The Patriot’s Bible and Justified Torture

[via Christus Victor Ministries]

Not A Useful Narrative

Israel should be seen as any other nation state trying to defend itself, and should be held accountable for when they, like other nation states, over-react and cause more harm then they have to in war. In other words, the counter narrative here is not to see Hamas as some kind of "freedom fighter" going against an evil colonial regime, but to see Israel as over-reacting--perhaps understandably, but still over-reacting to terrorism. As one writer noted (lost the link) Israel has fallen into a rather dysfunctional way of responding to their enemies, and seem to have decided to respond with hatred to hate, and with killing to loss. One TMP writer compared this conflict to the Spanish Civil War where many Americans and Brits imagined (correctly) that Franco was a terrible enemy, but missed that those fighting for the Communists were hardly better. When George Orwell tried to point that out, he was shunned by those who wanted to see those battling Franco as good.

Not comparing Israel to either side, actually, but merely noting that in this particular war, good versus evil is not a useful narrative, and, I believe, stops us from getting to any kind of genuine solution. {full post}

[via Streak's Blog]

A Half-Century of the Symbol of Peace

Peace Then, Peace Now, and Real Peace

[via Wittenburg Door]

Great Struggles, Deep Irony, Significant Change

[via Grace and Truth to You]

Honouring and Hampering

As long as violence is perpetrated against innocent people, there will be the need for others with the ability and the will to protect them with physical force.

What disturbs me, particularly in the debate over Afghanistan but also more generally, is the tendency of some people to continually frame the question in World War II terms. They talk about honour and glory and military might, and they denounce peacekeeping and security as unmanly pursuits advocated by Nancy-boys and tourists. Worse, they continue to cling to the notion that wars can still be won through the application of bigger armies and superior firepower.

Surely Vietnam should have disabused us all of that notion....

We must begin by acknowledging a fundamental paradox: that those who are directly involved in the military and military culture have a vested interest in their own continued existence. If peace were to actually become the norm, all these guys would be out of a job.

Therefore, while it is vital to have experienced members of the military involved in foreign policy decisions, we cannot assume that their advice is necessarily going to help advance the cause of peace. So when a Colonel or a General says we should follow a particular course of action in, say, Afghanistan, as impressive as their credentials might be, we need to be mindful that even with the best of intentions, their advice may simply propose the best course of action for the military, and not for us as a country or for the people we are trying to help.

We also need to recognize that the military can only be one part of any long-lasting solution to world violence and conflict. Simply marching in waving the biggest dick stick not only continues to fail to bring the desired results, but in most cases exacerbates the situation.

[via Runesmith's Canadian Content]

Flesh Against Flesh

Love may make you fall, but hate will see you fallen.

Love is in the air, and it stinks to high heaven of selfish ambition. What are we if we're not in love, to borrow words from another poet. (The answer? Still human.) The pressure mounts, but it doesn't amount to anything. Lies in the heat of the moment, and truth as cold and clear and sharp as glass. No glass can change our focus: the defeat of loneliness or temporary assuaging of desire. And death surrounds, looms large - a deadline bigger than the office cubicle or the aircraft takeoff or the time of your hot date. And where death casts its shadow, other shadows cease to fall. Our consumer atmosphere in February is red and full of heart. But our hearts are merely physical, or consumed by physicality.

Which holds more truth for my generation? Flesh against flesh is good marketing. Flesh against flesh is bloody death.

Descent into blindness may be little different than falling in love - your choices form the movement.

[via You saved my life from a colorless one]

In Those Times...

As we come towards another Rememberance Day this weekend, I am reminded of incredible heroes and sacrifices made when ordinary people rose to face extrodinary circumstances....My days may not present opportunity to storm German MG42 positions, and I might not have thousands of soldiers counting on me to knock out fortified artillery positions (as the soldiers in Band of Brothers did). Yet there are many battles to be fought, the battles for truth, love, and purity, and we all need our brothers (and sisters) in those times.

[via Allan Tan's Blog]

Hey, It's Close To Hallowe'en

The War on Christmas weapons

[via Bene Diction Blogs On]

Conscientious Objectors During World War II

[via Levellers]

Laboring for Peace

[via Mainstream Baptist]

"Supporting the Troops"

I have long maintained that peace groups, including faith-based peace groups and pacifist churches, need to work with military veterans, especially those involved in military-related peace groups. Many of these military and veterans-related groups are NOT committed to nonviolence as a way of life (although some are–Veterans for Peace is composed of military veterans converted to nonviolence). Most follow some form of Just War Theory and/or celebrate military culture in a way that makes many traditional peace churches and pacifist Christians squirm. Tough. Get over it and get to know these folk as real human beings.

Look, the simple fact is that very few nations (Finland and Costa Rico are exceptions) are doing without standing militaries in the near future. The U.S. has a national culture that celebrates an independance achieved by a military revolution. Our national narrative (somewhat inaccurately) celebrates our military as the defenders of all our cherished freedoms. We honor military service as among the most patriotic and selfless ways of service. None of this is going to change overnight. So, if peace groups want to make a serious impact on foreign policy then, above all, they must not seem contemptuous of the military. Rightwing militarist policies win over more peaceful, or even more realistic, policies time and again by the simple tactic of making peace groups look and sound “anti-soldier.” They constantly paint opposition to militaristic foreign policy as failure to “support the troops.”

[via Levellers]

Jeremiah as War Resister

[via Levellers]

God of the Universe vs. God of the World

Prince of Peace - God of War

[via Bene Diction Blogs On]

When all the arguments for a failed war collapse, make God your argument.

[via Ethics Daily, HT: Mainstream Baptist]

A memorial day op-ed worth reading

[via Streak's Blog]

Not Saints, Just Soldiers

Soldiers are just that — soldiers. They are spokes on a wheel. Many, many soldiers, save those at the very top of the pyramid, are pawns. They are button men for our civilian leadership. Is this an honorable profession? Certainly. But it is also, in the end, just that — a profession. Soldiers should be proud of their service, maybe prouder than men of any other profession, but let’s not get out of control with it.

These are not saints, they are soldiers. They are men of honor for the most part but their actions are very much at the mercy of those of their superiors. We cannot continue to lie to ourselves that the military is a some semi-religious institution that can never get too much money or do no wrong.

The military is our war machine and soldiers are the cogs in that machine. The stuff we say and repeat to ourselves about the military, it is the kind of stuff you tell schoolchildren, not words you repeat to fellow adults.

There are no more good soldiers than good people in this country and there are no less bad people in a position of dominion over these soldiers than in the civilian population.

Spouting the platitudes can be useful enough to build morale and boost recruiting but at some level we must the honest with ourselves at recognize what the military is and what it isn’t — myths and fairy tales aside.

[via VolunteerVoters.com, HT: THE HOMELESS GUY]

Mark Misusing Metaphors?

[from a comment to this post at Progression of Faith]

For whatever it's worth, I thought Driscoll's video was quite good, with a couple qualifications:
- his language is somewhat violent (e.g. his use of the word 'retarded' and the denial that Jesus is a 'gay hippie')
- he doesn't qualify the military metaphors the way the apostle Paul does when he uses them

While military metaphors are part and parcel of the Bible's vocabulary, in the New Testament, they almost are always subverted by their context. For example, Paul talks about 'spiritual warfare' because our 'enemies' are emphatically NOT 'flesh and blood'. In Revelation, even the triumphant Jesus's 'sword' is identified as 'the word' (rather than an actual weapon of descruction).
Ultimately, all of the military warfare of Scripture needs to be interpreted Christologically: it is in his death that Jesus disarms the powers, and by his sacrifice that he 'storms the gates of Hades'.
Language issues aside, this is the one qualification I wish Marc would have made in the video (the military graveyard was a little over the top in my view).
He obviously has more conservative views than I do on women in leadership, but his zeal can be admired in spite of its rough edges.

Lynching Heritage?

From the post: My New Favorite Photo. [via The Thinkery, HT: Ponderings on a Faith Journey]

No, Really

Make Love -- And War

[via Bible Belt Blogger]