catapult magazine

It is always difficult to discern the ‘pulse’ of the contemporary public milieu, what we value, where we are going, and why.

In that vein, I was reading the introduction to the Barmen Declaration in the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions. In setting the stage for Barth et al.’s denouncement of the Hitler government of their day, the author notes…

"In January 1933, after frustrating years in which no government in Germany was able to solve problems of economic depression and mass unemployment, Adolph Hitler was named chancellor. By playing on people’s fear of communism and Bolshevism, he was able to persuade the Parliament to allow him to rule by edict. As he consolidated his power, Hitler abolished all political rights and democratic processes: police could detain persons in person without a trial, search private dwellings without a warrant, seize property, censor publilcations, tap telephones, and forbid meetings. He soon outlawed all political parties except his own, smashed labor unions, purged universities, replaced the judicial system with his own ’People’s Courts’, initiated a systematic terrorizing of Jews, and obtained the support of church leaders allied with or sympathetic to the German Christians. Most Germans took the union with Christianity, nationalism, and militarism for granted, and patriotic sentiments were equated with Christian truth…"

Thoughts?

not sure what you’re driving at here.

I am curious about others’ general thoughts about what our societies value, hopefully supported by reference to events, developments in contemporary society, etc.

To see something like the Barmen Declaration emerge in advance of what came to pass in Germany in the late 30s and 40s really illumines the importance of ‘reading’ the present. Whatever tools we have to do so may be scant, though perhaps discussion about the present may enhance our capacities.

:lol: :? :shock: yeah baby whatever !!! live a little try not to speak in broken hypocracy

Is this a Bush=Hitler comparison?

Just reading a bit of Eugene Peterson and he talks of the present as an age of adolescence!

Another characteristic of the adolescent that has spread into the larger population is [b:3560035b2f]the absence of historical sense.[/b:3560035b2f] The adolescent of course, has no history. He or she has a childhood, but no accumulation of experience that transcends personal details and produces a sense of history. Their world is highly personal and extremely empirical.

That’s from ‘The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction.’ [p125]

I think to read the present, you have to have an historical perspective. The Bush = Hitler opinion is extremely inadequate. (Not that I’m saying that’s what Grant was suggesting). So if this is where the discussion was leading then that would be pretty poor. Seerveld also talks about reading cultural time – as alluded to in another discussion [a call to subversion] – so with that in mind, how do we understand the so-called Postmodern Condition as promoted by Lyotard and his ilk. What do we as Christians have as a way of responding to it? Do we go along with it, to be culturally ‘relevant’? Do we shun it and retrench back into our Ghetto?

Hitler was of his time, a human, not a demon that transcends it, who exploited the German people’s economic, political and spiritual malaise for the sake of power. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a consummate example for the necessity of Christian action against totalitarian states, but isn’t a cheap example for the justification of killing George Bush, because you disagree with his foreign policy! Hitler on the other hand, and this is where the Bush Administration’s propaganda machine has failed, "engineered the consent" of what Noam Chomsky would call the "bewildered herd" (in Media Control).

So it is very adolescent to equate Bush with Hitler, it lacks that ‘historical sense’. So in the USA and England too, what do you do when you disagree with your Government’s policies? And this goes for any faith group or belief system really -

1. start a bombing campaign to increase the sense of terror and augment ‘our’ sense of power/importance/influence? This would be a very nihilistic response and not one for those who affirm the sanctity of life!

2. dispense our duty to society by holding a prayer meeting? Such meetings are not an end in themselves; we may not wrestle against flesh and blood, but we are made of the stuff for a reason: physical presence/involvement/engagement! A prayer meeting is the starting point of any affirmative or subversive action.

3. Remember the Incarnation? God’s way of bringing redemption to a situation was through flesh and blood contact with humanity! Cultivating the normative, not the exaggeration of the ab-normative (the deformations of life).

Speaking of reading our own time, how do we read what’s going on in the Middle East right now? I’ve heard Hitler comparisons on every side now. Even Iran’s president compared Israel to Hitler today! It’s right to see recent events in relation to WWII, but it seems Hitler’s name is most often used whenever someone wants to highlight the severity of a situation. Wow, he’s like Hitler. That’s really bad. Evil incarnate! Tragically, if this conflict escalates into the worst possible scenario, the severity could exceed Hitler. Or, at least, Hitler’s regime will be seen only as a precursor to an even broader and deeper conflict between east and west.

So what’s going on? Are we seeing the absolute collapse of modern civilization? Or is it the last gasp of Islamic fundamentalism? It is amazing how certain events can bring out ideas that would have seemed crazy only days before. I heard a Clinton era CIA leader say the best course of action now would be to attack Syria as well. And many democrats are in full support of Israel’s action and you hear no talk of diplomatic solutions. It almost appears that people are all of a sudden willing to accept that this "war on terrorism" thing is a real conflict and therefore must be won at any cost. Bang! Just like that, a world’s mind takes a shift. And it’s not a shift away from logic. Rather, logic is put into a new context so that what didn’t seem logical before is completely within reason now. What a world we have been born into! What a time to inherit!

Without minimizing the importance of the current conflict, I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize it as groundbreaking, earth-changing, paradigm-shifting. The current conflict is actually pretty small compared to other regional conflicts such as the 6 day war in the 1960s when several countries invaded Israel and Israel invaded back on all fronts.

Also, I don’t think this conflict or even the "war on terror" in general can be so easily characterized as west against east. There is no united front in the West supporting Israel (for example, Europe, more than the USA, tends have a good deal of sympathy for Palestinians). Similarly, there is no united front in "the East". For example, several Arab governments have called on Hezbollah to stop their rocket attacks on Israel and many Lebanese people blame Hezbollah for staring this whole thing.

Where I agree with you is that these are exciting times to be alive, though I think people throughout time have felt that way.

I don’t know whether others happened to see the ABC report last night, but it argued that the conflict between Israel and Lebanon is big deal. The report first showed how just six years ago Israel voluntarily withdrew from Lebanon, apparently with widespread popular support. Some thought withdrawing was a bad idea; they thought instead Israel should stay until Hezbollah was definitively defeated. Now six years later they are being attacked. One former Israeli general said the lesson has been learned, that these people respond to one thing only…force. Pressure has been brought, saying that Israel would enjoy peace if it would withdraw and give up territory. It has tried that and is beginning to see that such a practice does not work. Now over 90% of Israel supports a quick end to Hezbollah.

So it seems we can view this conflict as a shift away from thinking peaceful negotiations and concessions will solve the problem, at least from Israel’s perspective. The people who want them dead respond only to force. One former Israeli who organized a protest against Israel’s first occupation of Lebanon (which helped lead to Israel’s voluntary withdrawal), now says she fully supports the invasion of Lebanon. This shift on Israel’s part may be significant for the future of the Middle East.

dan, if it comforts you to think of this conflict as a separate or very minimal incident that has very little relation to the age-old conflicts between Israel and other Mid-East peoples, Western and Eastern cultural mindsets, that’s a nice hope. But all the major events of recent times—911, terrorists in Canada, North Korea’s timely missile launch, Iran’s defiance of the U.N., Russia’s slide from democratic principles, Europe’s anti-American (and anti-Israel?) sentiment, America’s continuing involvement in Iraq as a way of supporting Israel and democracy in the Middle East and now Israel’s actions—are related, aren’t they? Or are we just in some random set of circumstances that are connected only politically to the different foreign policies of present governments?

Israel may say its objective is limited to eradicating Hezbollah, and other nations may narrow the focus of their talk on that issue, but this action is representative of much broader goals, interests and beliefs, no?

Of course all those things are connected. I’m saying that the situation can’t be reduced to two sides who are polar opposites. Israel versus Hezbollah does not equal America versus Al Quaida. Taliban does not equal Hamas. Jordan does not equal Dubai. America is not the same as Germany. Describing this conflict as a clash of civilizations, east versus west, doesn’t do the story justice. None of us know what the future holds. Who could have guessed 20 years ago that Islam would have the imporance it has today. Similarly we don’t know what the world will look like in another 20 and it’ll probably be more intersting and weird (and yet the same) than we could have imagined.