catapult magazine

Here’s an article claiming Bush’s strongest support (for fighting terrorism) is unfounded. It raises some interesting (and valid) points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

As a Christian, try applying cause and effect analysis to this historical situation:

Africans were living in their own villages in the mid-1700’s, living according to their own tribal customs, marrying and having families, living well in their communities as they always had. Far away from Western European culture, these Africans had never encountered the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Then, millions of these Africans were taken captive and sold into slavery. In the United States, many of these Africans were forced to learn the language and customs of European culture. They learned the hymns of American churchgoers and heard the Bible stories that inspired Europeans for centuries. As a result of this forced enculturation, African-Americans encountered the Christian message and took it to heart, particularly the Exodus story. The message of Christ, that through his death and resurrection we are no longer slaves to sin but free people—children of God, helped African-Americans win their own freedom and gain status as equal citizens finally in the 1960’s (the support came mostly from church ministers like MLK).

Now, as I look upon my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who are African-American, do I thank God for those slave ships in the mid-1700’s because they were the cause of the Christianizing of millions of Africans? NO, I thank God for working out his marvellous plan despite human sin. Our human understanding of causes and effects falls short of the Kingdom of God and will mean nothing in the end when it comes to this “war on terror”. God is using our wrongs for His good.

mrsanniep I’ve lived for extended periods in five countries. That multipies the number of governments I have to compare to the Bush administration. Of course I can’t give ‘hard’ evidence that the Bush administration is unique in this regard, but it’s a sense I have based on observing. Feel free to disagree with me, but one way to do it would be to show the Clinton or Bush Sr. administrations also had a habit of making statements only to retract them soon after.

grant, I think I recall you used to admire Bush for his willingness to say that he was on a mission from God and that he believed in fighting evil. You seem to have changed your mind. Am I reading you correctly? You now seem to be criticising Bush for buying into worldly standards. What would a biblical Bush foreign policy look like?

Dan,

I have been somewhat frustrated with the characterization (particularly at last year’s campingisnotoptional event) that I am a Conservative Republican apologist. What I was trying to do in my early posts about the “war on terror” was combat the polarizing criticisms of Bush that claimed he’s simply a liar and operates only on the principle of deceit when it comes to the American people and the rest of the world. If you look back on my early posts, I was trying to outline the Bush administration’s beliefs and principles as ideologies (that’s why I posted the standards for a new American Century document). Bush’s actions have been consistent with his vision for the world. I wanted to see more responses to that vision because this is a conflict between ideologies, i.e. how a superpower like America ought to use its power in the world. Many of the posts at that time made it seem like our current conflict is only a matter of an arrogant and ignorant president vs. the rest of the sensible and enlightened world.

I disagree with many of Bush’s ideologies just as I disagree with many of the ideologies on the so-called liberal side. I agree that the nature of my posts have changed, but that is only because I feel like I’ve made the argument about the Bush administration’s grand vision for peace and I do not have to keep repeating it. Though I believe I have been consistent in my stance on this particular issue, I make no claim to being consistent in any other matter at any other time. (winky winky)

Oh yeah, and I don’t see any problem with someone saying they’re on a mission from God if that’s what they are doing. I believe my comments at that time led shortly thereafter to the question of who decides who’s doing God’s Will. Do we just take Bush’s word for it or does the community of Spirit-led believers have something to say about it… and if they’re wrong, won’t God have his way no matter what we think we’re doing. We have the responsibility to discern between false prophets and true ones just as much as our brothers and sisters of Old and New Testament times.

Now, as I look upon my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who are African-American, do I thank God for those slave ships in the mid-1700’s because they were the cause of the Christianizing of millions of Africans? NO, I thank God for working out his marvellous plan despite human sin. Our human understanding of causes and effects falls short of the Kingdom of God and will mean nothing in the end when it comes to this “war on terror”. God is using our wrongs for His good.

to use your example grant, even though our human understanding may fall short, it can prove useful. someone who opposed the kidnapping of africans to be sold as slaves in the 1700’s could look at what was happening and say, “this isn’t right.” (again, despite the fact that they couldn’t see centuries into the future and foresee the “christianizing effect” that it would have long term—because what was happening there was wrong). i think we are more on the same page then not, after reading your latest posts. to reiterate, our understanding will fall short, but we are still called to make those assessments based on what we know of God and how we’re called to live.

this thread was initially regarding the failure of the war on terror—by bush’s own standards (crushing terrorism militarily), which you claim are standards that can’t be measured (at least not for a long, long time). it has shifted to address the failure of the war on terrorism from the perspective of a believer, which are standards that can be measured (at least in some degree) here and now.

The last paragraph of your response is an apt summary of the discussion, Laryn. I just wanted to make sure we on *cino aren’t using Bush’s measuring rod for success or any other measuring rod that is not the Word of God itself. Yes, slavery was wrong because it oppressed people and God’s Kingdom is not about oppression. It’s important to make those distinctions because if we say that slavery was wrong because it’s against human rights, we’re talking about another system of judgments. So, we can agree that Bush is doing something wrong, but it makes a big difference how we understand what’s wrong with what he’s doing.

Just to add more to the mix, though: we were reading the end of Luke and Matthew the other day for biblestudy. It’s the part where Jesus tells his disciples that they are going to witness terrible calamities, stars falling from the sky, the moon red with blood, the destruction of Jerusalem, family betrayals, murders etc. Amidst all this horror that they are called to witness, Jesus tells them they should see the destruction as birthpains toward the age of resurrection. The awful scene of God’s judgment upon the earth is like the budding fig tree in spring that will finally burst into bloom in the summer, Jesus says.

Without using our cause and effect thinking, we perhaps ought to see the evils of this age as signs of God’s Kingdom coming too. The peace we thought we could have by establishing sovereign democratic states is being tested and may prove to have been a false ideal as God’s Kingdom is still on its way to completion. In the same way that slaves and prisoners are supposed to look upon their struggle as signs that God’s Kingdom of Freedom is on its way, so too we are witnessing the birthpains of God’s Kingdom. This way of looking at things as a Christian is unique and does not stop at whether or not Bush is doing wrong, because God will make things right in the end.

I just wanted to make sure we on *cino aren’t using Bush’s measuring rod for success or any other measuring rod that is not the Word of God itself.

i agree to a point, grant. i think it’s perfectly right to use bush’s measuring rod for failure. if he says “i’m going to attack iraq and it will deal a hard blow to the terrorists” and then his attack actually increases the amount of terrorism and makes the terrorist organizations evolve into more adaptable and de-centralized units, then i think we need to say, “no, you are wrong. your plan isn’t doing what you said it would. in fact it is trending to the opposite of what you claimed.” i realize you think it can’t be judged for many years; i feel it’s appropriate to look at the trends we see now as warnings.

that said, i do think it is important to use a genuine measuring rod to cut through some of the faith-speak that bush uses to cloak his plans—so i think both sides of this conversation are valid and important. what it boils down to in my mind is this: his plan fails to do what he claims (using his standards) and it fails to adhere to biblical rules of justice, resorting too quickly to military solutions. there have been failures on many levels in this whole scenario.

here’s another link regarding a few upcoming books related to the topic:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0621/dailyUpdate.html

But as soon as you start judging Bush’s actions like this, we begin to get lost in this cause and effect stuff. Yes, Al Qaeda has reacted and adapted to Bush’s actions and spread out, but ten years down the road this could prove to be a weakness in their strategy and the organization’s downfall. So then was Bush right or wrong? And then, if Al Qaeda is destroyed and all the world is convinced that democracy is the only way to be, was Bush right?
Also, Bush’s strategy seems to be that putting the light of democracy in the middle east exposes those who are against it. So, it may appear that terrorism is on the rise, but by another perspective Bush has drawn up a battlefield in Iraq where war can be waged against terrorism. And the more terrorist activity that goes on in the world, the more the world may recognize the necessity of wiping out terrorism just like early English inhabitants recognized the importance of working together to wipe out the Norwegian nuisance several hundred years ago.

What is the point of following this line of argument if we as Christians fundamentally disagree with Bush’s entire vision for peace in the world? I think Jesus’ ministry, which was an alternative to the Pharisee’s strategy for Jewish peace in Rome, really helps in this situation. Jesus prophesied that the Pharisees’ plans for peace would fail because the Pharisees had the wrong foundation. He called for a spiritual change which always results in a change in actions and in history itself.