catapult magazine

Depending what channel you’re tuned to, you may be hearing a lot of chatter about Nixon/Watergate and Clinton/Monicagate in relation to Bush/WMDgate (yes, the names for these things keep getting worse and worse). Occasionally the word “impeachment” even pops up.

It seems to me that with all the apparent contradictions between the intelligence and the public assertions that brought us war as well as the indications that the administration pressured the intelligence agencies to “find” support for their position, at the least an independent, public investigation is in order.

Surely this is a much more serious issue than the circus around Clinton?

2) Q: Is it appropriate to try to accomplish something good with immoral means and claim that you are doing God’s will?

God’s Will is for us to be pure reflections of him, not twisted ones, so the obvious answer is no.
The problem is, we’re all sinners, so even when we are trying our best to do something good, we can sin. Sometimes I get frustrated with a kid in sunday school acting up. Does that mean that I should never discipline them because I might have anger in my life and I should take the plank out of my eye before taking the speck out of theirs?
Of course not. God speaks to our hearts and convicts us of things we should do. Many times we will fail and stumble while carrying out God’s Will, but if we don’t do it, God will use someone else to do it.
So since we know God is working out his plan, we should desire to be active participants in it, not just watching from the sidelines wondering what’s going on.
Some in this thread have presented two options for living
1) Being passive and just waiting for God to carry out his will
2) Being proactive and using our brains to figure everything out
There is a third option. It involves seeking God’s will and it is not passive and it does not exclude using your God-given talents.
The problem is that we don’t really believe God speaks to us and wants to let us know what’s going on. Sure, we may profess that doctrinally, and we may even be able to lead a Bible study on it, but many people (myself included) struggle with believing that God is really for them and things will really be better if they lay down their independence and trust in God.

To go back to full circle, just because someone (ie. Pres. Bush) sins, doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s not doing God’s will. Any good debater could pervert that last statement in a number of ways, but I think you understand my main point.

3) from Sarah’s post- "Part of the issue, too, is the carte blanche that many people seem to be willing to grant people who say they are doing God’s will. I think too many people are willing to close their eyes to the evil that Bush has done because “he’s a Christian” or “he’s trying to do God’s will.” That doesn’t negate the fact that he’s human"

Good point. Claiming to do God’s will should certainly not excuse someone from doing evil. It should actually cause more of a cautious eye.
About claiming to do God’s Will, ideally we wouldn’t have to state that we are doing God’s will because it should be obvious. Ideally.

I’m confused. You said, no, it’s not right to try to do something good immorally and claim that you’re doing God’s will. But at the end, you seem to be saying that it’s possible that Bush has good intentions so he still might be doing God’s will (and it’s ok for him to claim as much?) even though he’s made some mistakes like lie to carry out those good intentions.

Yeah, I would agree that God often does work things for good even if humans do wrong things, but that doesn’t mean they’re doing God’s Will.

And I want to clarify what I meant by saying that everyone believes the same things right now anyway. In the art world, so much emphasis is put on self-expression, that we start to get the same kind of art over and over again. It’s boring. And now, so many people have a fetish for environmental naturalism. Every product now claims to be “natural” and a majority of proposals for urban planning stress bringing “nature” into the city. When people look back at us, they’re going to wonder why everyone was so fixated on “nature”, as if that’s the best possible way of living in the world. There’s more to life than “nature”! Just another example of how undiverse things are in our day and age.

And, right now, much of the world is starting to rise up against globalization so that we can preserve the cultural differences we have. But it’s becoming a common belief, one held by most people. Why isn’t that boring to you? If we want to preserve diversity, we should welcome the Imperialists and racists, fundamentalists and raving capitalists as equal partners in the dialogue with as much good to say as the anti-globalizationists and multiculturalists. But there has to be a distinction between “diversity for diversity’s sake” and “pluralism because it’s a better way”. I’m trying to reserve the right to say some ways are better than others. I don’t want someone to be able to say “We should have kept Times Square the way it was, with all the drug sellers, pimps, prostitutes and homeless on the streets because it was more exciting that way, more diverse, more ‘New York City’”. We have to leave room for saying some ways are better than others, and I’m afraid promoting diversity for its own sake does not do that.