotheism. In this essay, Martens attempts to answer the charges against the Cross as a symbol of a violent and uncaring God, but doesn’t exclude the fact that their is violence in Holy Writ, and that God does at times cause it. What is interesting is first his notion of shalom, which while we tend to think that it fits neatly as ‘peace’, really doesn’t, and second, his view of the absorption of violence by the believers, but most notably, by the Cross.

While I enjoyed his theme overall and found him honest in his treatment of Old Testament violence, I found his translation attempts compelling. Admittedly, I know nothing of Hebrew except to find someone who does. In examining his translation of Isaiah 2.2-4, I found that it is allowable. And if it is allowable, it is, well, preachable:

Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. (Isa 2:2-4 NAU)

Essentially, Martens seeks to translates the eschatological bent out of the English versions and instead, read it prophetically. His demand is that the text is better served as translated, ‘Now, it will come about that whenever…the mountain of the House…many peoples will come….and they will hammer their swords into plowshares…’. Martens contends that this era of peace herein described is attainable now. He goes to write ‘God’s intent is peace’ (p38), and shows throughout his essay that God’s interaction and intervention with humanity is about peace, which culminates in the Incarnation which for all time absorbed the violence of sin.

      

Nov10

Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 2 – War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview

Posted on by
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 2 – War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview

Click to Order

For an introduction to the series, see here.

Often times, especially in the latest round of discussion concerning war, terrorism and the appropriate response to attacks, the Hebrew bible is mined extensively (well, not too extensively, I suspect) to support a violent and oftentimes, religious response in the form of a crusade. I remember the days after 9/11 when our rhetoric was a ‘our God vs their god’ type mentality, with phrases such as ‘we should go Old Testament on their….’ brought up repeatedly. Richard Hess, an editor of this series, shapes a response to those who do violence to the Old Testament by using it to justify a swift and brutal reaction. His purpose is twofold: to consider the issue og war in a then/now spectrum as well as to allow the modern Westerner to regard him or herself in this light allowing them to see how much the views have changed by examining recent contributions to the ethics of war.

He notes that every ancient generation knew war (p20). We should be reminded, even from a casual reading of the Old Testament of places such as Har Megiddo which holds such a violent reaction in our minds because of the blood constantly spilled there during the ancient times. For evidence, as he notes, there is the fact that of the books of the Jewish canon, only two doesn’t mean war. War was a large part of the life of the ancient community, but as he goes on, it isn’t the take on it which we currently have. Instead, Hess begins to craft the notion that when YHWH went to war, it was defensive, except when YHWH stands against Israel. Contrary to Volf, Hess acknowledges the inherent violence in such things as the Day of the Lord and the wrath involved, although the author attributes this to preserving the holiness of YHWH (p24). He goes on, noting the development of ethics, but comes to show that war must be relative to YHWH, His holiness, and His judgment.

In one section of the essay, Hess details various views of war as found in the Hebrew bible – bardic and holy, to name two. I find it interesting though that the consequences of David’s bardic warmongering was not mentioned, in that the promises of the Temple were removed from his hand for the expressed reason that David’s hands were too bloody. David and presumably always fought the battles of YHWH and yet, at the end of his life, his most cherished goal and promise was denied to him because of his bloody acts as King. I do find it interesting, however, that the idea of holy war, something we hear today frequently tossed around, is not expressed in the Old Testament because their understanding included the idea that gods were always involved in war. I do appreciate his taking to task the notion of genocide as an act of human sacrifice, siting the Binding of Isaac as proof that God simply didn’t require sacrifice.

Hess takes the new normal road of seeing the wars and genocidal battles in Joshua and Judges as more in line with the bardic tradition than with an actual presentation of history. To his credit, however, he notes fully that these stories increased in the amount of bloodshed until they bring about a civil war filled with massacre. Further, he notes that the bible doesn’t give explicit approval to these actions, but as in the case of the tribe Dan, pleases the onus of warmongering on the people. (p31) In other words, they care little about being on YHWH’s side, but desperately want YHWH on theirs. It sounds all too familiar. The author deals swiftly with views which focus on war and yet leaves out the narration of such events, which generally speak only to the ‘history of it’ without giving credence to it. He ends his essay by noting that the bible, even in speaking about war, offers contradictions after contradictions on the subject, but carries with it a moral tenor that points to the cosmic struggle.

From reading the sacred text, I find very little reason for war, but the more so when reasons are given we must struggle to see they have divine approval or are the inventions of a fallen humanity. I believe that Hess, succinctly, points this out and doesn’t hide from the fact that war is prevalent in the Hebrew bible but calls us to examine whether or not the reasons are always welcomed by God.

      

Nov9

Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 1 – Christianity and Violence

Posted on by
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 1 – Christianity and Violence

Click to Order

I wanted to spend some time going through the eight essays of this book, as I find that this issue is important. Not only in the we see the world at large, which has increasingly become known only through the lens of nativism, but so too how we remember ourselves. I’ll be up front – my views on such things as ‘an appropriate response to terrorism’ has been influenced by Richard T. Hughes and his book, Christian American and the Kingdom of God. I imagine it is more Mennonite than what some would like, but it is mine nevertheless because I view it as a Christian method of response.

This book, published by Eisenbrauns (here), is part of the Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement series edited by Richard S. Hess and Craig L. Blomberg. This particular volume is edited by Hess and Elmer A. Martens and includes distinguished writers, such as Daniel Heimback and Ian G.C. Durie. It is a collect of essays inspired by Denver Seminary’s annual Biblical Studies conference, help in 2004, which attempted to ‘address… the question of the teachings of biblical ethics regarding modern war.’ (viii)

I want to examine, and to open up the discussion, on the first essay, as written by Miroslav Volf entitled Christianity and Violence.

His thesis is essentially this:

The more we reduce Christian faith to a vague religiosity that serves primarily to energize, heal, and give meaning to a life the content of which is shaped by factors other than faith (such as national or economic interests), the worse off we will be (p3)

His goal is not to argue against the fact that Christianity has been employed to ‘foster violence’ (p3), but that Christianity might actually have some value in securing a more peaceful society. For an immediate historical allusion to this, just note the rise of secularization in Europe during the middle 19th century which brought about bloody and ruthless conflicts. In some small way, I believe that this is actually feeding a resurgence in those seeking religion in much the same way that the bloody religious wars of the 16th and 17th history fed secularization. Religion is simply not dead, nor as private as we might would like to this, according to Volf, who notes that this new religious fervor brought on by changes in the 20th century (think of the Soviet invasion and attempted secularization of Afghanistan in the 80′s and what he led to, culminating in the attacks on 9/11). The author’s answer? More Christianity, but not the thin veneer that we have come to know as Christianity, but something more ingrained.

He validates his argument by calling for a real commitment to this faith of ours, and not a ‘thin’ (his words) religious zeal which scratches the surface of Christianity and will most likely produce violence. Volf argues quite forcefully that by understanding real Christian theology and doctrine, and finding that these dogmas must by necessity of themselves ground the believer in a realm of peace, then the path to peace is entrenching oneself in the historic doctrines of the faith. Frankly, it is refreshing to see an author call for more religion to bring about peace instead of taking the modern path of calling for the end of religion altogether. To do so, he tackles four arguments which is used by scholars to show that religion, and Christianity in particular it seems, leads to violence. In doing so, he turns them on their head, approaching the Christian doctrine not from a stance of regret for doctrine, but a truly Apologetic discourse which attempt to set the record straight on violence in Christianity, or rather, violence for which Christianity is used to underwrite.

His take on Revelation is interesting, and while I may be leaning to the ‘non-violent violence of it all, I am not sure I am willing to completely accept this notion that Revelation is almost wholly without violence. Reader, you have to first understand what he means by violence and how that stands opposed to what we see as violence. I believe that Volf is seeing violence as imposition of will, which he doesn’t find either the Creation or the New Creation. Even in Creation, unless understood properly, someone could see abstract violence in that the Creator molded something which was not of His Nature. Yet, that is not the Christian Doctrine. While I do not explicitly believe in creatio ex nihilo, nor some of his other doctrines so expressed, Volf continues to show that in these doctrines, and even in the most violent of interpretations, there is still the grounding of Love. God is Love.

What is equally interesting and something of note, is that Volf takes these doctrines and simply shows how without them, people are prone to be more violent!

Volf is correct in that ‘The Christian faith is misused when it is employed to underwrite violence’. I have been on the receiving end of relatively a small amount of that violence, but I see the effects of the greater portion of that misuse in my community and circle of friends (he notes on p16 that this is the inflation of the negative in which the evil of religion overtakes the large amount of good produced by religion). I would agree with him, that if Christians were brought back to the historic texts (and I assume, digging through the patina of interpretations back to a better understanding of our values) that they would be true peacemakers. There is a hope for something that Volf speaks about, and I believe that this hope may be realized in this search for historic awareness of the Christian doctrines.

Cannot wait for the second essay…

      

Jan21

Pilot diverts jet over teenager’s in-flight prayer

Posted on by
Pilot diverts jet over teenager’s in-flight prayer

A Jewish teen trying to pray on a New York-to-Kentucky flight caused a scare when he pulled out a set of small boxes containing holy scrolls, leading the captain to divert the flight to Philadelphia, where the commuter plane was greeted by police, bomb-sniffing dogs and federal agents.

Pilot diverts jet over teenager’s in-flight prayer – Yahoo! News.

I guess it’s better to be so scared and paranoid that you can’t act normal….or not.

      

Nov10

What anti-Muslim backlash? Man Beats ‘Arab’

Posted on by
What anti-Muslim backlash? Man Beats ‘Arab’

Surely not…not in this country?

A Marine reservist armed with a tire iron beat and chased a man he thought was an Arab terrorist and even called 911 to say he was detaining the man, police said.

Read the rest of this entry →