Terrorism: Act or Label?

Several weeks ago, you may may remember hearing about the Boston man who was arrested for plotting an attack on a shopping mall as an act of jihad. What struck me about the coverage of this story was the constant use of this word terrorism and its other forms.

I immediately recalled the horrific events that transpired in an Amish school house several years ago.

I remembered when news broke of a brazen shooting in the Holocaust museum in Washington, D.C. and how I wondered what can cause a man to hate like that.

I also flashed back to my sophomore year of college, sitting in the lounge at school, watching as the surreal Virginia Tech shooting unfolded. The Virginia Tech attack particularly affected us as students, hearing about the massacre of 33 people just like us.

Then, news of the execution of John Allen Muhummad today brought back memories of the D.C. sniper shootings and the way a whole portion of the nation was stricken with absolute fear.

The list goes on, and I couldn't help but notice that I never remember hearing "terrorist" or "terrorism" in connection with these events or those who perpetrated them. I wonder, is there some sort of rule of thumb that determines whether vicious attacks like these are either terrorism or just your typical, plain, old, run-of-the-mill mass-murder?

Certainly we can't say that it is the number of victims which crosses the line into terrorism territory; the Virginia Tech shooter killed 33 people in a matter of hours, but wasn't deemed a terrorist.

Nor are we led to believe that targeting a specific group of people for being who they are, because of some sort of agenda, grievance, or twisted logic makes one a terrorist; the anti-Semite in D.C. had every intention of killing Jews, and the man in PA specifically targeted Amish girls.

So, I couldn't help but wonder whether the term "terrorist" only applies to Muslims. I have to say that this largely seems to be the case in post-9/11 United States.

However, I recall that the D.C. sniper professed to being a Muslim, and even talked about jihad in his writings. Being a militant Muslim did not make him a terrorist. And for that matter, neither did brainwashing his teenage accomplice. Perhaps most astonishingly, even INCITING TERROR on a massive scale did not qualify John Allen Muhammad.

Where is the disconnect?

This question was suddenly thrust into the spotlight after the tragic news of the shooting at Fort Hood came out last week. Fox News even put up this poll asking whether the massacre was an "act of terror or a horrific crime".

There is so much wrong with this picture! Not only do we not have a clear picture of what even constitutes terrorism--which, by the way, we are apparently fighting a War against--but what benefit does this distinction even offer us?

I therefore have three questions:

1. If (and this is a majorly huge, theoretical if) one concedes that it is possible to defeat terrorism through the use of War, how can said War be won if its target has no clear definiton? Would not the extent of such a War become as indefinite as its target?
   
2. If the moniker of "terrorist" does not coincide with a specific act, type of act, or motivation, is not the label then a purely political one?
3. Are not all "acts of terror" and "horrific crimes" one in the same?
   

A victim of an act of terror in Jerusalem. A victim of a horrific crime at Virginia Tech.

Rediscovering the Good: or, The Black Eyed Peas Made Me Think??

I've been hearing a lot of the Black Eyed Peas at work lately; my boss is convinced their new album is really good. Undoubtedly, the quartet is one of the most over-exposed pop groups of the last several years, and under normal circumstances I would advise against taking the time to think intelligently about any of their songs, as this could result in a wide range of side-effects from self-inflicted violence to loss of faith. However, a particular section of the song, 'One Tribe,' did stand out to me and I thought I'd throw out a few thoughts:

Compositionally, the lyrics of the song are absolute rubbish, but I was intrigued by one passage which chanted:

Forget about all that evil, evil / That evil that they feed ya, feed ya / Remember that we're one people

I think in a lot of ways The Black Eyed Peas can be seen as representative of (or at least, their success can be seen as a result of) our current over-stimulated, hyper-consumptive, ultra-modern culture. A scary thought, I know, but let's run with it.

It is interesting to me that even in the shallowest cultural outlets of our society, there is this acknowledgment of the existence of evil; and beyond acknowledgment, a condemnation of it. My mind also jumps back to the foreign policy speeches of President George W. Bush, which were not shy about pointing out exactly who and what was evil.

I often hear (and am peeved by) individuals within the Church who, in pontificating vaguely about the destructive influence of (what they call) post-modernism, talk about how the advent of post-modernism has resulted in a moral relativism which causes people to think that anything a person does or believes is 'okay for them.' The essential claim is that there is no longer any recognized concept of sin, evil, etc. I think in rare cases, this may be true for a very small segment of society. However, I think if we look at cultural outlets such as the Black Eyed Peas song in question, we can see that the rise of post-modernism--rising out of modernity--has actually had the opposite effect.

After witnessing widespread, systematic, and cataclysmic violence resulting from the radical culmination of modern ideals, post-modernism, if nothing else, is keenly and tragically aware of the presence and effects of evil in our world.

It seems to me that while much of the Church--at least its conservative or evangelical (I hate that term) branch--is focused on harping at those outside it about what is Bad, what they really need to be teaching (practically and theoretically) is what is Good. I want to stray as far as I can away from talk of 'relevance.' But I do think what we are looking at is a disconnect between the biggest problems facing our world, versus the issues much of the Church is preoccupied with; we are not answering the right questions.

If we look at the work of post-modern philosophy, or the music of the Black Eyed Peas, foreign policy rhetoric, or the face of our culture, there is much agreement on the existence of evil; we see it in racism, warfare, poverty, etc. However, beyond this, what we are struggling to uncover is the existence of good, or at least an agreed upon universal sense of the Good which is more than giving to charities, or supporting local artists. For example, while George W. Bush was very clear on what was evil, he was seemingly very confused about what types of actions or inactions against it were good.

People do not need to be convinced that building up walls between ourselves is wrong; what we are desperately searching for is an answer to how to tear them down and why there is meaning in doing so. What does it truly mean to be 'one people' as the song says?

I am intrigued by the prospect of the Church preaching a radical sense of Christ's gospel message which can perhaps be summed up as, 'Turn from evil and do good!' Furthermore, what he chose to elaborate on at great length was what exactly is the good we are to do (and who gives us the power to do it, and especially why--but that's a topic for another time). When Christ took up John the Baptist's message of repentance, admission of guilt was only half of the equation. It seems the much bigger half (I'm sure there's some crazy mathematical way to show such a thing to be possible) is learning to embody and live out the life we turn towards. I am not saying we should do away with talk of sin, but I think once we have a clearer conception of our task as image-bearers to be salt and light, imitators of a perfect God, and heirs of a Kingdom, specific examples of the evil already recognized in general terms will be brought into stark contrast on their own.

War According to the Artful Dodger

After getting sidetracked for a while, I recently resumed reading Oliver Twist. One passage in particular stood out to me as I read it several nights ago, and I thought it would be worth sharing.

To set this up, the pure and innocent character of Oliver is in the midst of being indoctrinated into a band of young pickpockets headed by the cunning and self-interested Fagin. One of Fagin's most gifted boys, the artful Dodger, is attempting to help Oliver overcome his intrinsic moral objections to adopting a criminal lifestyle:

'If you don't take pocket-handkechers and watches,' said the Dodger, reducing the conversation to the level of Oliver's capacity, 'some other cove will; so that the coves that lose 'em will be all the worse, and you'll be all the worse too, and nobody half a ha'p'orth the better, except the chaps wot gets them--and you've just as good a right to them as they have.'

Fagin commends this explanation and directs the impressionable Oliver to take the Dodger's word for it; he being a boy who "understands the catechism of his trade."

Within the larger context of the book, I think what Dickens wants us to be aware of are the underhanded, often imperceptible ways in which society is taught to accept and even perpetuate various forms of violent exploitation (particularly in this book, systematized, class-based poverty). Taking this a step further (and I'm sure this will roll a few eyeballs belonging to some of you who think I sound like a broken record) I couldn't help but think while reading this how similar the Dodger's enticement is to many contemporary justifications for war.

What the Dodger has successfully done is create an argument which appeals to both the altruistic and the selfish aspects of human nature. People are going to get robbed; that is a fact of life. If indeed people must be robbed, wouldn't they be better off in the end if a good person like you did the robbing? There's no telling what a very bad person might do to the poor soul in the process of robbing them. Furthermore, not only will the person getting robbed be better off if you do the robbing, but you will better your own situation in the process. Everyone wins!

It is worth adding here that in a later conversation with Bill Sykes, Fagin reveals that he sees great promise in the future criminal career of Oliver (a career which will almost strictly profit Fagin himself). However, the key would be to entice the boy to commit his first robbery; then and only then would Oliver fall securely into Fagin's pocket. There he could develop into the next Bill Sykes (but conveniently less strong-willed), who, in addition to burglary, would not shy away from taking a person's life if he saw fit.

I admonish the reader to seek a deeper sensitivity to the sly way in which our societies are sold a proverbial bill of goods relating to matters of war. What the Dodger does not disclose to Oliver is that one's perceived righteousness in carrying out an immoral act does not make the action any less evil. This I believe includes supposed "necessary" evils, as well as those which seem "natural" or inherent to our present reality as robbery in this case was made out to be.

I also found it interesting that Fagin refers to the Dodger's explanation as being an illustration of the "catechism" of the criminal trade; the term catechism being typically used in a religious sense to describe an outline of the beliefs within a given faith. This is another aspect of the way we think about war which I think we need to be keenly aware of. In accepting the rationale for--thus necessarily, acts of and loss of innocent life resulting from--war and warfare, we are not simply making a one-time decision or casting our vote for a single issue; we are choosing to adopt an entire system of belief.

We must also seek an awareness of the principalities (to use the old Biblical term) into whose control we place ourselves when we affirm the tenets of such a "catechism." In many cases, one well-intentioned act can have far-reaching repercussions which place control of our lives (as well as the lives of countless others) in the hands of very dark forces that seek only to desensitize us and further justify increasingly abominable acts.

Questions About Consitutionalism

Over the last several years, I have noticed a pointed rise in the popularity of Constitutionalism. To be fair, I want to note the necessary distinction between what I've seen to be two distinct brands of the movement: The first is Constitutionalism as a comprehensive political stance. I see this platform as being traditionally positive in that its impetus is an affirmation of what they interpret to be a strict adherence to the verbage of the constitution. This is in contrast to the second brand which resides within certain conservative Sean-Hannity-like circles who nominally describe themselves as Constitutionalists when it is politically advantageous to do so (generally during important Supreme Court goings-on such as the Sotomayor hearings), while conversely discarding it altogether when they see fit (generally during times of widespread panic, where it can easily be defended as an action which will protect the nation, for example in support of the Patriot Act). Their use of the term 'Constitutionalism' is typically negative, in the sense that it is almost always invoked when painting themselves as the victims of oppression, e.g. "They want to tax us more and change our health care!"

Obviously, the latter type requires no extended critique, as its absurdity is blatant. (Though I do want to clarify that the absurdity lies only in the use of the term at hand. The political stance is, I believe, as valid as any other.) I do want to briefly address the former, which to me, is very interesting. As previously noted, I do find the comprehensive nature of Constitutionalism admirable. Ironically, I think there are intriguing parallels to Marxism in this regard. At any rate, I think the best way to outline my critiques of and questions about Constitutionalism will be to pose a few broad questions and leave them open for response.

* Why the Constitution? Why not the Articles of Confederation, On Walden Pond, or the Qur'an?

* What exactly is a 'pure' interpretation of the Constitution? Is such an interpretation even attainable for people who are by nature contextual, and carry with them a variety of background assumptions?

* At its root, does the Constitution imply the freedom of future generations to step away from it?

Politweets

The disputed 2009 Iranian presidential election sparked an unprecedented amount of U.S. media coverage, which of course led to a curious amount of attention in pop culture. As I basked in the warm glow of various electronic screens, I couldn’t help but feel a strange sense that something was awry within the bombardment of images of, chatter about, and support for the ensuing political demonstrations.

Time for reflection has helped me get closer to uncovering what I couldn’t put my finger on before: the benefit of devoting mass amounts of media coverage to the Iranian demonstrations, and the specific type of attention it was getting in the United States, would ultimately have nothing to do with the state of democracy in Iran.

As they often do, a few words from Slavoj Zizek ring true for me and seem to speak precisely to such a phenomenon. Describing the techno-savvy, business-minded, yet cause-sensitive people who are at the forefront of capitalism’s recent evolution into a non-self-perpetuating (i.e. not driven by greed alone) system which is very good at making lots of money by trying to care about Stuff at the same time, Zizek notes their odd political ethos by sarcastically pointing out the way they have reworked Marx's observation about the steam engine:

What are all the protests against global capitalism worth in comparison with the invention of the internet?

We are apparently a step even further now, for the overwhelming sense I had when the protests in Iran and the coverage of them were at their peak was that the message we were intended to receive had little to do with Iranian democracy; the real message was, “What is the struggle against totalitarianism worth in comparison with the onset of Twitter?”

Indeed, let’s ask ourselves who the winners of the whole ordeal were: the Iranian people? Certainly not, as their potentially flourishing democracy remains restrained by a totalitarian theocracy. The Iranian establishment? Obviously, Ahmadinejad will always look bad, but even Khamenei will find it hard to possibly look good after suppressing an opposition with very real concerns over the legitimacy of the election. Twitter? The company quickly discovered what the neo-capitalists have known all along, that nothing is as good for business as a humanitarian crisis. This is not to say that Twitter’s end-goal was to exploit the situation of the people of Iran. Nor am I suggesting that the awareness the Western world was allowed via Twitter was not beneficial in some way.

However, I think the subsequent inane Twitterization of everyday life we have seen since that time is evidence that the web site walked away with much gained. From inconsequential celebrities to legitimate news programs, Twitter has suddenly become some kind of proxy journalism; journalism being the institution formerly made up of professionals who sought the public good by seeking out first-hand, the developments society needed to be aware of, in order to bring about change.

It’s not that I find Twitter annoying and pointless (which I do), I just find this growing trend toward e-politics troubling. I remember during the last presidential election in our own country how often I heard facebook and MySpace group numbers being cited on the news. The advent of e-campaigns was the true focus, not political change.

Just as the internet boom failed to translate into deep political change in our own democracy, it is no surprise that we witnessed the same impotency in regards to Iran. While the people of Iran risked their physical well-being to take to the streets and demand to be heard, we in the U.S. failed to do the same. The Western media in general failed to move beyond the fact that Iranians were tweeting, and thus missed why they were doing it. I hope would-be activists in the U.S. soon realize that we can't tweet our way to a better future.

Race as Oppressive Social Construct?

Of late, I've become more and more interested in exploring the philosophy of race. After reading several essays by Cornel West--who for obvious reasons has a vested interest in the subject--and working extensively on theories concerning the identity of the Other in politics for my thesis, I continue to notice the complex ways in which a philosophy of race must necessarily be considered inextricable from a cultural theory of violence.

I'll admit that all these various ideas came crashing together very unacademically tonight as I watched The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (which, by the way is the second best late night talk show behind Conan). During a chat with Corkie Roberts about the self-designated supremacy of the white male, Craig made the comment, "Do you know we just elected a black president?"

In light of the context of the conversation, I suddenly thought to myself, But, isn't Barack Obama as WHITE as he is BLACK?

The simple illustration of a man with a white mother and black father being labeled 'black' seems to me an indication that we are talking much more than ethnicity when we talk race. This ironically coincides with a book I had just started earlier today, "Violence" by Slavoj Zizek. In the introduction, Zizek writes, concerning necessary distinctions between various types of violence:

...Subjective and objective violence cannot be perceived from the same standpoint: subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of a non-violent zero level. It is seen as a perturbation of the "normal," peaceful state of things. However, objective violence is precisely the violence inherent to this "normal" state of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent. Systematic violence is thus something like the notorious "dark matter" of physics, the counterpart to an all-too-visible subjective violence. It may be invisible, but it has to be taken into account if one is to make sense of what otherwise seem to be "irrational" explosions of subjective violence.

We Americans are acutely aware of the disturbing volume of subjective violence perpetrated as a result of racial tensions. But, if we take Zizek's cultural theory and examine race in this light, I wonder if the imposition of race itself is the latent systematic act of violence, which, like dark matter, physically holds together our conceptions of peaceful racial normalcy (which, as we know is itself rife with various forms of objective political and economic violence). This ties into an earlier comment of Zizek's that:

...There is a more fundamental form of violence still that pertains to language as such, to its imposition of a certain universe of meaning.

The universe of meaning associated with being black is a universe I personally can observe but never experience or fully understand. However, there is commonality between it and my own racial universe of being white in that both, in my opinion, are violently imposed from without, rather than arising out of self-revelation.

Resulting from externally imposed racial identity, the impulse towards self-segregation is maddeningly more common than I think most people realize, and it's evident everywhere from the locations we choose to live, to the language we use to even talk about race. Imagine, for instance, a white immigrant from Johannesburg who chooses to call herself an "African-American." The term carries with it all of the associations and prejudices of the term 'black,' so I find it puzzling that it is often seen as being more politically correct. While racial identity makes us comfortable by drawing neat lines between us, these lines seem to be the very thing that must be examined and questioned if we are to understand and effectively act against the violence perpetrated because of them.

Returning to the example of our new president, we see this in his own profession of being a black man, in that this identity is entirely a result of experiences resulting from the larger system of racial prejudice and violence which has pre-defined him as 'black.'

So, again, I wonder if I'm way off in thinking that racial identity is itself violent. For the record, I think a 'color-blind' system is equally violent by imposing some sort of neutral identity, over a self-revealed one which would of course include skin color and resulting conceptions based on one's treatment because of it. Yet, behind segregation (self-imposed, or forced), behind prejudice, behind political and economic oppression, the ultimate act of violence seems to be defining who is black and who is white.

Eschatological Musings

In recent weeks I've found myself part of or in the midst of numerous conversations about the so-called "End Times," or eschatology, which I prefer to think of more as the study of the eternal destiny of creation, rather than the "end" of it. I've also found myself constantly running across various articles, essays, and other writings dealing with the subject, some of which I find intriguing and enlightening, others destructive and annoying. Here, I just want to throw out some thoughts and frustrations that seem to frequently recur:

1. First, a pet peeve. The number of Christians whose views on eschatology are shaped primarily if not solely by a popular fiction series rather than Holy Scripture is disturbing. Alright...now I got that out of my system.

2. Second, a little nugget. A rich and helpful conception of a Christian approach to eschatology, perhaps typified by the neo-Calvinists, is that our entire Christian walk is predicated by our desire for the reality of the eschaton to insert itself into our present now. Indeed, Christ taught us to pray precisely this. In this sense, the Lord's coming is very much immanent; as immanent today as it was for the first century Christians St. Paul and St. John wrote their letters to.

3. I think too many people, because of given systems they have adopted, get so hung up on deciphering endless minutia such as what various items of prophesy might represent or point to, subsequently come to believe, or at least tend to lead others to believe, that eschatology is all about "End Times" and our job is to determine when, where, and how those times will come about. Not only do I not see much reason to think "End Times" prophesy deals strictly with Final Things, but we are told numerous times in Scripture that it is not our place to know the hows and whens. Our role is to be watchful and expectant of that future Hope. Being watchful and expectant seems to me to have dense and life-giving ramifications; the ramifications of the former stance seem to be suspicion (e.g. "World government is an evil concept"), false accusation (e.g. "Barack Obama is the anti-Christ"), and a shedding of responsibility (e.g. "Why take care of the earth or stop wars? They're signs of our ticket out of here!").

4. I get confused by the logic of the fundamentalist/dispensational line of thinking which, after declaring that it takes a "literal" view of Scripture, figures: Millennial Reign = literal 1000 years. Tribulation = literal 7 years. The 144,000 = symbolic/figurative number. I am certainly no Jehovah's Witness. Therefore my question is: If the 144,000 is not literal, upon what basis does one so adamantly insist that the Millennium and 7 year Tribulation must be literal numbers?

5. There are also overtones often, but certainly not always, present in the dispensationalist camp which are troubling in that they are more political than Biblical. By linking prophesies and other Scripture concerning Israel directly to its current manifestation as a modern nation-state, this interpretation promotes unquestioning support of the Israeli government to the level of a moral imperative good. I believe that the Christian Church indeed has an intimate link to Israel which demands our support of the Jewish people, but as I engage the pertinent prophesies, I always come out with the conviction that Zion never has and never will be confined by political boundaries.

6. I think it's important to keep in mind that God's end-goal for creation is redemption, not destruction. Redemption is a loaded term, I know, especially if you're not hip to church lingo. Basically, before sin entered the world, all of creation was in harmony with itself and with God. That harmony was subsequently disrupted; dire consequences ensued that still effect us today. I've never seen anything in Scripture that leads me to believe God ever messed up, nor any evidence to think our universe will be simply done away with and a do-over called. I disagree with the thought that sin and evil are powerful enough to utterly ruin what God declared to be Good. God's plan to welcome the universe back into harmony with Himself is a plan of restoration which will right past wrongs, not an apocalypse that will throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even today, God tells us, the power to live beyond the constraints of evil is ours because of the work of Christ.

7. In an effort to end on a symbolic number, perhaps representing the tribulation of reading this blog, I'll present a few random tidbits. >Yes, there will be animals in heaven; not the souls of animals, just your everyday soulless hyenas, chickens, aphids, and orangutans. The only difference will be that in heaven (the restored universe), they won't hurt us or each other and we won't hurt them. >No, I don't think there will be a rapture of the church before, during, or after the tribulation period. (Yes, I'm still allowed to be a Christian.) >I was once told there won't be any oceans in eternity. No, I don't agree. The idea comes from a frequently debated passage in the book of Revelation. However, I think a better interpretation than the "literal" one is the literarily informed one which remembers the ways in which oceans represented divine wrath in Scripture; for instance, when the evil Egyptian army was consumed by the sea, God's chosen people walked straight through it on dry ground. It makes sense that in a description of future Hope, St. John would point out that the wrath of God will disappear along with the corruption which necessitated it. >No, I don't have an eschatological timeline. (Yes, that's cheap.) I'm looking forward to the Bema Seat, but I think after either raising up out of my own freakin grave or watching Jesus descend out of the freakin sky, I won't be too concerned with schedules. Plus to me, timelines, much like systematic theology in general, do more in the way of restriction than they do illumination. >I honestly don't think eternity, heaven, the new earth, whatever you want to call it, will consist of us holding hands with angels singing Don Moen songs non-stop forever. Not that that wouldn't be cool, I just think our eternal activities will be indicative of our new ability to faithfully embody our roles as bearers of the image of God, all the time. I think we'll be eating awesome meals with St. Francis, painting portraits, watching the French Open, taking hot-air balloon rides, loving each other unquenchably, all as an act of worship in the presence of God.

Why U.S.-D.P.R.K. Nuclear Negotiations are Doomed

A few of my thoughts and opinions on what is lacking in current efforts to stop the North Korean quest for nuclear armament:

To put this into a little bit of perspective, let me refer you to this article from Al Jazeera that I think accurately shows just how troubling the rhetoric from coming from both sides of the Pacific Ocean is getting. While Hillary Clinton's pledge to defend South Korea and Japan against North Korean aggression sounds at least more sane than Pyongyang's promise of "merciless punishment" for any future Western interference, I can't help but notice how old-fashioned, childish, and ridiculous the whole situation is. It's high time our leaders stop acting like this is an episode of 24 and realize that words having meaning, and there are consequences to thinking that torturing the right people can make up for a lack of insight, sensitivity, and reevaluation of outdated foreign policy.

1. Lack of Moral Standing

The success of nuclear proliferation, disarmament, and the eventual banning of nuclear weaponry altogether relies on, in my opinion, the willingness of influential proponents including the United States to lead by example. Call me idealistic (or perhaps I'm merely being ultra-realist), but Washington has little basis from which to demand a halt to the North Korean nuclear program. The U.S. is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons, and it chose to do so twice, both times against defenseless civilians. In more recent history, it has failed to repaint its foreign policy image as anything other than troublingly self-interested, while at the same time (perhaps in a related sense) dangerously inconsistent in the when-why-and-how of world policing. Why then are we surprised when countries choose not to take the ever-beneficent U.S. at its word when it says it is working for the well-being and freedom of others? The point being not that the U.S. is evil, but that its history and lack of concrete moral standing causes even its most honest efforts to be held suspect and fall impotent.

Leading by example also involves self-restriction. I whole-heartedly call not only for the end of the North Korean nuclear program, but also that of the United States. Cold War-esque military buildup is no longer a sufficient buffer, and continual armament only serves as provocation and a hindrance to stepping onto the moral high ground. Nuclear disarmament of the U.S. will be the first bold step towards proving to the rest of the world that this nation is a proponent of peace, not mutual destruction.

2. Burning our Bridges

The People's Republic of China is one of the few nations in the world with a semi-open relationship with North Korea. While this relationship is still limited, it is a major mistake to continue burning bridges with China. Tiffs over big business and trade have caused a senseless riff in diplomacy. If the U.S. focused its efforts on bridging these gaps and touching up recent damages in its relationship with China through seeking, among other things, mutual cultural understanding, it will find itself a powerful and much-needed addition to allies in the region.

Embracing a Chinese ally in the North Korea situation would also create a crucial meeting point for important issues such as Taiwanese, Tibetan, and Uighur freedom. Along these lines, another important step towards finding common ground on these as well as the North Korean problem is a recommitment to the terms of the Shanghai communique. There is currently much uncertainty among the Chinese people as to whether or not the U.S. is seeking hegemony abroad. An added bonus to quelling these fears through an end of military aggression and halting our nuclear program would allow again, by means of taking the moral high ground, room to urge China to do the same. While I do not personally fear Chinese aggression outside its own borders, this move would most certainly not hurt.

3. The Sinking Ship

Above I have alluded to the major underlying problem of Washington's current foreign policy which will not cease in sabotaging efforts in North Korea and elsewhere until it is addressed, deconstructed, and revamped. The Obama administration, particularly Secretary Clinton and the President himself, need to realize that this is not World War II, this is not the Cold War, nor is this the Persian Gulf. Sovereign nations do not respond well to threats (empty or serious), nor are they comfortable with the U.S. continuing its role as world police (invited or not). The U.S. would do well in my opinion to take most seriously its role as a member of the United Nations and participant in various international treaties. Treaties have no pull and the UN is powerless as long as its most influential and respected members continuously lecture other nations about adhering to regulations they themselves regularly circumvent.

It seems to me that the New foreign policy of our age, if it is to be effective, should be characterized not by the power-grabbing, aggression, and threats of economic competition but rather by the friendship, understanding, and creativity of cosmopolitan cooperation.

Why I Love Charles Dickens

I've heard from various people on various occasions that Charles Dickens is indulgent, overly-descriptive, dry, and boring. On such occasions I have found that the majority of these people have never actually read more than a few pages of his work, and on these occasions I have found I need only suggest a book or two of his in order to defend him.

Right now I am reading Oliver Twist, which has always been one of my favorites. I would also highly recommend Hard Times.

Here, I wanted to share a couple excerpts from Oliver Twist that I found particularly amusing, both of which illustrate in his own satirical way what I think is Dickens' acute sensitivity towards the industrialized age's particular brand of poverty, and which might convince some of you into reading some Dickens before you decide he's lame and boring.

Sevenpence-halfpenny's worth per week is a good round diet for a child; a great deal may be got for sevenpence-halfpenny, quite enough to overload its stomach, and make it uncomfortable. The elderly female was a woman of wisdom and experience; she knew what was good for children; and she had a very accurate perception of what was good for herself. So, she appropriated the greater part of the weekly stipend to her own use, and consigned the rising parochial generation to even a shorter allowance than was originally provided for them. Thereby finding in the lowest depth a deeper still; and proving herself a very great experimental philosopher.

...at the very moment when a child had contrived to exist upon the smallest possible portion of the weakest possible food, it did perversely happen in eight and a half cases out of ten, either that it sickend from want and cold, or fell into the fire from neglect, or got half-smothered by accident; in any one of which cases, the miserable little being was usually summoned into another world, and there gathered to the fathers it had never known in this.

I also enjoyed this later exchange:

...Mr. Bumble...returned; and, telling him it was a board night, informed him that the board had said he was to appear before it forthwith.

Not having a very clearly defined notion of what a live board was, Oliver was rather astounded by this intelligence...Mr. Bumble gave him a tap on the head, with his cane, to wake him up: and another on the back to make him lively: and bidding him follow, conducted him into a large white-washed room, where eight or ten fat gentlemen were sitting round a table. At the top of the table, seated in an arm-chair rather higher than the rest, was a particularly fat gentleman with a very round, red face.

'Bow to the board,' said Bumble. Oliver brushed away two or three tears that were lingering in his eyes; and seeing no board but the table, fortunately bowed to that.

...'I hope you say your prayers every night,' said another gentleman in a gruff voice; 'and pray for the people who feed you, and take care of you--like a Christian.'

'Yes, sir,' stammered the boy. The gentleman who spoke last was unconsciously right. It would have been very like a Christian, and a marvellously good Christian, too, if Oliver had prayed for the people who fed and took care of him. But he hadn't, because nobody had taught him.

...Oliver bowed low by the direction of the beadle, and was then hurried away to a large ward: where, on a rough, hard bed, he sobbed himself to sleep. What a noble illustration of the tender lawas of England! They let the paupers go to sleep!

2nd Week of Easter: The Woundedness of the Messiah

A great deal of my Scripture readings, thoughts, and conversations of late have begun to spin a dense web concerning the events following the resurrection of Christ. It has never struck me until now, how much attention is paid--by the characters within the narratives, and the authors themselves--to the physical wounds on Christ's body, and what this woundedness says about our God and our relationship with him. As I have continued to reflect on this concept, I want to bring up several areas I have been dwelling on for some time that this resonates with greatly, particularly the eschaton. I don't intend to explore them at length, so feel free to leave thoughts, questions, and concerns.

1. On the Bridegroom

I'd like to open this discussion by examining two very old paintings which depict Christ's ascension.

First, check out this rendering by Dali, and then this one as Rembrandt pictured it.

You perhaps noticed, especially in the context of this discussion, two very striking differences: the hands and feet of Jesus. To me there is something very powerful and compelling about the truth contained in Rembrandt's rendering. I would imagine that most of us, when we envision Christ seated at the right hand of the Father, don't picture Him with nail holes in his hands and feet, and a chunk of flesh missing from his side; an eternal reminder of the pain and horror he suffered for the people He loves. (For that matter, I wonder how many people think of Christ as even having flesh.) It's far less complicated to settle for Dali's picture in that regard.

2. On the Bride

The Church's union with Christ is referenced throughout scripture, notably here in St. Paul's letter to the Galatian Church, in which he locates the point of unity precisely at Christ's crucifixion. It has been discussed previously that the death of Christ allowed us to be free from the strangle-hold of sin in our reality. However, the other half of the equation is equally important, as St. Peter points out here. Again, we see this reference to the wounded Savior, and what is being alluded to here is not only our unity in death, but also our unity in the resurrection and life (characterized by righteousness). The wounds are precisely and paradoxically what bring healing.

I am intrigued by the ways in which the identity of the resurrected Christ seems to be so inextricably tied with his woundedness. St. Luke provides us with this interesting exchange between Jesus and his disciples. Indeed, a great deal of the way in which we relate to Christ and interact with him revolves around our desire to draw near to him and put our hands on the wounds which allow us to do so.

In another sense, Jesus blunty draws attention to a seemingly simple, but all-too-often misunderstood aspect of human existence (which He Himself experienced): our embodied nature as creatures made in the image of God is characterized, among other things, by our physical existence. We are not ethereal, anonymous ghosts. We are embodied individuals known personally by God and to one another.

Therefore, why should we think that our eternal existence will somehow be carried out apart from this embodied nature? I love the beautiful portrait the prophet Isaiah paints of this in his own poetic way.

3. On the Wedding Feast

This post-resurrection scene recounted by St. Luke is a wonderful image, I think, and a great place to end this discussion. I like to think that our eternal existence, dwelling in the full glory of a resurrected Messiah, bearing His wounds in full view, will be a lot like this.

Holy Week Day 3: Thoughts on Divine Child-Abuse

I remember hearing an interview on NPR some time ago with an espoused atheist (whose name has since slipped my mind) who wrote a book dealing with the violence of what he labeled the "Christian" God. He invited his audience to ask how an ever-loving, good God could condemn anyone to hell, and how a just God could murder his own son as payment for the sins of others. This latter question is the one I'd like to open up in light of Holy Week.

Though I think the author's perspective is rooted somewhere between an ignorance of and a misinterpretation of the Christian narrative, such questions are nevertheless valid for anyone seeking to understand these acts, especially those outside the Church who have legitimate concerns, hesitations, and suspicions about it. Furthermore, it is no surprise, given the plethora of violent interpretations of the Cross perpetuated among many Churches, that one would choose atheism over barbarism.

If the Church is intentional about how it engages in such conversations, there are as many benefits to answering these questions as there are to having them answered. Too often in certain Christian circles, staunch defenders-of-the-faith jump at the chance to dismantle piecemeal tenets of atheism, carelessly dismissing the idea of divine child abuse as yet another example of how heretical 'the world' has become. (Never addressing what such a continuous downward spiral of culture would reveal about the effectiveness of the Church.)

I also think it's important to espouse the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity without using it as another tool to dismiss the question. It is valid to say that since Christ is God, the cross is not divine child abuse. Yet while true (albeit incomplete), this 'defense' leaves itself open to being boiled down to divine self-mutilation, which is no more attractive. Luckily, however, it is also valid to say that Christ has a separate personhood from God. In a real sense, Jesus is the Son of God, and while simultaneously focusing on this distinctiveness is scarier for some, it is the only way to address the situation accurately and fully in the context of the Christian narrative. For, we know that rather than God simply acting as some sort of medieval flagellant, Christ, in individual expression, humbled Himself, obedient and subservient even to the point of death.

That being said, I'd like to move on to an interpretation of the Cross which I have found deeply compelling, and I don't want to frame it as a 'defense,' (at least in the overly loaded sense of the word) as much as an 'articulation.' I don't think it's helpful or productive to answer these questions merely in opposition to atheism, the ermerging church, or what have you. I think the 'challenge' of atheism calls us to affirm and know and claim our own story, rather than militaristically defend it, trench by trench, as if it were a piece of territory.

I want to draw from Rene Girard's rich, anthropological conception of the cross. What I find of value in his interpretation is that the responsibility for the violence of the crucifixion is rightly placed on human beings, not God. As a sort of cliff note, Girard's historical setting might read like this: the Roman and Jewish governments both desired absolute authority and were, at the end of the day, violently at odds with one another. However, what was found in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was a suitable scapegoat, whose violent destruction would appease both sides, at least for a brief period. It seems reasonable to say that neither the Governors nor the Sadduccees believed that Jesus was the Messiah, yet both (and for similar reasons) saw his elimination as being advantageous to solidifying their own claims to power. This conflict is indicative of the cycle of violence which has been in motion since Cain and Abel.

"Part of the problem in the history of Christian interpretation, beginning already with the fathers, was that the Passion was for them a unique event. That is understandable of course. They saw it as a unique event, a single, unique event in worldly history. It is indeed unique as revelation but not as a violent event. The earliest followers of Jesus did not make that mistake. They knew, or intuited, that in one sense it was like all other events of victimization since the foundation of the world. But it was different in that it revealed the meaning of these events going back to the beginnings of humanity: the victimization occurs because of mimetic rivalry, the victim is innocent, and God stands with the victim and restores him or her. If the Passion is regarded not as revelation but as only a violent event brought about by God, it is misunderstood and turned into an idol. In the Gospels Jesus says that he suffers the fate of all the other prophets going back to Abel the just and the foundation of the world (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:50)." - The Girard Reader

As the preeminent scholar and theologian, Brian Robertson, said in a sermon this past Sunday, God did not cause the events surrounding the crucifixion, he used them. I think it's dangerous to say that from the beginning of time, God's intention was to have his son murdered, and furthermore that such a murder is the only way forgiveness could happen. I know this will open up the proverbial can of worms, but I think what Girard offers is an interpretation which seeks to describe the overflowing, selfless nature of God's love.

Furthermore, it's an interpretation which takes into account the wider story of God's continual work of redemption and salvation in his creation. If we look at Christ's conversation with Nicodemus, we hear him directly address how mankind is to receive the gift of salvation. While Christ knew this work would literally culminate on the cross, he chose to explain it to Nicodemus, who was undoubtedly well-versed in the Torah, by comparing himself to the bronze snake in the book of Numbers.

Just like the poisonous snakes in the desert, God chose to use the violence which theretofore had justly condemned humanity to death as a means to save us. The fact that Jesus is the only human being who has ever been truly innocent, makes him the ultimate skapegoat toward whose death humanity might look to in order to see their acts of violence for what they truly are. Christ's words become clearer and we understand why those who refuse to look to the cross and recognize their own faults will be condemned.

So we see how God, rather than using his son as a whipping boy and an outlet for his wrath, in his infinite love and mercy chose to sacrifice his Son so that all who look upon him will find the salvation he desperately wants us to accept.

Brief Thoughts on GM

I've been asked by several people how I feel about Obama and the Federal government essentially telling GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner, to step down from his leadership position at the private company.
First, we should be accurate about how we use the term 'private.' I think the distinction people are trying to make is that it's not a federally owned company. However, GM is not a private company, it is a public company. I only point this out as a pet peeve, and I'm not arguing that that makes them a federal company. I'm simply saying that a publicly traded company is not private. That being said, here's a few thoughts on questions raised over the last few days:

• Over 15 years ago, GM had the opportunity to place itself on the cutting edge of automobiles with the production of the EV-1. This car consumed zero gallons of gas per mile and had zero emissions. For detailed information about what I'll briefly outline here, watch the great documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The short story is, a culmination of forces including the oil lobby saw to it that the production of affordable electric cars cease and desist and even ensured that EV-1s already on the road would be reclaimed and promptly destroyed. In place of the Electric Car, GM began production on the Hummer. All this to say that GM dug itself into a deep hole by confining itself to the production of vehicles that were so inefficient and consumed so much fuel, they couldn't even be sold in most foreign markets; nor, as we're seeing now, the U.S. market.
  

• As a result of such business practices, GM could no longer keep itself afloat. The leadership turned to the federal government. I am not well-versed enough to know whether the stockholders of the public company were unwilling to support it, or if the company was bent on receiving taxpayer dollars. At any rate, the federal government approved billions of dollars (your dollars) to go towards this failed company. Then, as we all know, the company asked for more money, and got it.
  

• For this reason, as much as the federal government deserves to be critiqued on their use of taxpayer money, GM should be critiqued just as sharply, for their willingness to even think about taking tax dollars from the American people directly for themselves completely isolated form any type of service offered, goods sold, etc. If you want to talk about rewarding failure, here's a perfect example.
  

• Finally, having received an outlandish amount of funding from the federal government, GM effectively sold their soul. If the federal government and its money are the only thing keeping your company afloat, then Barack Obama can put whoever he wants in charge.

• As a sort of aside, I would also be interested in hearing whether the company, whose demise or even the thought thereof warrants the absolutely insane type of bailout we've seen (the defense of which rests on the fact that if the company collapses, our entire economy will collapse), is in fact already nationalized.
  

Thoughts?

The Conservatives' Big Lie + How it Won Obama the Presidency + The Truth

Villagers protest drone bombings authorized by President Obama which have murdered donzens of civilians.

“Barack Obama wants to wave the white flag in the war on terror.” I think most people can remember hearing similar statements during the exceedingly long presidential campaign. Some people might even remember believing it after having it drilled into their heads for so many weeks by GOP politicians, conservative pundits, and right-wing talk radio. The intense onslaught of spin and propaganda was intended to “wake up America,” “expose the radicals,” and in short, damage Obama in order to keep a Republican in the White House.

However, I regret to inform Rush Limbaugh and the lot that the effort to paint Obama as a European-style peacenik (an image Obama was happy to accept) is precisely what handed the election over to him. It is a dying shame that the overwhelming effort to make this big lie into a publicly recognized truth put the Stop Obama Express on a countdown to self-destruction.

The irony is that, rather than inflame the conservative base enough to drown out or reeducate the left, the lie actually ignited overwhelming numbers of young liberals. Once the idea of Obama as a candidate for peace began to be perceived as true, the GOP could kiss their presidential hopes goodbye, as that is exactly the type of candidate so many in our generation want. Even outside left-leaning student circles, America was ready for change, ready to leave the ways of militaristic power struggles behind; and conservatives showed them exactly who to vote for. The only problem was that many of these Obama voters did not have the wherewithal or desire to do the research necessary to find out they were being duped.

One needed only listen to what President Obama expressly stated in any number of nationally televised debates during the primaries to know that, far from waving the white flag in the war on terror, he would keep the nuclear option on the table in relation to Iran, raise troop levels in Afghanistan, carry out military operations across Pakistani borders without their permission, and continue anti-terrorism aggression in Iraq. For what it’s worth, Obama was at least honest, since he has followed through on all of the above.

Just this week, President Obama reminded the American people that they should be scared; al-Qaeda is “actively planning” attacks on the U.S. from Pakistan! He then had the gall to ask Congress for over a billion dollars to fund a military solution to the problem and mask it as a favor to the people of Pakistan. He also stated that we will "defeat terrorism," yet refrained from defining either what terrorism is, or exactly how many people need to be killed in order for it to be defeated. I hope I’m not the only one having some major déjà vu right about now:

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush (9/28/2002)

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney (9/14/2003)

If Conservatives wanted to win the election, they need only have pointed out the bare naked truth about Obama’s militaristic tendencies and refusal to Imagine a United States that can hold itself together without a war. Loyalty would have then been fragmented away to third party candidates who offered a platform of peace, and John McCain would have won the election.

Bearing this in mind, for the time being, maybe we should count our blessings.

Urban Evangelism?

I read an article in the current issue of Comment magazine about Christian attitudes toward cities, and I was struck by a comment the author, Robert Joustra, made about the nature of urban mission work:

"If our urban activities as people of faith are consistently predicated on conversion, we shall quickly become very bad neighbours. I think of this as a kind of spiritual narcissism which grows out of an interior insecurity about our own faith and life."

He later goes on to suggest that rather than viewing missions work, particularly in our home cities of urban North America, in a truncated sense, with conversion and proselytization as its exclusive goal...

"...we learn to live and share the Gospel story in ways that far exceed a simple dualistic mission--we start to think of worshipping God and honouring him by building efficient transit [etc.]...the Gospel in the urban metropolis calls us forth into all the manifold spheres of city life, to enact justice, sustain and cultivate beauty..."

I think this observation is right on, and I think the practices of even the most adamant, unapologetic, and conservative Christians show that they agree. The most evident example of this that I see is the way in which most overseas missions work, especially when there is a language barrier, is carried out. I've never heard of a team memorizing the Romans road in Spanish or Chinese; but they do have faith that the Spirit of God will be evident in their work of building a home for a single mother, or teaching English to students.

I am not saying that I think preaching the gospel has no place in missions work. Obviously, even in the above example, for instance, the gospel is at the forefront. However, I am indeed suggesting that there are benefits to reexamining urban missions along the lines mentioned. Rather than conversion being our number one goal, what if our goal was to cultivate life-giving practices within an urban context so that the gospel can be embodied through our actions, rather than (often empty) words? And what would happen if we partnered with inter-faith non-profits, government organizations, and all resources at our disposal creatively and faithfully to do it?

I think implicit in Christ's command to go and preach the gospel to all nations is a call to constantly deconstruct the practices we employ to accomplish it. While it may have been appropriate and effective in St. Paul's context to walk into a city, head to the synagogue and start converting people, our own reality is much different.

While there are appropriate times to evangelize and a number of people who respond positively to it, I think one thing that is lacking in our Church culture is a desire to serve with absolutely no ulterior motives including the desire for the one served to come to Christ or attend a church service.

What if we serve selflessly, often, and creatively enough that we become known as lovers rather than preachers, and by the work of the Holy Spirit, our cities invite themselves to a Sunday service? Amidst a culture of death and violence, there is something so compelling about the Church, whose gospel offers life and peace.

Rejecting Obama Bush-era Policy

Amidst the Hope expressed in the impending closure of Guantanamo bay and the official rejection of torture as a legitimate interrogation technique, we cannot help but feel short-changed by the White House as our watchful eyes make us painfully aware of what these symbolic—nevertheless important—acts are intended to mask.

Beneath the façade of Change and progressive foreign policy, lies a disturbing cache of stockpiled Bush-era stratagem ranging from extraordinary rendition to preemptive war, combined with the same destructive ego/natio-centric worldview which takes great pains to justify every sort of evil by way of self-interest and self-preservation.

As civilian casualty rates in Afghanistan reach an all-time high and the documented number of such deaths in Iraq approaches the 100,000 mark, we are compelled to reflect on the high price paid for our national security. We are compelled to beg of President Obama an answer to the question first posed by Mahatma Gandhi, “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

We can no longer bask in our own privileged circumstance, averting our eyes from those unfortunate enough to live on the wrong side of the world; the side where a family is just as likely to be blown to pieces by a suicide bomber as they are to be incinerated inside their own home by a Coalition missile.

Despite the wave of popularity surrounding the new President, and the dizzying array of inane economic noise, we, the American public, refuse to be seduced or distracted. We challenge our new national leaders to publicly defend the policies they reject in their rhetoric, yet retain behind closed doors. We will not stand idly by, smiling to ourselves as 17,000 more U.S. armed forces are sent into Afghanistan to kill or be killed in service of the nation, its market, its consumerist ideals, and its political interests.

Let us remember that, “To fight violence with violence can only ever result in a victory for violence, not a victory over it,” as Bishop N.T. Wright warns.

It is high time the American people, particularly Christians, call into question the appropriateness of Obama’s decision to continue drone bombings in the sovereign nation of Pakistan, which invariably result in the murder of innocent families.

We, the Church, must openly reject the destroy-them-before-they-destroy-us mentality which President Obama has allowed to carry over into this new administration, as all resulting policy is in no way life-giving, redemptive, or reflective of faithful human be-ing. This mentality, being in every way inappropriate for any type of Christian or civil interaction, can no longer be seen as legitimate policy, blindly accepted, or passively coalesced.