Obama: Ambassador of Hope?

I enjoyed this piece Caleb... no matter how many times I read someone who loves Jesus talk about a "Liberal" without somehow making it seem like a naughty word, I'm always refreshed and encouraged. I live in the Chicago area as well and have been fortunate enough to have Senator Obama speak at my school a few times over the last couple of years. He first did during his early campaigning for the senate seat, and what struck me then, was not simply how hopeful he seemed, or how much he appeared to genuinely believe in the potential goodness of the people of the United States. I was awed at the gentleness with which he conveyed his deepest convictions. It was moving, how real he was, how vulnerable. And it struck me then, as now, that it was through that vulnerability that he was able to connect with the masses of people throughout the state, and eventually the nation. My point is this: Perhaps the most attractive thing about Senator Obama, at least to me, was his humanness. For so many years I kind of half-thought of politicians as these above the law super humans who could show no doubt or fear at the cost of their political power. If they had any chance in Washington there could be no gaps in their political armor; what made me so impressed with Obama was that he was the only political figure I saw who was bold enough to not have any. He was, and is, a real person... even with his media driven "rock star" status, and those cowardly attacks on his character and ability from those who would say anything to plant doubt in the minds of the public, he is audacious enough to offer hope. And he does so by being somewhat paradoxical; gentle/strong, charismatic/soft-spoken, masterful/intrigued, humble/convicted, political/open-minded... much like a living, breathing, honest to goodness human being.
Here might be a good time to insert an applicable verse; "If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus" (Phil.2:1-5). I'll end by simply offering this... perhaps it's okay, or even appropriate, as Christians, to compare our leaders to Jesus. And if it so happens that one of them has an attitude that seems "the same as that of Christ Jesus", perhaps we can together hope with him for a brighter, more Just and Peaceful tomorrow. At least until the Glorious Day. Amen.

I assume everyone under the sun has heard this by now, but Barak's keynote at the Call to Renewal conference is mandatory listening:

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote/index.html

There's an MP3 and a transcript.

I believe he is capable of repairing the damage done to Christianity in America in the last several years. I've got to admit, while Barak fever is sometimes a little overwhelming here in Chicago, I'd rather hear about him all day than Anna Nichole or Britney's shaved head.

Great essay Caleb.

Audicity of hope? How about Audicity of results. It's easy to have hope, but will his policies have action that brings results. If he is right about that war, then why isn't he sponsoring a bill to bring the troops home now? There is nothing wrong with partisinship. It is what makes this country great. I encourage you to examine the fruits of his actions. It's easy to profess to be a Christian, but is he truly a follower of Jesus Christ. Being for the poor is easy you when you believe it is the governments problem. Individuals are responsible for the poor and the marginlized.

Someone should have done their homework. The reason he's not sponsoring a bill to bring the troops home now, is because he's smarter than that. On January 31, Senator Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-escalation act". Here are his own words on the matter:"This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored." You can listen to the whole speech at http:/obama.senate.gov.
Everything is not black and white, and he is being a responsible leader by remaining realistic and convicted, or bipartisan (grey) on the matter. As to whether or not he is "truly a follower of Jesus", I would love to know what the criteria are for "true" followers of Christ in public service positions. Is there a special hat that they wear, or some special code word they use to show they're actually following Jesus? If so, I missed that section of my church's newsletter so please fill me in.
Also, this is a democracy, that is, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people"... individuals compose the matter of our government and dictate it's responsibilities. Therefore, if one considers poor and marginalized people their own responsibility, that same ideological stance should carry over into their political stance.
I'm just so sick of hearing people say that Obama lacks experience... because these are the same people who elected W into office, and ol' G.W. was way less qualified than Barack is when he was elected in 2000. (see: "fruit's of GW's actions"). Barack has been serving the people twice as long as Bush had been when he was elected President. Bush has exploited and marginalized the constitution, and Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Bush made money in big business prior to public service, Obama served the poor and marginalized on the south side of Chicago as a Lawyer and community organizer. The comparisons could go on, but for the sake of our first three resolutions, and my own breath, I'll stop here. If you dont like Obama because he's a Democrat, or pro choice, at least have the guts to just say so. Then find out why he has chosen to be those things... I think you'll find his answers at the very least... coherent. Which will be a breath of fresh air.

First of all I did not say I did not like Obama. I don't care about his personality or his hope. I care about policy. I also did not say anything about his experience. If a person has the right vision for the country, then we should take a closer look. Why does left get so emotional when we question the 30 second sound bite of a politician? You were all over the board in the previous comment, but big business is a good thing. It provides opportunity for people to earn a living and give back. Who's been more effective Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, "Community Leaders", or Herb Kelleher, Founder of Southwest Airlines? Two more things...how do liberal Christians support an agenda that is for abortion? I'm assuming you ant-war Christians are against war because the result is innocent death. Please help me understand. I'm serious! Lastly, The Fruit of the Spirit is a great criterion that describes a follower of Christ. Again, it is easy to claim to be a Christian. Mitt Romney claims to be a follower of Christ, but I'm not sure about that. I would still vote for him (I'm open minded!)

What amazes me is how we all, Religious right and left, tend to believe our guy and not the other guy. Conservatives don't believe Obama, after all they say he's pro-choice. Liberal leaning Christians don't believe Bush. After all they say, there is still poverty and we went to Iraq and are still there. As soon as someone questions Obama's faith or policy ideas, Bush is bashed. Can we all just stop! I am personally a conservative Christian and I vote that way. However, as I have gotten older, and hopefully wiser, I have come to understand the wisdom of how Billy Graham has acted towad polotics, HANDS OFF! He doesn't support either side. He has been an adviser to numerous presidents from Ike to Bush. He hasn't always liked some of their policies, but he never bashed a one of them in public. Even during the Clinton-Lewinsky stuff, he didn't jump on him. He welcomes people of all Christian denominations and political leanings. I guess he has taken to heart the scripture, "I am all things to all people in order that I might win some." Why is it that we tend to trash each other? Why is it that religious right and religious left think that government, ran by Bush or Obama, will actually cure any of socioties ills? I don't care who is in the White House, poverty will never be defeated by govenrments. When it comes to the poor, government only creates poor, not ends it.

Now, is Obama a Christian or not? I don't know. He says he is, but anyone can claim that. I live in the Bible Belt and just about everyone claims to be a Christian. However, the social ills that appear outside of here are just as present here as in any Northern city or on the west coast. If everyone was as Christian as they say they are down here, then there would be no Abortion clinics, there would be no Crack dealers, there would be not rape or child molestation. I can claim to be anything I want, that doesn't wake it so. What I would like to hear from Mr. Obama is a testimony. Maybe he has given one and I missed it.
What is the mark of a Christian in public office? The same as for the rest of us. Its not going to a particular church. Its not saying you are a Christian or quoting some scriptures that a speach writer found for you. I want to hear his testimony of how he came to know that Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life, that faith in Him is the only way to salvation.

Brian...you should do your homework...we are a republic.

Thanks for the reminder Davida, but I think it's referred to as a "Democratic Republic" because it involves elected representatives. There are plenty of so-called "republics" who seem to care less about the needs of their people. Thanks though, your semantical aid was very, very helpful. Next time just call me a doo doo head if you disagree, it'll be way funnier.

Greg, I actually appreciate your comment quite a bit. I want to say that I am all for the passionate exchange of ideas, and I'm sorry if I come off too strong... or sarcastic. I think that the natural tendency when one is differentiating between two opposing ideas is to use figureheads. Thats why my comment became Bush vs. Obama...
I'm actually from the town that is home to the Billy Graham Center... I have tons of respect for that man as well... and I like his "above the argument" approach. But, I am just no Billy Graham.
Concerning the "pro-choice Christian" comment, I think conservatives miss the mark when the assert that pro-choice is synonymous with pro-abortion. The question one must answer is not whether or not he values life, but it is what he thinks the governments place is in making and enforcing laws concerning an individuals body. I think that someone who is anti-abortion can still be someone who supports a woman's right to chose based on what they think the function of government is. I know it sounds crazy, but it's where I'm coming from.
Now Chris, Who made a bigger impact? Who's been more effective? I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but I'll take "community organizers" like Mahatma Gandhi, Paul Revere, and Martin Luther King JR. (revolutionaries and proponents of huge social change) over Herb Kelleher (founder of an airline) any day.
And isn't Mitt Romney a Mormon Republican? Thats like saying you're "open minded" for considering Coke instead over Pepsi. Sorry.

Greg, I also appreciated your comment about the nasty things we say to each other. Both liberals and conservatives tend to see things in black and white, when most issues are very complicated. Like poverty for instance. I would agree with you that governments only create poverty, but that is only if the people in a "democratic republic" (thanks Brian) allow it. I believe that when it comes to poverty, liberals tend to want to label it the government's problem and conservatives tend to want to label it the individual's problem. But the truth is, it's both! We cannot seperate the two. Yes, individuals, and individuals working within communities such as churches, need to take personal responsibility when it comes to taking care of the poor. But those same individuals cannot, as Bishop Peter Storey says, "let their institutions do their sinning for them." This is why I thought the Democratic Congress's idea to raise minimum wage was a good thing, but I also thought President Bush's idea to include tax breaks for small business was a good idea.

So let's step back from our mantles for a second and think about this logically. Can either party, Republican or Democrat, truely be right about every issue? Absolutely not! This is why debate between liberals and conservatives must occur. Where American politics goes wrong is when one side does not allow that to occur. This is why I would disagree with you, Chris, about the consequences of partisanship. Partisanship is when any politician chooses his side--his party--over honest debate. (A good recent example of partisanship in action is the Scooter Libby scandal). A good politician--one that I would vote for--would seek out that debate amongst his or her colleagues.

And I honestly believe--although we will see more in the coming months--that Obama may be one of those politicians. And Greg, Obama actually does outline his conversion experience in his book Dreams From My Father. I guess it's up to all of us to decide if he's sincere, but it's like that for any politician about any issue, isn't it? C'est la vie...

I'm glad for the discussion going on with this article. Keep it up.

Just for the record, Burnside doesn't necessarily support Barak Obama for president.

Chris, you brought up an interesting point concerning being opposed to the war and reconciling that with anti-war politicians who may be pro-choice. I would point out that we shouldn't have to choose between the two. Both are important policies: the US currently allows abortion and is mired in an unpopular war. I see little chance of Roe v Wade being overturned, to be honest. On the other hand, our foreign policy could change quickly with a new president.

If I have to make the choice between a candidate who is an awful leader, has poor foreign and domestic policy and is pro-life and another candidate who is a good leader and is pro-choice...I'd take the latter. We, as Christians, should not be one-issue voters.

Let me respond to a few things. First, I do agree that nobody owns the truth, but I would disagree with Caroline when you say that partisanship is when we choose a side and leave out debate. Quite the contrary, I define partisanship as the exchange of ideas. Be passionate about those things that you believe. I encourage everybody to listen to the candidates ideas; not their 30 second sound bites. What do they truly believe!

Brian, my point about business vs. "community leaders" is that regular people have more opportunity to make an impact in the business community. Everyday thousands of people start new businesses and some succeed. Those that succeed are able to pay employees for labor and in turn allow others to provide. MLK Jr. was a great man, but so many ordinary people in this great country are providing in a smaller but equally important roles.

It seems like the debate always gets to abortion. I'm not a one issue voter and I would say that the abortion debate will not be in my top 3 issues for this election cycle. I can't convince anybody that there is life inside the womb. My wife and I are expecting our third child in a few weeks (pray for us, ha!). I truly believe God ordained that baby before the beginning of time. If you believe there is a life inside a women's womb, then it should have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". One more thing on abortion, I separate the moral issue and legal issue. I find it a little odd that Brian applies the "less government" approach model to pro-choice, but could vote for a man, Obama, that believes more government is the answer for the poor and marginalized.

Jordan, I would say that war sucks big time...all wars. Not sure there is such a thing as a popular war, but I know that was not your intent. The fact is that war brings peace! We could argue the merits of Iraq, but we really will not know the true result for years. I'm sure in the beginning of Civil War, the Union civilians believed and protested for another way, but Lincoln had the vision of peace for ALL through war. How will history judge the Iraq War...who knows? I hope for the citizens of Iraq, the US and world that victory will produce peace.

Chris,
First off, congratulations. I do believe that children are an amazing blessing from God, and that you are blessed with another child on the way makes me smile. I'm sure you are an incredible father, and I mean that sincerely.
But to respond to your description of my stance as "odd", abortion and poverty are two separate and very different issues. Not only are they different in their complexities, but they are very different in their potential solutions as well. I think it's okay for ones stance to seem "odd",(though I might call it bipartisan, or practical) because whatever the present status quo is for each issue, it's apparent that it's not enough to find solutions that work for everyone.
Believe it or not, I would love to have one "big government" stance on every issue... it would be so much easier, but I think it would be irresponsible. As I said before, nothing is black and white, and if being grey or zebra stripped will get the ball rolling towards justice and peace, I'll stay happily funny looking.
But seriously, Congratulations.
P e a c e .

I'm glad my article could spark such passionate discussion! I'm hoping what is happening here is that iron is sharpening iron.

However, I did want to point out that this in no way is meant as an endorsement of Obama. I was just trying to get to the heart of why he has become so popular in such a short amount of time, and why discussion of 'hope' appeals to people. Thanks!

Listen, I don't mind a good debate, however, debate is not name calling or trashing anohter person. Debate is the free exchange of ideas. Whenever I have a discussion with a person from a liberal perspective 2 things usually happen. 1) I get cussed out and called a "right-wing, homophobic, racist". many times they don't even really know who I am. 2) Bush gets bashed. The funny thing is, most of them didn't like him to begin with and wouldn't like him no matter what. I think Bush ahs done some things right and some things wrong. I guess that makes him a human being. But most of the people who don't like Bush wouldn't admit any possitives just because they hate him so much. Seriously, I have never seen someone hated so much by a certain group of people as W.
Now before you leave me nasty comments, I am sure some of my conservative bretheren have done the same to the liberal leaning folks who have posted here. After all, we are all only human.

Chris,

I would call World War II a popular war. I would call American deployment to Afghanistan popular as well.

While history will be the ultimate judge (even though it will be colored by the victors), I think we have enough information now to say that the Iraq war has been horribly mishandled from the top echelons of our government. At the very best, the administration pitched the war under very, very weak pretenses. At worst, the American public was exploited and lied to, and many Iraqi and American lives have been lost for the wrong reasons.

At its most just, war is still evil being used to fight another evil, and our job as Christians is not to choose the lesser of two evils, but to be beyond that. I would recommend checking out the review on Jacques Ellul's "Anarchy and Christianity" in this issue for more information on this.

Greg,

I agree wholeheartedly...I think Bush is probably a great guy with a good heart who is doing his best. The problem is, he's not a good leader. I think it's great he has a Bible study in the Oval Office, but that doesn't by default make him a good President.

As for vitriol you're hearing from the Left, that's unfortunate, but I remember very well what Conservative Christians thought of Bill Clinton, and the "dislike" was at least equal. The difference is, Clinton presided over a very successful 8 years. President Bush, not so much. I'm taking responsibility...I voted for him the first time around.

Jordan,
One last comment....Bush has his failures, but he is a great leader. Economy is great, unemployment down and not one terrorist attack since 9/11. Just so you don't think I'm completely biased for W., his campaign finance reform, education policy, spending bills is terrible. For all the failures in the Iraq war, he believes it is just and victory is attainable. Strip away all the moral failings of Bill Clinton and he really is a zero (that is why he has to build a legacy now). Achievements, balance budget and welfare reform. An objective observer would agree that both achievements should be shared with the Republican Congress. His policy failures, N. Korea, Middle East and eight years of basically pacifying terrorist are truth. W. has to take some responsibility for 9/11 because it happened on his watch. Let's be real, the planning and recruiting of this war-provoking event on 9/11 was due to the Clinton Admin. I would love to know what secrets Berger was sneaking out of the national archive building. Pray for victory!

Chris,

And I'll bet the economic success of the Reagan/first Bush years had nothing to do with the Democrat congress, right? Conservatives think only Republicans can be responsible for economic success. Also, your criticisms of Bush are his more liberal policies, so that's not really an unbiased view. Let's get away from the conservative rhetoric here.

The reasons behind 9/11 were put into motion long before Clinton's administration, stemming back to the 80's and early 90's, when we established bases in Saudi Arabia. Or, even earlier with the establishment of the Israeli state, if you want to go that far.

President Bush is an awful communicator and an awful foreign policy-maker (he doesn't even meet with leaders who might disagree with his policies). He doesn't work well with anyone outside his own cabinet. And what was that about Berger leaking secrets? Wasn't Scooter Libby just convicted for doing the same thing?

Lastly, I need you to explain to me what 'victory' in Iraq means, and then I need for you to explain how, as Christians, we should be at all concerned about 'victory' in Iraq.

Jordan,
I really respect your views and believe you are an intelligent person however; it seems like in your last post you are giving me "Keith Olberman Talking Points". President Bush does not need to validate Iran or Syria. He has setup parameters to me with them. Reagan would not meet with all the Soviet leaders until Gorbachev. Clinton would not meet with Castro.

Please do some research on the Scooter Libby trial! He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. The prosecutor investigated 3.5 years and never found an illegal act for the original supposed crime, leaking Plame's name. The Bush Admin. was setting the record straight because the political hack, Joe Wilson made up the story of his findings in Niger and who sent him. Leaking to press is not a crime! There was no cover up because there was nothing to cover up.

I do give credit to Democrats in the 1980's they voted to approve the major tax cuts. You had a lot of Blue Dog and Yellow Dog Dems go along with Reagan. That is why he won 49 states in the 1984 election. The Democrats loved him!

With respect to no being biased...I just wanted to you to know that I don't defend W. on all issues. We have a lot of people on the Right that will not accept criticism because he is a Christian. I do believe he has been very effective in protecting the homeland and economic issues. I would agree, below average on communicating his ideas.

Victory in Iraq...that is tough to communicate. I'm convinced it will not be one date in history like the end to the European and Pacific campaigns of WWII. It will start with a secure Iraq, not without violence. Look to Baghdad for a measurement of a "secure" Iraq. The other three factors are a political, religious and economic. We as Americans, defenders of freedom and as Christians owe it to these people for a new beginning (You are no less a Christian if you don't agree). I can't imagine the oppression they have lived with for years. If young men in Iraq and Afghanistan have opportunity to create commerce, worship and provide for a family, then they are less likely to make themselves a human bomb. If victory brings security, economic, political and religious freedoms to Iraq, it will be a safer world (I believe this is essentially a good way to decrease terrorism throughout the world). If we invest in defeat, then we will own it and will have to reap the consequences. War brings peace! I would encourage all my Christian Lefties to answer this question...If there was victory in Iraq, could you embrace it or would your disgust of W. keep you from it.

Chris,

Haven't watched Olbermann since his days on ESPN, and I don't watch liberal or conservative pundits at all.

Reagan finally meeting with Gorbachev was a landmark moment in relations with the Soviet Union, as was Nixon's meeting with Mao Zedong. In fact, those are two of the most important moments in American foreign policy, but President Bush doesn't even like meeting with allies who disagree with him.

You mention we've stayed safe with Bush in office, but by that reasoning, Clinton would've been excellent at defending our homeland, too. The lack of attacks is more likely due to improvements in our intelligence-gathering than our military action in Iraq. Instead, our all-volunteer military has been stretched dangerously thin, keeping us from responding more strongly in Afghanistan and to other threats like North Korea, Syria and Iran.

But all of this talk of safety and of other threatening nations is firmly footed in a secular worldview. I balk when you say, "we as Americans, defenders of freedom and as Christians owe it to these people for a new beginning". Maybe as Americans (though I think that believing we're in Iraq 'defending freedom' is a little naive...there is much more to it than that), but I cannot see how our goal of imitating Christ can be reconciled with any participation in or advocation of war.

We are, as followers of Jesus, living with far more in mind than security. For instance, under Saddam Hussein the Christian church was afforded a sort of special status. It sounds strange, but in keeping balance Hussein would elevate other religious groups. I'm inclined to believe that God's hand was behind this, not Western pressure. With Saddam gone, Iraqi Christians cannot worship as safely and are often targeted. I've included some links below to back up that claim.

That being said, the 'victory' in Iraq, if it's ever achieved, will be hollow. I am not, as you say, a Christian Lefty. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican (though I was a hardcore conservative for most of my life). I'm done believing that the Republican Party is in anyway synonymous with my faith in Christ, but swinging to the other side is not an option, either. As Christians, our duty is to call sin sin, not to use the tools of Satan to make what we think is a better world.

Lastly, you're right in saying I didn't know my facts concerning the Plame affair, but dismissing Joe Wilson as a political hack indicates that you have been buying the party line on the issue, as well. Leaking a CIA operative's name isn't illegal? Since when?

(Had to delete these links as it was messing with the site)

Jordan,

You need to further check your facts on the Plame Affair. She was not an operative, she was an analyst. She in no way met the criteria listed in the foreign operatives law that makes it a crime to leak an undercover operatives name. If you'll care to further investigate, the senate investigation also found that there was no crime committed. Lastly, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor on the case, showed that there was no crime committed in that he was never able to indict anyone, much less convict anyone for that crime, because no crime was committed. Most of the witnesses in Libby's trial had more discrepancies between their numerous statements than Libby did.
On a second note, when you aline yourself with leftist positions such as pro-abortion, and anti-Bush, anti-war, then it is hard for you to say that you are not a lefty.

If you will check your history, Reagen meeting with Gorbachav and Nixon with Mao were done when those leaders met certain criteria laid down by Reagen and Nixon policies first.

I'm not sure what allies you think Bush won't meet with, but I would like you to back that up with some facts. If you are referring to France and Germany, I'm not sure you can call them Allies.

Chris (or Patrick?),

You've chosen to ignore the points I felt were most relevant to our discussion regarding Christianity and war. I'm wondering why?

It bothers me that you peg me as a lefty, a nifty way of labeling someone you disagree with, and an arrogant way of viewing the world.

The majority of this country have views that cross conservative/liberal lines: they may advocate the war in Iraq and they may be pro-choice. I'm pro-life, and by that I mean I'm opposed to abortion AND war. I believe these things because that's how I interpret Christ's words.

Thanks for the patronizing remark about checking my history...did you come up with the actual diplomatic agreements? Nixon meeting Mao and Reagan meeting Gorbachev (that's how those names are spelled, by the way) came with concessions on both sides, because that's what diplomacy is.

France (I like to call it "Freedomland") and Germany are closer allies than China and Russia (remember NATO?) but Bush has spurned Putin as well. The rest of our allies are slowly backing away from this mess.

Frankly, I could care less about the Plame affair. As far as I'm concerned, justice has been served, and all we can go on is the guilty verdict and our perfect justice system.

Jordan and Chris/Patrick. Plame and the Libby trial are SO last week. I'm all about James Dobson supporting adulterer Gingrich as the Right Choice for Christians. Hey now. Newt said he repented! Just in time for an election.

On the other hand, Scooter Libby's not totally out of luck. He could get a job as Karl Rove's ghost blogger.

Jordan,
Patrick is my brother...sorry for the confusion.

Please hear me; I'm not trying to put a label on you from my arrogance. I called you Christian "Lefty" in a tongue-in-cheek manor because your position on the war is left of mine.

To address you Christianity vs. war...I would say it like this, War brings Peace!

When you say the teachings of Christ, I'm assuming you are talking about the entire Bible and not just the Gospels? In John 1, it says that in the beginning was the word and word was with God and was God...and the Word became flesh. Essentially, Jesus is making his claim to be God. We know that God used war in a lot scripture to bring Peace, but most importantly to bring Glory to himself. BWC has an article in the sports section about David and Goliath...Perfect example of war (violence) bringing peace.

Like you I'm a follower of Christ and I could be wrong about this, but the Holy Spirit has not convicted me that war is wrong or war is a sin. I separate abortion, killing of the innocent and war as method or way to bring peace.

Whether it's Iraq, Japan, Germany, Darfur, or wherever, war is a method to bring peace.

God Bless You!

Jordan,

Let me first address your points on Christianity and war. Could you please list for me the scriptures that tell us it is a sin for countries to fight wars?

Secondly, Reagen got up and walked away from the table with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland. There were no concessions on both parts.

I didn't label you as a lefty, I just said that when you advocate positions that are core left positions, you tend to be grouped with that group. It's not a nifty way to do anything, nor is it arrogant.

The reason that so many people have views that cross the conservative/liberal lines is because they lack a ration set or core beliefs. Let me be clear. I'm not naive enough to think that every conservative is a christian. What I do believe is that it is extremely difficult to have a true Biblical World-view and consider yourself a liberal. That brings about too many contradictions that go against what the entire Bible as a whole teaches. The core beliefs of liberalism--that the government is the best way to solve societies ills, goes against what the Bible teaches, which is that we are personally responsible for the choices we make and the lives we live. Also, the major positions that liberalism holds on to such as environmentalism, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, and that there is no absolute truth (see Greg's comment about no black and white) and we can make our own morals as we go, are absolutely against the Bible. Jesus said in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and life, no one comes to the Father but by me," that's about as black and white as you can get.

Lastly, you were the one that brought up inaccurate information about the Scooter Libby conviction. If you did know the facts, you would have a hard time logically saying that justice has been served.

AMEN to the "opposed to abortion AND war" comment. I believe that's what's refered to as "a consistent ethic of human life." I agree wholeheartedly, Jordan, that Christians should be wary of aligning themselves with every policy of either party.

And peace by way of war? I believe that's similar to, as Derek Webb puts it, "purity by way of fornication."

"War brings peace..." was that in Romans?

Sorry, Chris...I don't buy it. Extrapolating out on John 1 and doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to get to the point where Jesus is a warmonger...it's absurd to me. Jesus is the Peacemaker, and He will judge one day, and He'll come with a sword. But that is NOT what He calls us to do. He will judge and He alone.

The crazy thing is that you're using the Bible for your reasoning, when you're completely ignoring Jesus' directly spoken word about turning the other cheek, about how the meek will inherit the Earth, about how the poor and oppressed are blessed. What do you think those mean? You'll have to refute Christ's actual word before you point back to the Old Testament.

Caroline is right. Sin does not bring about purity, and I think it's dangerous to think so.

Patrick,

Here are some verses for you. Taken from a website for a lovely Mennonite church.

Jesus revealed to us how to live in accordance with how his creation works.

"Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." (Mt 5.44 , Lu 6.27 , Lu 6.3)

"Do not use force against an evil man." (Mt 5.39)

"Do not resist evil with evil." "Forgive and you will be forgiven." (Lu 6.37)

"Do not be anxious about your life." (Lu 12.22 )

"He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword." (Mat 26.52)

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you." (Mat 7.12)

The rest of the New Testament contains more of the same.

"Do not return evil for evil." (1 Pet 3.9 , Rom 12.17, 1 Thes 5.15)

"Overcome evil with good." (Rom 12.21)

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" (Rom 12.19)

It is a deeply held popular belief that the only way to stop evil is with by violent force. This is the theme of most adventure stories of all genres, of comic books and TV shows and movies. If we trust violence more than we trust God, this is idolatry. God's truth is that our real enemies are spiritual (Eph 6.12) and are to be opposed by spiritual means (2 Cor 10.4)

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

Also, Patrick, you're wrong about the world being black and white. The only one who knows truth completely is God. I can see that you're set in your beliefs about this, and I guess I would focus a little more on Christ's words than backing up your theology with Old Testament genocide (and I know it's there). If the world was really as black and white as you believe, we wouldn't be arguing about this.

If you'll remember the target Jesus' ire was the Pharisees and Sadducees, two groups that could be seen as the Right and the Left. Jesus wasn't concerned about either, and when they tried to pull Him in with a tricky wordly question, He kept pointing them higher.

Caroline,
Look at reality of History...quoting Webb keeps you in a theoretical mindset. Revolutionary War brought peace between America and the British. The Civil War saved the union and started the process for peace for blacks. WWII brought peace to the world. I?m not saying all wars bring peace because that is not true.

Please don't put words in my mouth that I'm saying Jesus is a warmonger. If you can debate me on the issues, then please do, but save the self-righteous exchanges.

I love God and believe he gives us strength to overcome evil with good. The method to overcome could be the use of force.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you like or that support your political view. Jesus was not referring to the material poor and oppressed in the Beatitudes...he was speaking of the poor in spirit.

God allows suffering and violence to occur. Isaiah 53 talks about how Jesus would one day suffer, "For He was pierced for our transgressions..." If you read further, God not only allowed or willed the suffering of Jesus, but God was pleased. That is hard to get your arms around.

The God of Isaiah is the God of the Gospels. I'm not necessarily comparing the suffering of Jesus to the War with Iraq. The point I'm trying to make is that God uses violence or war to bring peace. If I'm wrong in my beliefs I pray that the Counselor or Holy Spirit would give me the courage and humbleness to repent.

I hope that yall would give as much passion to the innocent who do not have a voice.

Chris,

Many apologies for putting words in your mouth. I realize you didn't mean Jesus is a warmonger, and I regret making that statement.

Chris, you're picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you like. You've decided to take one verse in Isaiah about Jesus suffering (what this has to do with war, I have no idea), and you've ignored all but one of the verses I mentioned.

Theologically, we are on different ground, so I don't see where it goes from here. I've appreciated the discussion, though.

Okay, "victory in Iraq"---

Given that when this war began, it was ostensibly about Osama and then became about Saddam, it seems to me that we're hurting for concrete objectives here. At this point, we're looking for a "secure" Iraq, but I think what most people mean by that is an Iraqi government effectively propped up by the U.S. and supportive of her economic interests. Tell me I'm wrong.

I think some people operate on the idea that the world will be a better, freer, more Christian place if the U.S. controls everything. But could that goal ever possibly justify such extreme violence?

And if protecting the U.S. against terrorism is our war objective, I would argue that we're going about it all wrong. I think a strong case could be made that the longer we're there as an occupying force, the less rapport we'll have in that part of the world, and the more vulnerable we'll become to terrorism.

Actually Jessica, you are wrong about our objective in Iraq. Iraq doesn't need us to support them economically. They have all the oil they need to stand on their own. The problem there is security to get that oil flowing. From the beginning, this was not about oil. If you look back at what was said about this war, the President was hit pretty hard from alot of people because he wouldn't use the Iraqi oil to fund the war, etc.

2nd, it's not about making the world more Christian through war, that is definitely not what God teaches in the Bible. Nor is it about the US "controlling everything", because we are fallible. It is about giving democracy a chance to people who don't enjoy the same freedoms that we do.

I'm not sure what you calling extreme violence when you look at the record of Saddam Hussein and the heinous ways he tortured and killed his own people.

Your last paragraph was the best I've seen on this whole discourse, because your disagreeing with the means with which we are trying to achieve security and peace. That's exactly what I am advocating, I just have a different view of how to get there.

Hey, okay. Maybe we're not there for economic reasons. You can see where I might make that mistake, though, given our usual economics-first foreign policy. Never mind that Dictator X is slaughtering people; we'll support him with troops and money because he cooperates with our monopolies.

One of the things I didn't like about the movie 300 was that it drew this dramatic black-white dichotomy between the good guys and the bad guys, so extreme that I kept thinking it was farcical. It's ridiculous to me, in the Iraq situation and life in general, to think of ourselves as all good and the other side as all bad. Look at Abu Ghraib and tell me that this war we're waging is all-good, fighting against the all-bad.

Jordan,
I mean that God has used violence to bring peace. He did this on the cross.

2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." All scripture is God breathed, not just the red letter version of your Bible. You are trying to paint of a picture of sweet little weak Jesus and that is not the saviour I know.

Good stuff though.

Thank you friends. Each and all. Stimulating and edifying (for the most part) discussion all around. Grateful a few of you have the time (and the guts) you do to give to something like this. It is conversation that must be had, and had again.

Thank you Caleb for the serve.

Thank you Jordan, Patrick, Chris, and others for playing the game.

Keep on.

God help us all.

Chris,

Yeah, yeah...I get it. You're right, God DID use war in the Old Testament. In fact, he gave explicit orders at times to God's people.

Wem as Americans, Chris, are not God's people. The American agenda is not Christ's agenda...God's agenda is not democracy or capitalism. His agenda is not 'freedom' in a human sense.

And I get that I can't just take the red-letter stuff in the Bible, but you're THROWING IT OUT THE WINDOW.

I'm going to ask you for the third time: WHAT DOES 'TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK' MEAN? I don't see Jesus as a sweet, little or weak, just like you don't see him as a warmonger. I just can't blow off His words because they don't appeal to my thirst for earthly justice. You keep saying I'm taking it out of context (a common kiss-off when debating Scripture). Well, Chris, put it into context.

Scripture-wise, you've given me no reason to support your side. The Laws of the Old Testament were fulfilled by the coming of Christ, so, for instance, we are permitted to eat ham now. Do you eat ham? Do all the women in your church cover their heads? Do you offer up burnt offerings? Do you send the women in your city out of town when they're menstruating? Do you wear wool/linen blends?

And God sacrificing His Son, giving him over to an evil world, is not in my wildest imagination a justification for war. We, as humans, did that. Because we're evil, and because we kill people who don't deserve to be killed.

I just want to echo what Jordan said about America not being God's chosen people, because it's definitely a point worth repeating.
Here goes:
Because of the blood of Jesus, the Holy Spirit binds all of us followers of Christ together as brothers and sisters. (In a very real way, we are siblings because it is the same blood that gives us life.)
Now, God calls this body of followers "his people", his adopted children through the sacrifice of Jesus. ( Rom. 8:15,23 Gal. 4:5 Eph. 1:5)

"His people" are no longer united
under a flag, or a nation; His people are united by Christ. And Jesus is with the poor, the persecuted, the abhorred, and the blessed all over the world... essentially, Jesus is with those who need Him.(see: The all of scripture)
We are called as His followers to go into those places as well, the places where people need Jesus, and be the hands of Him to those suffering. We are called to bring peace, not just earthly peace, but I think existential and eternal peace as well in Jesus.

I agree (kind of) with Chris and Patrick Sexton that war can bring about peace, but only sometimes, and rarely in a post-nuclear world.

(Sidenote: yes, the end of WWII brought about something like peace generally throughout the world, just not in Hiroshima or Nagasaki... they felt that so-called "peace" in a very different way.)

But I also think that we who are now called "sons and daughters" of God cannot support a bringing about of peace by that means. We should rather weep at the loss of life, especially the lives of those who do not yet know Jesus.
One need only look at Jesus as an example: He did not set out to establish an earthly kingdom (which he could have, given that He is God) but rather established a kingdom, or nation, that is above the laws and practices of man. His Kingdom is spread out all over the earth, in China, Iraq, Vietnam, Russia, Korea (N. and S.), America and everyplace else where Jesus is known to a people. None of those nation's flags embody or represent God's Kingdom. So when we as God's children support a bringing about of (earthly) peace, by way of the death of others, I think we are contradicting ourselves. War has NEVER brought about the peace that God, and we in Christ offer.
Actually quite the opposite has -self sacrifice and humility, a giving up of one's self to those who would kill you, a laying down of arms and the arming of ones' self with love.

Only Jesus brings real peace, and that peace is never packaged in a cartridge or bomb.

I admit that I am not the best writer, and I just pray that the Spirit that unites us as siblings also helps you to understand the heart of what I have tried to say. As He is helping me to understand the heart of what you have each said.

Bless you all, and thank you for your vulnerability in the sharing of your convictions. I look forward with you to the Glorious Day when all of this becomes irrelevant, when Truth can be found by simply looking into the eyes of our Lord and Saviour.
Amen.

Jordan,

Let me put "turn the other cheek" in context. That passage is written in Matthew 5-7 which is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount. That sermon is about teaching Christians how to live with each other. When Christ talks about turn the other cheek in that passage, you have to take it in the large context of the whole sermon, which is more about morals, ethics and interpersonal relationships, not nations. Christ says that if someone strikes you on the right cheek. As this is read, it means someone hit/slapping you with an open hand on the right cheek which would mean a back hand across the face for the majority of people. That was a major insult to Jews in that time period. So what He was saying is that when someone insults you, let it go, you don't start a fight over it or insult them back. This is the view of 99% of New Testament scholars.
I would also recommend you read Matthew 5:17-20. Christ says that HE did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He also says that not one word of the Law and the prophets will disappear until "everything has been accomplished'" meaning His return. He finishes that passage saying that their (Christians at that time) righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees meaning that you should still live in accordance with the Law, but your salvation is not in the works of following the law and all of the various sacrifices, but in the ultimate sacrifice of Christ being the one time perfect Lamb of God.

I would like to point out that you still haven't showed me a passage in the scripture where "war is sin."

The commandment in the Ten Commandments says "Thou shall not murder" which is the taking of innocent life. This does not include war, self defense, or capital punishment. Christ's further teachings on this subject in the Sermon on the Mount deal with not only murder, but the hate underneath that can lead to such.

I think you have missed both Chris' and my points on this. We are not saying that God is in Heaven watching what's going on and pulling for one team over the other like a football game. What we're trying to point out is that there is nothing in the Bible that says war is never justified and sometimes a necessary evil. You seem to want to selectively pull out scriptures and say that the Bible says that war is sin and that is just not the case.

Jessica,

I'm not going to let you get off with calling our foreign policy "economy first without backing that up with some concrete examples. Secondly, remind me which dictators we're backing while their people are suffering. That would be the French who were going behind the back of the UN to make money off of Sadam when it was supposed to be going to food and medicine for his people. We are the largest giver of charitable aid both as a national government, and as individuals, to the impoverished nations of the world. So just exactly what dictators are we propping up?

To your second paragraph, I'll let you in on a secret, we're all bad. We are all sinners who need Jesus Christ to save us. The difference is I'm better off because I know I'm going to Heaven because of my relationship to Christ. However, it's not hard to see that there are some things that are inherently immoral like torturing your own people and gassing your own people. As for Abu Ghraib, while I don't condone the way that a few bad apples treated those prisoners, it was hardly torture. Humiliating for sure but no where near torture. I've heard of worse incidents than that on college campuses with Fraternities hazing their pledges. If you want to know what torture is, ask someone who spent time in one of Hitler's concentration camps or Stalin's gulags or suffered through being a POW to the Japanese or a POW camp in Vietnam or spent time in one of Sadam's torture rooms.

What I'm beginning to realize is that most of you I'm discussing this with don't believe in black and white and absolute truth. I hate to tell you, but Jesus Christ was extremely black and white. There's not a lot of gray in the Ten Commandments or in Christ's teachings.

Patrick and Chris,

Thanks for the responses.

I've been hoping to hear something new, but I haven't. The "thou shalt not murder/kill" argument, the argument that Jesus is only talking about literal slaps, the world is black and white...all I can say is I believed these things at one point, but they seem hollow now.

This debate will get us nowhere. We're reading Scripture from two different mindsets, and I don't see that changing.

You guys obviously care deeply about faith and following Jesus. It was great talking to you.

Jordan

I used to think that "sin" was easy to wrap my mind around. I thought that there was a few lists, and a few things Jesus pointed out about those lists, giving depth of meaning to what each sin was. An example of that is that he He equated murder with hatred, or adultery with lust in your heart.

I thought that way for a really long time. It was easier because I was able to focus on a list of things not to do. As well as focus on a list of things to try to manifest in myself, the "fruits of the spirit".
I coupled that do/don't do approach to living with a daily prayer and "quite time" routine. I still try to stick with that, but my concept of sin has simplified a bit, with the help of a wonderful, Godly pastor. Well, it either simplified, or exploded, you tell me.
He basically taught that sin was DOING anything God WOULDN'T say, do, or think. I was with him on that. But He then went on to argue that sin was also NOT doing, saying, or thinking something that God would do say or think.
This concept of sin makes it less about what we DO, and more about who we ARE. Sin is the state of our existence without Jesus , it is not just a list of scriptural references. The issue is not that we commit sin's, but that we are sinner's to the core. That is why Jesus promises to make us new creations and give us a new heart and mind.

So I'm not saying, and I don't think anyone has said that war is a sin. Meaning, I know it's not on the list. Rather, I think we've tried to say that it is not our prerogative, as followers of Jesus, to defend a war as perfectly wright or perfectly wrong. There are positives to war and negatives, but I would rather try to focus my attention on those who are suffering as a result of our fallen and sinful state. And I think you would agree, Patrick and Chris Sexton, that the presence of war is one of many results of our broken world.
SO war is not particularly a "sin", but it would not exist in a sinless world.

So you pick whether or not to care about defending a war... as well as whether or not to try to defend and promote peace. And by that I mean the Peace of God.

I pray anyone who reads this seeks out and fosters that peace, through a relationship with Jesus our Lord.

Susan,
I know this might surprise you, but I agree with your cynicism of James Dobson and Newt. That was ridiculous. James Dobson is not my spokesperson. I really think the main stream media gives people like him more power than true reality.

Susan,

It's funny that you bring up the Dobson/Gingrich interview. Chris and I discussed that very topic this morning. For one, Dobson didn't support or endorse Newt for President. However, Chris and I both that it looked like nothing more than politics. I'll be honest with you, when it comes to someone communicating ideas and being able to articulate what he believes, there is no one that comes close on the Republican side of the aisle. When it comes to government policy and ideals, Newt and I very much agree. Let me further say that I see my self and a born again christian first, a conservative second and a republican only because that party is most closely aligned with my view points. It doesn't mean that I am in 100% agreement on everything Republican. As I stated below, I'm also not naive enough to think that every conservative or every republican is a Christian either.

Your comments about the Libby/Plame affair are typical of someone who doesn't do a lot of research into the actual facts of what went on. As Abraham Lincoln said--"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Okay, had to retrieve my Latin American Civ textbook. The dictator I had in mind was Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua). He ruled with an iron fist, amassing wealth for himself and essentially sentencing the rest of his people to abject poverty. And for some reason I remember my professor saying he was terrible to indigenous groups, which is perhaps where I had the word "slaughter" in my memory, because a lot of Latin American leaders are cruel to indigenous groups. So to be fair, I could have that wrong. Anyway, the U.S. took their precious effing time to withdraw their support of Somoza, because, to quote "Inevitable Revolutions" by Walter LaFeber, "he propped Nicaragua open to private capital, allowed minimal state controls, and kept maximum order--even as he ruthlessly looted the country himself."

Look, I plead guilty to armchair political theory. And I do believe in absolute truth. But I believe that God is the only absolute good; we as humans are a mixture of good and bad. None of us gets it right all the time--clearly not us, as the "humiliation" of Abu Ghraib points out.

I do think war is sin, in the sense that it's an extension of the fallenness and sin that plagues the world. I know you're arguing that it's an essential part of a fallen world, and I respect that. But I think war usually plays the role of merely multiplying of sin, injustice, and corruption.

A final word: I know it sounds like I think America is a horrible nation who does horrible things, but I don't. I actually have this naive faith in the American people to try to do what's best for others, even if we're sometimes (often) too individualistic to even know what's best. But, like I said, we're all part bad, and sometimes we make horrible mistakes.

I guess I'm done.

So....

Where did Senator Obama go? I haven't seen his name referenced in these words for quite awhile.

**reads the article through again**

Oh! There he is. I guess he got lost. I'm glad his smiling picture still graces the top of this page.

BTW -- Dictators we've propped up during the 20th century (and then often turned against when they wouldn't play the game the way WE wanted them to play it) include: Somoza, Pinochet, the oppressors in El Salvador, the Shah of Iran, General Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein, and more.

Are you sure we don't have an economy-first foreign policy? How would YOU describe our foreign policy patterns/plans/trends? Just curious....

Adam,

We weren't discussing foreign policy of the 20th century, we're discussing the current foreign policy of the US. I'm not sure who Somoza is but from the context I assume he is someone we backed in South or Central America in the '80s as well as the "oppressors in El Salvador". If you'll remember, at that time foreign policy was about preventing communism from spreading into our hemisphere. I'm not sure how propping them up or Pinochet was beneficial to our economy. The one place I would be willing to concede a probable economic reason for our relationship is China.
The primary focus of our foreign policy is to keep America secure, sometimes this is through economics. That pattern for the most has held true over the years. I'm not fully informed on what happened with the Shah of Iran as I was only 5 or 6 yrs old at the time, but I do know that it was Jimmy Carter who removed US support and that is what led to the current Islamic Radical government that is in place today. That was "smart" foreign policy and served us well, don't you think? Why did we support Sadam Hussein? Don't think it had anything to do with economics, but the fact that he was fighting the radicals in Iran. An argument could be made against that philosphy of foreign policy (sharing a common enemy makes us allies), however that worked well for us in WWII. Any way, my point is that we don't have an economics first foreign policy, but we do use our economy, which is a huge asset for us on the global stage, to try and make our country more secure.

"Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white."

-William Blake (1757 - 1827)
The Everlasting Gospel, 1818

"When you are reading a book in a dark room, and come to a difficult part, you take it to a window to get more light. So take your Bibles to Christ."

-Robert Murray M'Cheyne

I can't believe I took the time to read all the posts. But I read with bated breath to see if anyone would get the heart of God in the Bible. I think Patrick (not Sexton, 3/15, 9:24) got the closest. (Caveat: My tone will probably sound like I think I've got it all together. Not true. I reflect in a very small space without benefit of embodiment my current understanding of God's word and his world.)

This whole discussion comes back to the gospel of Jesus for me. What was it? First, why was there a need for good news (or hope as Caleb's article mentioned)? God created a good world and appointed stewards to wisely oversee it. Such wisdom is found through the Bible in both descriptive and prescriptive ways, but mainly the former. See Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and James for example. God's stewards, humans, screwed it all up by doing their job unwisely, their own way.

To get things back on track, God chose redemptive characters (themselves quite flawed) throughout the Bible. Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and the nation of Israel as a whole. The nation of Israel was God's son. They were to restore his creation to its original glory. (And the whole First Testament war thing seems to be more rooted in God's direct command to bring order and purity to the land he was giving them. No nation has that benefit today. Besides, I'm not going to risk killing a brother or sister--in Christ or in humanity--from another nation.) Israel screwed up, though. We got ourselves a theme. Exile resulted.

When Jesus came, Israel was back in their land and temple worship was going full tilt. But to a person, they knew they were still in exile. Their constant cry was for God to come rule them wisely, unlike the Romans.

So Jesus comes with his gospel to subvert Caesar's gospel. Different caesars sent gospels to their colonial outposts saying things like, "Finally, the prince of peace has come to the throne. If ever you have trouble, I, your savior, will come to your aid. Etc." Jesus used the exact same language, but never the same means.

The Roman historian Tacitus (according to some sources) said referring to Roman methods, "They make a desert and call it peace." Jordan's list above very effectively outlines what Jesus said about our relationship to the people we hate most. Love and serve. Love and serve.

War does not bring peace. I will note that the people who were liberated as a result of the Civil War (thank God!) have millions of descendents (or people who share the same skin color) who still feel like they are still in exile. Like the Jews of Jesus' day, they are waiting for a return to good order--in this case, for someone to come and get us all enlightened so we stop treating each other with suspicion and contempt.

Until we all reach "enlightenment," wars will continue with the oppressed becoming the oppressor every so often. Meanwhile bloodshed flows upon bloodshed, grieving the heart of God.

Jesus is the one who is trying to restore his creation. At the resurrection, those who attempt to bring his peace his way will join in the eternal project of being wise stewards in the new heaven and new earth. Perhaps a few thousand or billion years late (depending on your cosmology), but it will be for the eternal glory of the Creating and Redeeming God.

Patrick Sexton

Follow me on this if you will, I didn't say if you can because you are bright and well spoken. I do not want you to think I am being insulting. Jesus was not an American and America is not God's hammer on the planet. Some one once said to me they thought it was impossible for a person to be a Christian and not be a republican. As I read Acts 2:44 I wonder if that early church had the slightest notion they were not being good republicans.

I get the feeling that you believe we are in Iraq because we are on the side of justice, I think that would be awesome. but I can't see it. I think we are there for a couple of other reasons. Saddam tried to kill George Sr, I think W. was arrogant from the start and thought it would be an easy war to win as did alot of other people and that isnt the case. I think the fact that we have oilmen in power is a factor. Price of oil goes up and a bunch of American oilmen get rich er.
Hasnt the oil companies profits been in the record range for a while now?

I know you will say I'm making it too simple.

Consider this audacious hope, if we (America) would spend the same amount of money supporting missionaries to the Middle East and not war do you think it is possible for God to do what man has failed to do? I know, it really isnt going to happen but I have to believe in things that are only doable by the God of heaven. Otherwise my faith is in man and that really only leads to dissapointment.

The attractiveness of Obama is that he is not arrogant he brings the idea that we should be doing better, taking care of the widows and the orphans. That we do have social responsibilities to live up to, those are scriptural.

The problem with W. is that he keeps insisting he is right and there really is no good way to tell and it is hard to trust his words after the way this whole war started, I am not calling him a liar I truly believe that W. wanted all the things about Bin Laden and Saddam to be real as well as the WMD. Sadly they are not real so it is hard to give the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry I was a bit all over the map but there are soooo many ideas floating around on this site that it is hard to keep a tight focus. Thanks for the exchange of ideas. Keep thinking critically and filter all this thru the scripture. I wish it were black and white then it would be easy to see who is right and wrong. As it is we get practice at getting over ourselves and loving each other as brothers in Christ and letting that unify us instead of divide us. Rage On.

Wow, this si still going! Of course is was about something (or someone) different than it is now. But I digress

So, can a Christian go to war or even support his or her nation going to war? Guess what, you all are not the first to ask this question, nor will you be the last. Personally, I don't believe that every war America chooses to fight is a just war. We should have never been in Vietnam for instance. They were not a threat. They didn't have Nukes pointed at us. They weren't sending spies or terrorists. But I also believe that not every war America fights is unjust. Who can argue that we were not right to fight Hitler's Germany? Sure, our beginning reasons were not all that good. Mostly just didn't want England to get swallowed up by the Nazis. But in the end, we liberated millions of Jews and other ethnic groups targeted by Hitler for extermination. Surely that makes WWII a just war. Is Irag a just war. Maybe yes, maybe no. We went with one reason, and once we had driven Sadam out, had to change the reason. Oddly enough, we found out that he was no better than Hitler. Yes he allowed the small Christian community ot exist, but he also murdered millions of his own people, because they were of a different ethnic or religious background than him. His and his son's crimes against women were incredible. He deserved to be overthrown. Should America be the one to do that, I don't really know. But we did.
BTW, if all war is wrong, then why fight the Revolution, why fight the Cival War, why fight Hitler? And if all war is wrong, then all memebers of the military are evil as well. You can't say war is wrong and then not say that the soldiers who by nature of their possitions must fight the war are not also worng. To be intelectually honest, you have to say that being a soldier is also a sin. Because if you cast a blanket over all war as sin then you have to say that those who make wara are also sinning and sin is evil.

Greg,

In every instance you named, there were ways around that war.

Take Hitler, for instance.

The Nazi party didn't just magically rise to power. German nationalism was allowed to blossom because of the horrible depression Germany was facing. Most historians say World War II was a direct consequence of how the Allies treated Germany and the Central Powers after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles put the entire cost of the war on the back of the German people, effectively crushing the country for many years and giving rise to an angry form of nationalism.

Similarly, slavery could've been ended without the Civil War. In fact, over 20 countries had banned slavery before the United States, including Great Britain, Sweden, France, Peru, Mexico, Argentina and Canada. Japan outlawed slavery almost 300 years prior to the US. Most of these countries accomplished abolition without bloodshed, let alone the most deadly war in American history.

The Revolutionary War is certainly looked upon proudly by Americans. Another worldly empire was established. As Christians, though, why is that important? If we didn't have freedom to worship, would that stop us from worshiping?

I can't believe this is still going either. It has been extremely stimulating. I don't know where to begin, so I'll start with John.

John,
I don't know what Bible you've been reading, but you need to go back to the basics. I'm not trying to insult you, but you are extremely off-base with some of the things you said.

1. All of those person's you listed were not redemptive persons nor was the nation of Israel and they weren't brought in to restore creation to its original glory. God created the world perfect and it was corrupted when Adam and Eve sinned. Restoration to original glory will not occur until Christ returns. Israel was not God's son. Jesus Christ is God's Son, His only begotten Son. Israel was God's chosen people, 2 very different things. Your whole paragraph makes it sound like God tried and failed with the children of Israel, so then He decided to try Jesus. Jesus was present at the beginning with God created the perfect world. The nation of Israel was to spread the word of God to a fallen world, and then would be nation from whom the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ would come. The plan was in place from the beginning and worked out exactly like God planned it.
2. War does bring peace, you can try to argue it doesn't, but history has proven different. I've said all I can about that subject, and you can stick your head in the sand if you want, but it's true.

Now, to the whole "enlightenment" nonsense. What translation of the Bible did you read that in? We will never reach enlightenment. That's some eastern mysticism idea that is nowhere in the scripture. We will never have true peace until Christ's return at the 2nd coming. The resurrection has already occurred (remember Easter?)
The rest of what you had to say was so far out of line with the whole Bible, that I'm really not sure how to respond.

Greg,

I just wanted to comment on one thing you said and that was that we shouldn't have been in Vietnam. I disagree with that assessment. We were on the verge of winning that war until people lost the will to fight back home. Our reason for being there was to contain communism which was a direct threat to us (remember the cold war). US policy at that time was aimed at trying to prevent the spread of communism anywhere else on the globe.

Jordan,

Do you remember why there was a Treaty of Versailles in the 1st place? Oh yeah, it was because the Germans had invaded France and started a world war. The French bear some of the blame since they were sabre rattling as well. When I think about it, it was what you call freedom land that was helpful in starting most of the conflicts of the 20th Century. Them and Germany. Something worth noting.

Explain to me how slavery could have been ended without the Civil War? Should Lincoln just have let the Confederate States secede from the Union? It was a war that was necessary to hold the Country together. The south was not going to outlaw slavery under any other condition. Only after being beaten soundly was peace attained.
Would you rather not have the United States of America? What kind of statement is that? Do you think that we would be better off if were still a British Colony (or technically colonies of numerous European countries?) Have you noticed the restrictions placed on religion in general and more specifically Christianity in European countries? Our country is the only country whose founding document says that our freedoms and rights come from God.
Give me a break.

Patrick,

The Germans also started World War II, but when they were defeated, the United States instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, loaning money to all of the nations, not just putting the bill on Germany. Things worked out pretty well. Europe was rebuilt. You know why they did this? Because the Treaty of Versaille directly lead to the rise of the Nazi party and World War II, and we learned from that mistake. In a sense, the Marshall Plan was a level of forgiveness. Additionally, World War II was more the fault of Germany than World War I (WWI being more related to alliances than an insane warlord).

As for the Civil War, I referenced a few nations that abolished slavery without bloodshed, so as to the question 'could slavery have ended without the Civil War', i say yes. It had already happened in other countries already. Over 20 times, in fact.

But the South did cede from the Union, and I say this abject support of slavery was another sin. Of course, the Old Testament doesn't call slavery a sin, either, but wouldn't we all agree it is at this point?

As for America, my response is this: the Kingdom of God exists either way. If we were British citizens (as Canadians and Australians and many others were for centuries after we received independence), would that have changed our faith? Would the church be dead? I think God is bigger than that?

Have you ever met members of the Ukrainian church, forced to live under a regime where their belief was illegal? Those folks are as strong or stronger in their faith than American believers are.

What restrictions have European countries placed on Christianity? I can't think of a single European nation where practicing Christianity is illegal. But I might be wrong. It's happened before.

Patrick and Jordan have a good volley going, so I don't want to interrupt that. BUT I wanted to address the statement about Vietnam:

Yeah, it was about communism (i.e. economics, but that's neither here nor there). But all the rhetoric at the time focused on helping those poor South Vietnamese people---the same people whose villages we eventually bombed the crap out of. Yeah, we really gave a rat's ass about the Vietnamese. Maybe the American people lost the will to support the war because they saw a discrepancy between what we said and what we did, and they didn't see any favorable result of us losing our soldiers. Can't imagine that going on today.

Carry on. (My wayward son.)

Actually Jessica, Communism doesn't equal economics. It was a threat to our way of life and a totalitarian/dictator run type of government. And exactly what villages did in South Vietnam did we bomb the crap out of? If you remember, we were on the same side as the South Vietnamese. The ones who didn't care about the vietnamese, are the members of congress at the time who voted to stop funding the war. What happened then? Oh yeah, it was overrun by the communist north. So what happens when we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished? Radical Islam takes over another country and breeds more terrorism.

Nice try Jessica, but you need to go back to history class. (by the way, I'm not your son). And I'm very impressed with your vocabulary as well.