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

I may not be any more optimistic about the potential of human beings to solve problems than you are. In practice though, I tend to suspend my disbelief enough to allow my actions and attitudes to be formed by the part of me that refuses to believe that all of this is a hopeless cause. I consider this a healthy mix of big-picture pessimism and small-picture optimism.

I think we MUST believe that positive actions can make a positive difference in the world. If nobody believed this, the world would be nasty place indeed.

Although I read it a long time ago, my views on this are still shaped by a collection of articles and letters Albert Camus wrote during the Nazi occupation of France. It’s titled ‘Resistance, Rebellion, and Death’. In it he explains why he, an atheist existentialist, is willing to give his up his life fighting National Socialism. His argument, as I remember it, revolved around the idea that to be human is to struggle, and that National Socialism is a giving in to our basest animal instincts instead of fighting against them. I need to go back and re-read that.

I can hardly believe it’s necessary to debate this. Maybe I should just double-check to make sure we’re arguing about the same thing. I’ve got the impression that you’re arguing that people should throw in the towel because no matter how hard we try, things will get worse anyway. Is that right?

I think heidi put it best when she said "The world will never be perfect but as long as there are people out there willing to try to make this world a better place, there’s hope." It’s not the consequenses of the action that leads to hope but the action itself.

Some of you may have heard about the recent letter to President Bush from Iran’s President. The link to the letter is below. I find it a remarkable window into the worldview of the Iranian leadership. Also remarkable is that the letter is written from one [i:7161e798a4]religious [/i:7161e798a4]leader to another, and that all the appeals are made in reference to the teachings of Jesus, Moses and other biblical figures. I’m particularly stunned, considering the importance of such a document, that such a terribly written translation could have made the cut.

http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub/edt/doc/20060509/769629_lettre.pdf[/quote]

Sometimes people get so beaten down that they forget to look around and see what’s really around them. They focus on the pain and forget the beauty of this great world we live in. God didn’t put us here to merely suffer and endure. He put us here to live and love. He didn’t say I’m going to make you all suffer for the rest of your lives, I just want you to learn from your mistakes. When my daughter does something wrong and I have to give her a time-out or some punishment, I don’t want her to suffer for that one little mistake for the rest of her life…I want her to learn from it so she can be happy. God wants the same for us. And as long as we hold our hope close to us and believe we can change things, then we can. Belief can move mountains. I know that sometimes I sound like a hallmark card, but I’ve seen the worst in life and believe in the best. And if a person can do that, he or she can do anything.

~Heidi

Yes, you both are sounding like a Hallmark card at times. Anyone can say: "I just gotta believe that people can do some good in this world". But what is meant by that? That’s what I’m asking? You can’t just throw around these simplistic ideas of good and evil without explaining where the good comes from, especially when it’s been proven time and time again just how hard it is to determine what is "good". Most of mankind’s evil actions arise out of the idea that they are doing something good. So if you’re going to throw around a concept like "humans have the ability to do good", you’d better be able to explain how that’s possible.

By acknowledging human failure, I’m doing the opposite of suggesting that there’s no hope. I thought what I was arguing this whole time was that the only true hope is Jesus Christ and I explained what I meant by that. The reference to Camus does not change my criticism that such a hope is without a firm basis because it assumes people CAN magically change their basic nature all by themselves or that there are some people who know how to do good (Kerry) of their own power while others (Bush and his administration) do not.

Thomas Merton says it best in "Seven Storey Mountain". After fully immersing himself in the Marxism and intellectualism of New York in the 30’s, after taking the Oxford Pledge for peace and flirting with the dream of a classless society, he realized it was all a sham and that peace and goodness cannot come from human beings alone:

"I don’t know how anybody who pretends to know anything about history can be so naive as to suppose that after all of these centuries of corrupt and imperfect social systems, there is eventually to evolve something perfect and pure out of them—the good out of the evil, the unchanging and stable and eternal out of the variable and mutable, the just out of the unjust. But perhaps revolution is a contradiction of evolution, and therefore means the replacement of the unjust by the just, of the evil by the good. And yet it is still just as naive to suppose that members of the same human species, without having changed anything but their minds, should suddenly turn around and produce a perfect society, when they have never been able, in the past, to produce anything but imperfection and, at best, the barest shadow of justice."

If this sounds like despair, it’s only because Merton recognizes the limitations of the hope of Modern society, which is why he eventually put his hope in Christ.

Grant, I agree with your take on Ecclesiastes, and I identify with your struggle between what you call Calvinism and monasticism (between working and resting, the desire to change things and the desire to patiently endure the status quo). I think Scripture invites us to live in that tension.

I’ve always understood Ecclesiastes’ "life under the sun" to refer to life apart from God; such a life is "vanity of vanities." Then in our Psalms and Wisdom class we read an article that argued "life under the sun" meant life under the common curse. According to the first reading, I thought I was obligated never identify with the experience of life as "vanity of vanities." But on the sencond reading, I felt free to acknowledge with full integrity of faith the meaninglessness of life. Not that this life doesn’t have meaning. It is full of meaning. But I can truly say life is NOT the way its supposed to be. You work hard and the result is that you only experience more hardships. There is a causal breakdown between hard work and blessing. Ecclesiastes is the necessary dialogue partner to Proverbs. Proverbs says, "Live wisely and work hard and your way will be protected. You will enjoy a good, long life." Ecclesiastes hastens to add, "Yes, but that’s not always the case. I’ve seen the wise suffer, and besides the same fate overtakes them both. The wise and the fool both die. Life is broken, vain. The only thing left is to fear God."

I’m not sure why exactly, but Ecclesiastes brings solace to my soul. It’s like a good friend going through it with you. Proverbs offers advice, and in life you need good advice. Ecclesiastes smiles and grieves with you. It’s interesting that wisdom offers us both perspectives.

grant what I’m interested in is the implications of your view for everyday life. Most Christians believe that they can’t do it on their own, but your view so de-emphasizes human agency that it leads you to the sort of apathetic-sounding statements about politics that we heard from you earlier. You seem to be falling into the kind of pitfall that Calvinists are so often accused of falling into. By placing such an extreme stress on the all-ness of God and the nothing-ness of humans you arrive at a kind of Buddhist conclusion where the point of being human is to stop being human…

Rise above material things. They don’t matter. You don’t have the power to make changes. Only God does. You are nothing and can do nothing. True happiness comes to those who don’t care about temporal things. You must be indifferent to everything but God.

I can understand the attraction of such a "this world is not my home" way of thinking because it provides some comfort for those who don’t like this world. On the other hand it represents a philosophical dead end for a discussion about a war which is causing very real suffering. (Barring the direct intervention of God, which I think we would all welcome).

I’ll say again. I’m talking about hope. Hope is very practical. It is not out-of-this-worldly. It helps you do the daily tasks that are contributing to a better world. The problem with the critique of Calvinism you’re referring to is that it is a critique of the theory of Calvinism, not the practice of Calvinists. If you look at Calvinists, they are very engaged in the world; they are not trying to escape it. So you can criticize the theory all you want, but this does not change the fact that Calvinism actually spurs people on to building institutions, enacting social change.

What you might be criticizing in my posts is Merton’s monasticism which seems to leave sinful culture to its own devices. Merton believes society is naturally a sinful realm and can only be saved by being more like the church. But Calvinism itself values society as much as the church. Calvin’s Geneva was an attempt at societal change, a reform of both the church and the broader society. Even though I am sympathetic to Merton’s own monastic contribution to culture, the spirit of Calvinism is what continues to motivate me today. In fact, if I wasn’t a Calvinist—if I was an agnostic— I don’t think I’d be living in my relative’s basement right now or teaching at a Christian college for less pay or sticking with this silly dream of making meaningful serviceable rock music. In fact, I probably wouldn’t even be having this argument with you because, fuck it, what’s the point? Who knows who knows whose right? Right? But because I am motivated by Calvin’s reading of Scripture, I believe my actions are part of God’s revelation, are moments of creation, development toward a world of true and lasting peace. Until that time, this is a battle that I am fully engaged in here on earth. Word?

Yeah, that’s what I didn’t get about what you were saying. It’s obvious you are getting it on with the world while Merton used the withdrawal method.

So what’s the difference between feeling like there’s a right and a wrong way to make Christian rock, and feeling like there’s a right and a wrong way to deal with the Iraq situation?

Yes, my desire to promote good music is similar to someone else’s desire to promote a good Iraq. What I’m expressing reservations about is the idea that I must form an opinion about technicalities of political strategies concerning Iraq or spend lots of time studying the Mid-East situation in order to be a "good" person. Now I’m kind of a hypocrite because I do find myself searching out news items and studying Mid-East history of my own desire, but I’m concerned about these things as a "thinker" (which relates to my vocation). But I don’t buy into the notion that every citizen, if they care about making positive changes in the world, must have an opinion on all the events of the day or have their hand in the solution politically if they’re not politicians. Why isn’t the making of good rock music a sufficient contribution to the situation in Iraq?