catapult magazine

Anybody remember those heated debates we had here before, during, and after the American invasion of Iraq? An article I read today reminded me about the argument we had about WMD, the UN, weapons inspections, and preemtive war.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137953/?nav=tap3

So I’m wondering if people still generally have the same ideas about this thing as then, or has anybody changed their mind.

Here’s one of the treads from those bad-ol days:
http://www.cultureisnotoptional.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=315&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

whichever definition of apocalypse you use, the practical outcome is still the same. since the final outcome of everything is in God’s hands, let’s sit back and not become politically active.

on the other hand, as you point out, such a belief can be a comfort for those of us who are stressed out and don’t have time to fight political battles.

another way to look at it, however, is to see the sources of our stress (money, lack of success) as inherently political problems. the way things are are not the way things have to be.

But that’s just it! Our society thinks that every problem can be solved "politically", by that they mean through the state. Nietzsche was right to say that the state has become a monster, a cold idol for contemporary society that pretends to represent the people but has more allegiance to systems (hence the reason for the hegemony of capitalism) than to human beings.* You can trust in the power of politics and the state for now, but haven’t we been witnessing a breakdown in its power for the last several decades? In fact, all institutions (corporations) are being questioned now, not just the capitalistic ones. I’m definitely not advocating apathy, but I think there’s a reason why people don’t feel like it’s worth voting in America. This apathy should be another warning sign that the state does not have much power to move people. Doesn’t Bush’s re-election and the success of Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of Christ" show that the church is still the dominant force in moving the American people to action?

*Nietzsche means this differently than I do, but his point is still valid.

i agree. the state is not the solution. in fact, this reminds me of a recent onion article "New Poll Finds 86 percent of Americans Don’t Want To Have a Country Anymore"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46227 It’s a funny article but I think it would do all of us good not to ‘assume the nation’. Similarly it would do us good not to assume that the accumulation of wealth is the only valid organizing principle for societies.

To make those assumptions limits our ability to think creatively about our future. similarly, if God determines everything and we determine nothing about what happens in the future, why the heck would i even think about joining a protest against a war or writing a letter to Bush asking him to stop torturing prisoners?

similarly, if God determines everything and we determine nothing about what happens in the future, why the heck would i even think about joining a protest against a war or writing a letter to Bush asking him to stop torturing prisoners?

Recognizing God’s ultimate control over matters doesn’t necessarily lead to the complete relinquishing of human agency (meaningless human existence); rather, it helps us understand our humanity. Humans are finite creatures with finite capabilities.

If I were putting my hope solely on humanity to fix the messes we’ve created, I’m not sure how I’d get out of bed in the morning.

how does God’s ultimate control not undermine human agency? i guess it’s not fair to ask this question since it’s probably one of the most difficult questions Calvinists must face, but i’ll ask it anyway.

I guess i don’t think most people need to be reminded that they are finite creatures with finite capabilities. that seems obvious. less obvious to people, perhaps, is that they can really make a difference (making the world a better place — i really believe in those cliches!)

the two of you, grant and laurencer, show through your actions that you believe you can make a difference. I just find the deterministic view of the future incongruous in this context. i can’t believe that people like you would keep doing what you do if it was just a matter of obedience to God. You [i:7f7fef7140]must [/i:7f7fef7140]believe that what you’re doing influences the future.

You’re right, dan, I do believe that human agency affects change and that my actions have an impact on the future. Otherwise I wouldn’t carry around a travel mug and canvas grocery bags every where I go (among other supporting evidence). And you’re probably right that we need to emphasize that people can, indeed, make a difference in the world more than creaturely finitude.

To bring this back into the context of this conversation, though: I feel that the Neoconservatives, in their audacious attempt to reshape the world stage through altering the political makeup of the Middle East, forgot the notion of finitude that I’m advocating here. Their pre-war strategy seemed to have been rooted more in ideology than reality; they’re primary desire was to shape the world in the image they’d created for it. And the resulting events seem to be evidence of the danger in seeing human agency, in a vacuum, as the only means to change.

Instead, we need to humbly acknowledge our inability to see the whole picture [i:701ae9efe3]while[/i:701ae9efe3] we act in ways we have discerned to be in accordance with God’s desires for the world. To use Neocalvinist terminology, we need to determine appropriate directions for given structures and work towards implementing those directions (while keeping in mind biblical directions for our actions). Or, to use Martin Luther King’s language, we need to align with the arc of the universe towards justice. In doing so, however, it seems imperative to let go of ends to focus on means. God has ends covered; we get to do means.

alright, so you agree that individuals should be encouraged to see themselves as agents for change on a small scale. but you don’t think people can or should take a big picture perspective when trying to work for positive changes in the world? i agree that the bush administration has been arrogant, misinformed, and corrupt in its foreign policy, but that kind of confidence can be good if it’s based on a different view of the world, can’t it?

hypothetically, for example, if an administration were elected with PEACE as it’s major initiative, if it cut military spending by 50% and used the saved billions in creative ways that actually benefitted people (or if the gov’t even taxed people less as a result! imagine that). and if it worked for a global minimum wage instead of just crying about lost american jobs… etc etc. all of those things require a big picture perspective and might do some good. using neocalvinist language, those things could be seen as implementing the appropriate directions for given structures.

So what about that? Isn’t it just a difference of scale? Helping the old lady across the street is good, but so is making sure that everyone can get a tetnus shot if they need one. Similarly what’s the difference between murdering your neighbour and killing/causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. simply put, it’s a matter of scale, isn’t it? does God favour the small-scale?

Bush has completely undermined our country and most of us sit about just wringing our hands saying "well, there’s nothing we can do about it.". That isn’t true and never will be as long as we are still willing to fight for what we believe in.

… " But when a long term of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security"..

_{~ Declaration of Independence
~} July 4, 1776

Not that maybe we should think about it, maybe this or that…but our RIGHT and our DUTY. Someone once said, I can’t remember who, "Be the change you want to see in the world". Yes, we have limitations, yes we are finite creatures while God is infinite. However, God often uses us to bring about change, to cause a miracle, to fight for what is right, and yes even to change the big picture. Almost 250 years ago pioneering colonists changed the big picture in a big way. They brought about a new country and a new way of life. 100 years ago the big picture was yet again changed to include industry, railroads, ect. Less than 50 years ago 2 men changed the world again with the invention that changed technology and about 15 years ago someone else took it further and changed the way we view everything with the invention of the internet. All of those change the big picture. Whether it changes the last reel of it is neither here nor there but the big picture can be changed…because of people who begin with changing one small thing. THe small things add up as long as we never give up. Being a fatalist takes away all hope. And I don’t believe God wants that for us. He wants for us to be willing to change the world, not worrying about whether we can or not. I know I packed way too much info in too little of a space. So if any clarification is needed, I’ll make sure i do so.

~Heidi

I didn’t mean to imply that human agency should only apply to small scale change; I absolutely agree that large scale change is, and should be, possible. In fact, I personally most often think on a systems level.

But having just spent two years in a peace studies program where I was immursed in large scale human catastrophe and felt completely overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem at hand, I find it helpful to be reminded of my limits. Yes, I should be mindful of major political events and initiatives around the world; however, even while doing my part (whatever that might be: writing a letter, signing a petition, etc), I shouldn’t expect that they are necessarily my responsibility. It seems that we often overlook the things we actually have control over—small scale changes—when we focus so intently on larger issues.

As Heidi mentioned: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." (Mahatma Gandhi)

cool, then we agree. i think the disagreement came from grant who argued that whatever political leaders do it will always be a mistake: gore and bush might have responded differently to 9-11 but both courses of action would inevitably be mistakes. that take seems particularly defeatist and i hope that grant didn’t really mean it. maybe what he was trying to say is that not everyone needs to have an opinion about something like the Iraq invasion and occupation. in that i’m willing to agree with him.