Author: Thomas Merton
Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, pp.165

An Excerpt from the Jacket:

“In this long-withheld manuscript, Thomas Merton identifies the readiness of many nations – led by our own – to prepare for and threaten mass murder as the most urgent moral crisis of our time. Ringing across four decades, his profound warning is more timely than tomorrow’s headlines.” Daniel Ellsberg

An Excerpt from the Book:

(Click here to read the Forward to the book)

This then in conclusion: the Christian is bound to work for peace by working against global dissolution and anarchy. Due to nationalist and revolutionary ideologies (for Communism is in fact exploiting the intense nationalism of backward peoples), a worldwide spirit of confusion and disorder is breaking up the unity and the order of civilized society.

It is true that we live in an epoch of revolution, and that the break-up and re-formation of society is inevitable. But the Christian must see that his mission is not to contribute to the blind destructive forces of annihilation which tend to destroy civilization and mankind together. He must seek to build rather than to destroy. He most orient his efforts towards world unity and not towards world division. Anyone who promotes policies of hatred and of war is working for the division and destruction of civilized mankind.

We have to be convinced that there are certain violences which the moral law absolutely forbids to all men, such as the use of torture, the killing of hostages, genocide (or the mass extermination of racial, national or other groups for no reason than that they belong to an “undesirable” category). The destruction of civilian centers by nuclear annihilation is genocide.

We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people. We have to recognize the danger to the whole world in the fact that today the economic life of the more highly developed nations is in large part centered on the production of weapons, missiles and other engines of destruction.

We have to consider that hate propaganda, and the consistent heckling of one government by another, has always inevitably led to violent conflect. We have to recognize the implications of voting for extremist politicians who promote policies of hate. We must consider the dire effect of fanaticism and witch-hunting within our own nation. We must never forget that our most ordinary decisions may have terrible consequences.

It is no longer reasonable or right to leave all decisions to a largely anonymous power elite that is driving us all, in our passivity, towards ruin. We have to make ourselves heard.

Every individual Christian has a grave responsibility to protest clearly and forcibly against trends that lead inevitably to crimes which the Church deplores and condemns. Ambiguity, hesitation and compromise are no longer permissible. We must find some new and constructive way of settling international disputes.

It is clearly the mind of the Church that every possible effort must be made for the abolition of war, even though the theory of the “just war” and the right of legitimate self-defense remain intact. But appeal to this right must not blind us to the much higher and more urgent duty of working with all our power for peace.

This may be extraordinarily difficult. Obviously war cannot be abolished by mere wishing.

We have still time to do something about it, but the time is rapidly running out.

Table of Contents:

1. Preamble: Peace – A religious responsibility

2. Can we choose peace?

3. The dance of death

4. The Christian as peacemaker

5. War in Origen and St. Augustine

6. The legacy of Machiavelli

7. Justice in modern war

8. Religious problems of the cold war

9. Theologians an defense

10. Working for peace

11. Beyond east and west

12. Moral passivity and demonic activism

13. The scientists and nuclear war

14. Red or dead? The anatomy of a cliche

15. Christian perspectives in world crisis

16. Christian conscience and national defense

17. The Christian choice

This book has my highest reccomendations. It has helped seal my understanding of the issue of the Christian perspective on warfare once and for all.

Concerning the term “post -Christian” Merton writes this:

“Whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a post- Christian world, that is to say a world in which Christian ideals and attitudes are relegated more and more to the minority. It is frightening to realize that the facade of Christianity which still generally survives has perhaps little or nothing behind it, and what was once called “Christian society” is more purely and simply a materialistic neopaganism with a Christian veneer… Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on nonviolence and love as “sentimental”. “

Merton’s book was written in 1961 at the onset of the “Cold War” and the Vietnam conflict. Not only was it very prophetic for that time as well as this, but it recognizes the rise of the hardline neopagan pseudo- Christianity that holds sway in today’s toxic political discourse. If one were to substitute the word “terrorist” each time Merton wrote the word “Communist” he would be speaking directly to us today about the “War on Terror”.

For instance:

“At one extreme we have the “hard” and “realistic” view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the “terrorist” threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with “terrorism” is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping “terrorism” and the victory over “terrorism” by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this “hard” position is in fact favorable to nuclear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preeemption as more likely to succeed…
…they tend to regard anyone who strongly favors peace and disarmament as a “terrorist” dupe or fellow traveller, simply because of the worldwide propaganda given to the “terrorist strategy for peace”.

The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satifaction in their own lives. But unfortunately this kind of satisfaction leads to moral blindness and to the stultification of conscience. The fact that this “solution” at the same time favors nuclear war, and considers it fully morally justified by its “good cause” and also appeals to certain types of Christians, shows that it is a SERIOUS danger. To be succinct, it produces a state of invincible moral ignorance. It consecrates policies that have very dubius justice, blurring the ethical clarity of Christian thought, making base emotions and hatreds with the specious appearance of christian zeal.”

This book is the most refined, comprehensive and persuasive tesament on this subject i have ever read.

I recently discovered this set of comments on the Sojourners blog where I entered the fray by asking someone what defines someone as a “leftist christian”. Below these comments by someone calling themself “Semper Fi”, I make a few coments myself:

Semper Fi said:

“We need a president with the testicular fortitude to wage a serious war to end all wars. It’s time re-awaken the “Sleeping Giant”. Time to start kicking booty like we mean business. The only way we will win this war on terror is to strike first, strike extraordinarily hard, and create a massive wake of devastation large enough that no nation would dare cross the line in the sand for fear of being next to incur our wrath. We have the technology and resources to do this. What are we waiting for.

That won’t happen with a Hillary in office. It probably won’t happen with a Rudy in office. But, I’m putting my vote on the candidate that’s not willing to put up with any more crap from the Islamic sector. If they want a holy war, let’s give them one that puts Hiroshima and Nakasake to shame, and restore the balance of power to the only nation with the ability to hold that power and maintain justice on this spinning chunk of rock.

Jesus was not a wuss. He was obedient to his Father. Had he not been, he would not have died on the cross. He had the power to do something different, but was obedient. All this silly “Christian” talk about playing footsies with our enemies is hogwash. God is not a wuss. He instructed Israel to utterly destroy every that lived and breathed when they went to war. They did not listen, and here we are today, post 9/11, with a bunch of retarded Muslim infidels causing problems for the whole pamn dlantet.

Time to wake up, America. This is not a fire drill. This is for real. Let’s fight to win. I’m not a fan of Pat’s, but what in the world is wrong with some of his ideas, like hiring a hit man to take out Chavez, or even Castro. What ever happened to real Americans, like Truman and Eisenhower, and real soldiers, like Patton and Churchill? That’s not anti-Christian. It’s anti-stupid!

I’m not an extremist. I’m a realist. What have we done lately that has worked? Nothing meaningful since Reagan left office. Nothing. We took giant steps backward under the “leadership” (ha ha) of Slick Willy. Why in the world would we elect his goofy witch of a wife for President? It amazes me that it’s even an option for some people. And this Barak Osama clown? Tell me I’m dreaming! Anything on the Republican ticket is a better option than any of our Democratic options.

The right choices are simple:
(1) Stop murdering our unborn children;
(2) Stop putting up with crap off of nations that house radical Islamists;
(3) Stop putting up with people that want to force us into embracing their choice to live a sinful and sexually perverted lifestyle;
(4) Stop supporting government that takes our hard earned wages and handing out gifts to those that have not done as well;
(5) Start teaching our children there ARE moral absolutes;
(6) Start electing officials that govern of, by and for the people.
(7) Start using our own oil and let Venezuela and watch all the Arab nations economically implode when we stop purchasing anything from them, and stop selling anything to them, including food. Let’s see how tasty they find them steel barrels.

9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET! Shame on those who think we should. How dare you call yourself a Christian, or an American?

“Friends don’t let friends vote Democrat.”

Semper Fi!”

Scott says:

This is the epitome of secular humanist, miltary- humanitarian, antithetical to the gospel, self idolatrous, nationalist propaganda …. and yet somehow it is considered “conservative” theologically? Rather this type of position is immoral, irresponsible and irrational and in fact helps to perpetuate and create factors that make terroism, mass violence, hatred and the self perpetuating cycle of violence and revenge more likely rather than less.

I have just read a book entitled “Peace in the Post-Christian Era” by Thomas Merton the famous Christian author. Concerning the term “post -Christian” Merton writes this: Whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a post- Christian world, that is to say a world in which Christian ideals and attitudes are relegated more and more to the minority. It is frightening to realize that the facade of Christianity which still generally survives has perhaps little or nothing behind it, and what was once called “Christian society” is more purely and simply a materialistic neopaganism with a Christian veneer… Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on nonviolence and love as “sentimental”. “

Merton’s book was written in 1961 at the onset of the “Cold War” and the Vietnam conflict. Not only was it very prophetic for that time as well as this, but it recognizes the rise of the hardline neopagan pseudo- Christianity from which Mr. Semper Fi speaks. If one were to substitute the word “terrorist” each time Merton wrote the word “Communist” he would be speaking directly to us and those like Mr. Semper Fi. Let me demonstrate:

“At one extreme we have the “hard” and “realistic” view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the “terrorist” threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with “terrorism” is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping “terrorism” and the victory over “terrorism” by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this “hard” position is in fact favorable to nuclear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preeemption as more likely to succeed…
…they tend to regard anyone who strongly favors peace and disarmament as a “terrorist” dupe or fellow traveller, simply because of the worldwide propaganda given to the Communist “peace line”.
The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satifaction in their own lives. But unfortunately this kind of satisfaction leads to moral blindness and to the stultification of conscience. The fact that this “solution” at the same time favors nuclear war, and considers it fully morally justified by its “good cause” and also appeals to certain types of Christians, shows that it is a SERIOUS danger. To be succinct, it produces a state of invincible moral ignorance. It consecrates policies that have very dubius justice, blurring the ethical clarity of Christian thought, making base emotions and hatreds with the specious appearance of christian zeal.”

Taking into consideration Luke Chapter 6 which contains these quotes straight from the mouth of Jesus

“Love for Enemies
27″But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ lend to ’sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Judging Others
37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

39 He also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
A Tree and Its Fruit
43 “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
The Wise and Foolish Builders
46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

…there is simply no way Mr. Semper Fi can justify the quote I cited above from him. In fact, on point with the discussion of “conservatism” and “liberalism” his views are not biblically conservative at all… but in fact they are rather an extremely “liberal”, authoritarian self serving, humanist, idolatrous perspective. Before someone turns around the scripture about not judging and condemning others on my statements here… I am not judging or condemning anyone… The Word does that. However, I do love Mr. Semper Fi as my countryman and fellow sinner and only offer a rebuke because I care enough to confront and offer a rebuke so that he and anyone else reading this will reconsider their position in the light of scripture. I have much more to say on these topics… but as for now this will do.

For the curious… I am niether republican nor democrat nor do I care much for either party, so this assertion;
“Whose ever side your politics are on , that is what defines your Faith.”
…is groundless and basless and another skewing of biblical perspective.

For more thoughts along these lines Google the Geotheology blog and look for the post “Loving America By The Book” from October. You can also use the search bar at the top of the Blog to locate it.

God Bless.

Lao Tzu describes God as “Tao” (translated as the “Way”). I will further note that Lao Tzu states that Tao may be understood to be “the Mother of all things”.

And finally, Lao Tzu gives ‘Tao’ the name “The Great”.

This is a profound chapter from the Tao Te Ching.

There can be no mistake on this chapter. Lao Tzu closes the passage with the words “the law of the Tao, is it’s being, what it is.”
If you recall God’s discourse with Moses in Exodus 3:14-15;
God replied, “I Am the One Who Always Is.* Just tell them, ‘I Am has sent me to you.’ ” God also said, “Tell them, ‘The Lord,*(Yahweh; which translates as I AM) the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This will be my name forever; it has always been my name, and it will be used throughout all generations.
Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 1997 . Tyndale House: Wheaton, Ill.

God bless,
DSM

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
The Lord Jesus Christ is my Commanding Officer.
The Holy Bible is my code of conduct.
Faith, Prayer, Love and the Word are the only weapons of warfare I need!
I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, trained by experience,
tried by adversity, and tested by fire.

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
I am a volunteer in this army and I am enlisted for eternity.
I will either retire in this army or die in this army;
But, I will not get out, sell out, be talked out, or pushed out.

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
I am faithful, reliable, capable, and dependable.
If my God needs me, I am there!
I am a soldier!
I am not a baby.
I do not need to be pampered, petted, primed up,
pumped up, picked up, or pepped up.

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
No one has to call me, remind me,
write me, visit me, entice me, or lure me.
I am a soldier!
I am not a wimp.
I am in place, saluting my King,

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
I am ever obeying His orders, praising His name, and building His Kingdom!
No one has to send me flowers, gifts, food, cards, candy, or give me handouts.
I do not need to be cuddled, coddled, cradled, cared for or catered to.
I am committed!

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
I cannot have my feelings hurt bad enough to turn me around!
I cannot be discouraged enough to turn me aside!
I cannot lose enough to cause me to quit!

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
When Jesus called me into this army, I had nothing.
If I end up with nothing, I’ll still come out ahead.
I will win without violence!
My God will supply all my needs.
I am more than a conqueror!
I will always triumph!
I can do all things through Christ.

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
Evil cannot beat me!
People cannot disillusion me!
Weather cannot weary me!
Sickness cannot stop me!
Battles cannot defeat me!
Money cannot buy me!
Governments cannot silence me,
and hell cannot handle me!

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
Even death cannot destroy me!
For when my Commander calls me from this battlefield,
He will promote me even higher.

I am a soldier in the army of my God!
In the army I am ever advancing and claiming victory.
I will not give up!
I will not turn around!

I am a soldier in the army of God, and I’m marching,
claiming victory in every stride.
I will not give up!
I will not turn around!
I am a soldier, marching Heaven bound!

~Author Unknown

Psalm 15

source

‘Radah’

In Gen 1:26-28, God uses the word ‘radah’, a Hebrew word that is often translated as ‘have dominion over’? But we Western Christians (and Jews?) have misunderstood its meaning. It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean ‘dominate over’ just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of ‘radah’ shows that this is NOT the type of ‘dominion’ that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, ‘radah’ is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of ‘radah’. The use of ‘radah’ there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

“Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally.” (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our ‘radah’ of the creation.

Our ‘radah’, of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our ‘radah’ is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we ‘radah’ creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

The Creation Matters to God

In Genesis 1:26-28, God gives humankind ‘dominion’ over his Creation. Many have seemed to assume this justifies our ‘domination’ of Creation. The ‘domination’ we have exercised has had the following characteristics:

• We have treated the Creation as though it were ours for the taking and use.
• In particular, we have treated is as mere raw materials to satisfy our desires, and our economic-technical systems.
• This has often - in all cultures - led to cruelty in our dealing with animals.
• Even when we have not been brutal, we have usually treated the natural Creation as a mere backdrop to the human drama, of salvation (if Christians) or of progress (if materialists).
• Thus we have not usually allowed that Creation has any meaning in its own right.
• The above points have been exacerbated in some Christians who have assumed that the physical Creation is under a curse and will be done away with, so it does not much matter, in eternal terms.

Here is an exposition of passages of Scripture that show that the Creation is important to God, and should also be important to us. Ecological damage is an evil in God’s eyes. And the creation will be redeemed just as humanity will be. A similar message, though in a different style, can be found in a wider discussion of why Christians in particular should be ‘green’.

Gen 1:26-28, Gen 2:15: The purpose, role of humanity

The purpose, role of humanity: to cultivate, guard, steward, manage - for the sake of God and of the creation itself. See next.

(NB. Westminster confession: Chief end of Man: to glorify God and enjoy him forever: no: to steward the Creation.) (Link also with: we are God’s representatives, ambassadors, sons, trusted servants: to show him forth, be like him, have his attitudes. Also God is Love)

Gen 1:26-28, ‘Radah’

What is ‘radah’, the Hebrew word used in Gen 1:26,28 that is often translated as ‘have dominion over’? It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean ‘dominate over’ just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of ‘radah’ shows that this is NOT the type of ‘dominion’ that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, ‘radah’ is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of ‘radah’. The use of ‘radah’ there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

“Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally.” (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our ‘radah’ of the creation.

Our ‘radah’, of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our ‘radah’ is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we ‘radah’ creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

Psa 97:1, Psa 98:7-8, Psa 96:10-13. Creation delights in God.

Various psalms like those mentioned expect various parts of creation to delight in God and in his justice. The seas are to roar, trees to clap their hands, etc.

While these passages are picturesque, they do express a truth: that creation rejoices in God and God’s ways. Each thing ‘rejoices’ in the way appropriate to it; e.g. a tree would ‘rejoice’ in the way that a tree can, and so on. Each thing rejoices because God’s ways bring health, bounty, true prosperity, shalom.

All creation, including human and non-human together, find that God’s ways are good, and to be shouted about.

Romans 8:19. Creation and God’s ‘Sons’

Romans 8:19 says that all creation waits with eager longing, groans, until God reveals his sons.

The Greek word for ’sons’ is not that used for ‘children’ or ‘make offspring’, but is ‘hios’: those who are like the father in attitude, will, decision-making tendencies, etc. The father of those times would, when he reckoned his male child had come to this state of maturity, take his son to the public place and announce “This is my son”. Meaning “I trust him to choose, behave, decide like me, and will stand all his promises he makes.”

God has sons, those who come to the maturity in Christ in such a way that we have the attitude, will, decision-making tendencies that God himself has. God is Love; his sons will be love, rather than selfishness. This links with the type of ‘radah’ that we should display.

Now, this makes sense of Romans 8:19. As we saw above, God’s creation ‘rejoices’ in God’s ways, when it is treated as God would. So, in this period in which creation suffers the harm caused by selfish humanity who exercise wrong type of ‘radah’ over it, it is eagerly longing for those human beings who will truly be God’s sons (hios) and behave towards it like God would.

So, when God’s sons are revealed (or appear on the scene), the creation rejoices. Because they are like God, and will treat it like God does. Or like God would. (This links too with our role and purpose, and the idea of being God’s ambassadors and representatives.)

‘Tsedeq’

Now, what is this way in which God would treat the creation? The clearest understanding of it is the Hebrew word ‘tsedeq’, which is translated both justice and righteousness. Paul Marshall has defined ‘tsedeq’ as ‘Maintaining right relationships among all things in the created order.’ (For fuller discussion of this, see tsedeq.html.)

Note that it is relational rather than individualistic or state-centred in meaning. Note also that it goes beyond legal frameworks. Note that, though translated ‘righteousness’, ‘tsedeq’ is not goodness; though translated ‘justice’ it is not legal judgement or retribution. Both are tsedeq. The meanings we normally apply to ‘justice’ and ‘righteousness’ are distortions, arising from what happens when we start with the presupposition that the Creation is of no value. If it is with all creation, then all creation is important. Let’s see if that is so.

Jer 12:4. Ecological results of our sin.

This verse clearly shows that ecological harm comes from sin and evil in human society. It links ecology with righteousness. We tend to think that God is only interested in righteousness, and does not want us to be too concerned about ecology. But in fact they are closely intertwined.

The Lord’s care specifically for non-human creation

But does God really love and value his creation? All we have above so far is a deduction that he does; are there any scriptures that show clearly that he does love and value his creation?

• Jonah 4:11 The Lord can concern specifically for animals
• Psa 145:9 The Lord has compassion on all he made
• Psa 36:6 Men and animals are in your care
• Lev 25:7 God has care for wild as well as domestic animals
• Lev 26:34 The land itself enjoys rest
• Lev 26:43 .. even without people
• Prov 12:10 We are to look after animals

Job 38. God has purposes beyond humanity.

But maybe God only values his creation because it provides food and resources for humanity? And, without humanity, it has no meaning? While it is certainly true that humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation and that without humanity creation was only ‘good’ and not ‘very good’, God’s words in Job 38 and 39 show that God has purposes in his creation that do not centre on humanity. These two chapters are saying, in effect: “There are wild things, Job, that are important to me, even though they are not useful to humankind and even a threat to humankind.”

Rev 11:18. “Destroy those who destroy the earth.”

In Rev 11:18 we find an interesting plea by the angels to God in his role as final judge. They say “the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth.”

And who is destroying the earth today? We are, those of us for whom manufacturers used to create refrigerators filled with CFCs, those of us for whom electric power is created that brings global warming, those of us who use our cars without thinking and when we could walk or cycle, and thus produce greenhouse gases, those of us who demand cheap food from all over the world and thus indirectly the destruction of rainforests and local communities, those of us who demand low taxes so that Government does not properly clean our waste, and the seas become polluted, those of us who … are, by our expectations, habits, demands, are forcing others to destroy the earth.

Heb 1:1-3, John 3:16, Eph 1:10, Col 1:20. Salvation goes beyond humanity.

We tend to think that the end state is concerned with Christ and humanity (e.g. Christ and his Bride, the mass of saved humanity). But Hebrews 1:1-3 says that Christ will inherit ‘all things’, not just humanity. Note also the integration of these ‘all things’ with humanity and forgiveness in these verses.

(So, if we mess up the creation, with pollution or by driving species to extinction, as we do, then we are damaging Christ’s inheritance. We claim to love him; do we? Or are we carelessly letting his inheritance be less than it would otherwise be?)

Notice also that that famous verse John 3:16, tells us that God so loved the world; that is, the creation, not just humanity. It specifically does not say “God so loved humankind that he gave his Son…”.

In Col 1:20 and Eph 1:10 we find similar sentiments: The whole universe is to be reconciled with God, summed up in Christ, not just humanity.

Rom 8: Creation will one day be set free from its bondage to decay.

But is not the creation to be burned up at Christ’s second coming? Not if Romans 8 is true. Rather, it will be set free from the tendency to decay. It will share the glorious freedom of the sons of God.

Notice Matt 24:37-41. When Christ comes again, “One will be taken and the other left.” Who will be left? We assume that the righeous ones will be taken from this earth, to escape it, and the wicked ones will be left, and destroyed. But look a few verses back; Jesus very explicitly compared the future division of humanity with that in the days of Noah. There it was the wicked who were taken away; the righteous were the ones who were left.

The problem is that for centuries we have assumed that the creation is unimportant to God, and will be destroyed; that idea has more to do with pagan Greek thinking than with what is revealed in Scripture. In fact, the earth will survive (though renewed and resurrected just as we will be).

This post is a continuation of:

The Meaning of Life, All of Creation and Worship

Here is one of the most powerful songs I’ve heard in a while. Hope it gives you a blessing. It made me shed tears.

Lyrics:

I then shall live
as one whose been forgiven
I’ll walk with with joy
to know my debts are paid
I know my name is clear before my Father
I am His child and I am nolt afraid
so greatly pardoned, I’ll forgive my brother
the law of love, I gladly will obey
I then shall live
as one whose learned compassion
I ‘ve been so loved, that I’ll risk loving too
I know how fear builds walls instead of bridges
I’ll dare to see another’s point of view
and when relationships demand commitment
then, I’ll be there to care and follow through
Your Kingdom come around and through and in me
Your power and glory let them shine through me
Your hallowed Name, O, may I bear with honor
and may your living Kingdom come, in me
the Bread of Life, O, may I share with others
and may You feed the hungry world through me
Amen!!!!

There are many views and opinions concerning the environment representing a wide range of world views. With this essay I intend to present a biblical view of the environment including its origin, present state, and future destiny.

Origin

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The Bible tells us that God existed before the universe and that He created it. For more details on the creation account read chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Scientific Creationism also reveals intelligent design in the creation, thus testifying of an intelligent Creator.1

The purpose of creation is to worship and bring glory to God. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Ps. 19:1). See also Ps. 148 and Is. 40:25,26. It also testifies of God’s qualities. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

Man is made in God’s image. “And God said, Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26). (Note: The plural pronoun testifies of the Trinity.) While every created thing has value in itself, man alone is created in the image of God. This contradicts the Eastern monism philosophy which says all is one.2 William B. Badke, author of Project Earth,3 says that the earliest responsibility of man and the only mandate given him concerning interaction with the earth is found in Gen. 2:15 which says, “The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden as its gardener, to tend and care for it” (The Living Bible). The Hebrew word for tend can also mean “to serve” and the word for care may be translated “to keep safe, preserve, protect.” This mandate has never been rescinded.

God gave Adam and Eve dominion in the earth (Gen. 1:28). This means that the human race is to be in charge of the stewardship of the earth and to nurture it, not dominate and exploit it for selfish motives.

“Historian Lynn White was correct in placing some blame for environmental decay on Christianity. But it is a misunderstanding of the Bible, not God’s word itself, that is at fault here,”4 says Tom Sider, professor of theology and culture, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and president of Evangelicals for Social Action. British author Catherine von Ruhland says, “Christianity is often criticised as being the reason for much of the damage that has occurred on the planet. But we should make clear to the critics that it is not our faith, but a combination of scientific theory and industrial progress among unbelievers and our own wrong understanding of God’s Word that has brought about destruction.”5

Present State

The event that kicked off our present state, both physically and spiritually, is the fall of man. Along with the mandate of stewardship of the Garden, God told Adam and Eve that they had free access to anything in the Garden except the fruit of one tree which would bring physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16,17). This was simply a test of man’s love and obedience to his Creator. God wanted a relationship based on choice and without the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil man would not have had any choice to please or displease God. Needless to say man ate the forbidden fruit and here we are today.

Sin is the breaking of God’s commandment and it is sin that is the major environmental threat. Physical death and the ground being cursed are just two results of the fall (Gen. 3:17-19). By choosing to disobey our Creator and live in sin the Bible says that the land and animals mourn (Hos. 4:1-3). Sin has such a violent effect on the environment that the Bible says the land will vomit out the sinning inhabitants (Lev. 18:25). Sin is what motivates the destruction of the environment for financial gain (1 Tim. 6:10).

But God promises to heal the land if we will turn from our wicked ways (2 Chr. 7:14). (Understand that there will not be complete restoration until God recreates the earth, 1 Pet. 3:13 and Rev. 21:1). By turning to God and being filled with His Spirit we can have the sensitivity to people and the environment that is necessary (Rom. 8). Indeed, sensitivity to others will affect our treatment of the environment. For example, if we know that there are people who live downstream from us and depend on a river we use, we should be careful to not dump pollution into the river so they can have water that they can use. By our sensitivity to the people who live downstream from us, we will change our treatment of the river we use to do what we can to provide safe and clean water for others who depend upon the same river. Matthew 25 shows that insensitivity to people is also insensitivity to God and will bring His judgement.

Tony Campolo also says that since nature worships God, (Ps. 148) ecological destruction interferes with and silences the worship of God.6 He calls this blasphemy.

Ron Sider says, “The first purpose of the nonhuman creation is to glorify God not to serve us.”4 The Bible says, “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps. 24:1). We must realize our role in creation is to worship God and to be stewards of the earth. A steward is a caretaker, not an owner.

Unlike monism, which says all is one, a biblical view, while agreeing that in ecology all things are interconnected, says in the spiritual realm there are two orders — the regenerated and the fallen. The fall that Adam and Eve experienced has carried on over to every human since (Rom. 3:10, 23). But there is hope of regeneration. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).

God is deeply concerned with His creation and this is shown in many passages of Scripture. In Gen. 9:9,10 God made a covenant with all of creation not to destroy it with a flood ever again and He set the rainbow in the cloud to be a token of that covenant. In Job 39:1,2 God shows that He is with the wild animals when they give birth. Matt. 6:25-30 shows that God feeds the birds and clothes the fields. It is by His power that creation holds together or consists as Col. 1:16, 17 points out. Because God is so intimately concerned with His creation He promises to restore it.

Future Destiny

“Everything that Christianity hopes for is wrapped up with the ultimate fate of the earth,” says Glenn Paauw, author of The Garden of God.7 The Bible teaches that salvation is for all of creation, not just humans (Is. 11, Ez. 47). This world will be burned up with fire (2 Pet. 3) and God will create a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1, Is. 65:17). True physical peace will reign (Hos. 2:18) and God will live with His people on the Earth (Rev. 21:3). Until that day Christians continue to pray, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10).

Some may say, “If the world will be destroyed by fire and recreated why should we be concerned about the environment?” Well let me sum up some reasons given thus far and introduce some new ones: 1) Destruction of the environment is blasphemy against God; 2) Stewardship is a responsibility; 3) Other people suffer because of the destruction of the environment; 4) Animals suffer; 5) Creation itself suffers (Rom. 8:19-21); 6) The danger is massive and urgent; 7) Common sense tells us to properly manage our resources to maintain a sustainable yield; and I would like to leave you with an idea from Tony Campolo which may be the most practical reason of all. He says the sooner or later we will all get involved in the environmental movement because sooner or later we will all get hurt because of what we’re doing to the environment.6

——————

1. For information on Scientific Creationism see Institute for Creation Research at http://www.icr.org.

2. For more information on monism see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, 3d ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

3. Badke, William B. (1991). Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created. Portland, Multnomah Press.

4. Sider, Ron J. (1993, June 21). Redeeming the Environmentalists. Christianity Today.

5. von Ruhland, Catharine (1991). Going Green: A Christian Guide. Great Britain, Marshall Pickering.

6. Campolo, Tony (1992). How to Rescue the Earth Without Worshiping Nature. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, Inc.

7. Paauw, Glenn (1992). The Garden of God. Colorado Springs, International Bible Society.

Here is a brilliant article that I found at Nonviolence.org

Its sad to me that one of the greatest if not THE greatest proponents of non- violence in history was Jesus Christ and yet the modern voice of Christian non- violence is seriously marginalized and squelched by the more popular positions of “Christian” militarism. I have had a lot to say about both Christian non- violence and “Christian” militarism on this blog. If you are interested… just look around and you will find it.

Meanwhile, enjoy the article:

Philosophy of Nonviolence: Yes, But What About Hitler?
Part Four. By David McReynolds

At some point all pacifists face this classic question, stated in many different ways. “Yes, but what about Hitler” can also be “Yes, but what about Arafat … Netanyahu … Criminals … Fascists … Racists … Serbs … Croatians … Muslims”.

At first glance nothing is stranger than the notion that a people without weapons could take defeat an occupying force (India), or an oppressive and unjust racial structure (the U.S.). But then some dismiss these triumphs by saying the same tactics wouldn’t work against Hitler - that “nonviolence really needs a humane, Christian, decent, democratic opponent … such as the white Southerner or the British … or it won’t work”.

Part of the problem here is myth. There was very little “nice” about the British. I will come back to that in a moment. But first there is a “terrible truth” we all have to face, whether we are pacifists or the most dedicated of violent terrorists - not all battles can be won. There are times when nothing will work. (This does not mean we shouldn’t try - we never know when the tide of history is about the change). Racism was not less evil in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955 when the Montgomery Bus Boycott began than in 1915. Nor was this the first resistance. Blacks had risked their lives and lost their lives during their entire “American experience”.
SOMETIMES NOTHING WILL SUCCEED

In South Africa, decades ago there had been nonviolent campaigns led by Gandhi’s son, Manilal - they failed. So far - let’s be blunt - we have failed in this country at the task of “turning America around”. In some ways our job is harder than Gandhi’s - the Indians knew they were militarily weak compared to the British and were willing to examine alternatives, while Americans think they are strong because of the weapons they possess - and are reluctant to consider alternatives.

But back to the British and those “nice Christian Southerners”. The British were imperial rulers, repressive, violent when necessary, and if there were paradoxes to their rule in India, they were less from some decency inherent in British Imperialism than from self interest. The tropical climate of India did not attract large numbers of English. To rule the vastness of India, the colonizers relied on “natives” trained to manage the courts, police, transportation, postal services, etc. From a Marxist point of view there were contradictions built in. The British trained the Indians in the skills of running India. But the result was to create precisely that educated elite which led the independence movement.

Gandhi studied for the law in London, went on to South Africa, one of the many lawyers, and civil servants the British had trained to run their Empire. There was nothing about the English that was uniquely nicer than the Germans. Germany was the most civilized nation in Europe in the 1930’s. Hitler was a monster, yes, but not an alien. Second, because the Holocaust was documented, and happened in the midst of Europe (and because “our side” won) we know a great deal about it - and may think it was unique. Unhappily it was not. Records of the slave trade suggest far higher numbers of Africans died during that trade, and the evidence of Belgian rule in the Congo is shocking - in a short period after the Belgians took over in the last century, they killed several million more Africans than the Germans did the Jews. Evil in human affairs is universal, the Nazis had no monopoly on it.
EVIL IN HUMAN AFFAIRS

Americans need to pay attention to our own history. I am not trying to downgrade the Holocaust. I hope WRL Locals take note of April 22nd, Yom HaShoah, and arrange an observance in your community. No pacifist should be in the business of arguing “my pain is greater than your pain”. But we are charged to be honest about what we ourselves, or our nation, has been complicit in. The pain of 400 years of slavery is of the same level of evil as the Holocaust. In reading a New York Times Magazine piece about the Vietnam War (8.10.97), the figure accepted for Vietnamese deaths was 3.6 million. Their sole crime was defending their nation against a foreign invader - us. (As the Times noted, that many dead is equivalent, on the basis of the relative populations, to 27 million Americans). When someone says “pacifism is fine but it wouldn’t have worked against Hitler” they should consider that to the Vietnamese, Lyndon Johnson was Hitler, and to Black America Jim Crow was Hitler.

We will never know if nonviolence would have worked against Hitler (or if it might have worked against the Americans in Vietnam if the Vietnamese had chosen that method). The history of the Holocaust shows little resistance of any kind to Hitler from the Jews ( this is not surprising - they could not believe anything as terrible as the “final solution” was contemplated. Historically the Jews survived anti-Semitism by keeping a low profile). Some have said “The Jews were pacifists and look what it got them!” Sorry, they were passive - there is a world of difference. There is no way of knowing if active pacifism would have had any chance of working - we only know it was not tried. I remember the chilling deduction of Hannah Arendt in her book on Eichmann, in which she concluded it was the passive cooperation of the Jews of Europe with the Nazis which helped make the Holocaust possible. If you think about this for a moment it is, unhappily, true. To track down, arrest, transport and kill six million people who are resisting - even by not showing up when ordered, would, at the very least, have caused massive public disorder. (Nothing is easier than saying “I would have resisted” - a cheap sentiment expressed by people who weren’t there. Documents show some resistance, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Violent or nonviolent, radicals honor resistance).
SOME ISOLATED VICTORIES AGAINST HITLER

But within Occupied Europe there were well documented victories for nonviolence. In Norway there was a successful teachers’ strike against being forced to teach Nazi ideology. In Denmark the opposition to the Nazis was led by the King, who said that if the Jews had to put on the “Yellow Star of David”, then he, the King, would be the first man in Denmark to put one on. When the Nazis moved to arrest the Danish Jews, members of the Gestapo leaked this news to the Danish authorities and in 48 hours virtually all the Jews in Denmark were gotten to safety in Sweden. In Bulgaria, which had no history of anti-Semitism, spontaneous civil resistance (including crowds sitting on train tracks) prevented the Nazis from shipping any Jews out of the country.
“THOSE NICE CHRISTIAN SOUTHERNERS”

Of all the places Americans thought resistance to Jim Crow would begin, Montgomery, Alabama, heart of the Confederacy , was the last. I remember a bus ride through the Deep South in 1951, coming back from my first trip to Europe (a pacifist youth conference in Denmark). Inspired by Bayard Rustin and the Journey of Reconciliation I took the Greyhound bus’s Southern route back from New York to Los Angeles. My challenges to Jim Crow were timid - I was alone and not very brave even in a crowd. But I had a good chance to see and feel what it was like to move through the Deep South in the early 1950’s. So much time has now passed - nearly a half century - that Alabama is as far removed from us as Nazi Germany. But the incredible mass opposition to racism began there, in the Deep South, where the greatest danger a civil rights worker faced was not from the Klan but from the Sheriff, where there was no appeal to law, where Blacks could not vote, where night was a time of terror, not rest. Don’t tell older Black Southerners about how safe nonviolence was then!

Nonviolence cannot win every struggle - there are defeats. This is no more reason to abandon nonviolence than the military would give up its weapons if it lost a battle. (Philosophic note: it every military struggle there is a winner and a loser, so half the time violence fails, and half the time it wins. But in nonviolent struggle the objective is not to have a victor but to change the situation itself - a radically different concept).
WHY DOES NONVIOLENCE WORK?

Having admitted our approach cannot win all battles, why does it work at all? Why did it work against the Nazis in Norway and Denmark, or against the power structure in the American South? Or against the British in India?

Let us concede that all human events have “plural explanations”. It takes nothing from the Vietnam Peace movement in our country to see that while our nonviolence was effective, so, too, was the pain of the body bags coming home as a result of the military struggle the Vietnamese waged against our troops. Let us concede that while the British in India weren’t terribly nice, Britain had a democratic society which permitted an anti-colonial politics to develop. Let us admit that the violence of Southern racists was limited by fear of federal intervention, due to strong Northern support for Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking farther back in history, to times before any “civil society”, there are two examples of movements which spread in the face of great oppression. Buddhism is a totally non- violent philosophy which, despite hardship and persecution, spread throughout Asia, finally subduing the Mongols, who had so savaged Europe and China. Christianity, which did not make an alliance with the State until three hundred years after the death of Jesus, became the dominant religious force in the West, triumphing over the total power of Roman Emperors.

Neither Christianity nor Buddhism was a philosophy of social change - that awaited the teachings of Gandhi in this century.

But the fact remains like a stubborn rock - both Western and Eastern civilization are founded on the basis of ideologies that were nonviolent, and which for some time in their early period faced extreme persecution. Thus, when Gandhi began “to experiment with truth” in this century, and see if nonviolence could be used to challenge social injustice, he was working on a foundation that was not entirely new. Nonviolence is older than the Christian era.

Next: the dynamics of why nonviolence works.

NEXT: PART5: Why Nonviolence Works

“Nonviolence doesn’t work because it appeals to the ‘best in the enemy,…’ but also because our tactics absorb the pain and suffering even as we create social disorder so great that something must yield.”

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Debate this with others on the Nonviolence.Org Board

David McReynolds was a long-time staffperson for the War Resisters League. He writes: “There is not a single original idea in this material. Some of the ideas may be new to you, or may be arranged in ways that seem novel. They lack the power to kill, but contain the power to change. Read with caution. They have not been approved by any government authority. You are free to reprint, giving the source.”

I have been asked more than once and by more than one person over time why I do not seem to spend anywhere near equal time criticizing Democrats and Liberals and seem to be focused on Republicans and “Conservatives”.

Here I shall answer, borrowing recycled lines from a recent exchange in e-mail. I will also add further commentary:

Ok, heres my honest answers,

As far as I can tell the Democrats are also in on this completely un-neccessary missile deal as well (see the post Missile Chess).
I do not see this particular post as a focused attack on Republicans. If one were to watch the “Why We Fight” clip embedded in one of my previous responses they would be able to ascertain that in our highly militarized society, Democrats are equally guilty. Everyone must bow to the god of war it seems. I have even been guilty of qualifying and dulling my own statements for fear of being dismissed as completely bonkers. From now on I won’t do that.
The questions you ask regarding my criticisms of Republicans and percieved lack of criticisms of Clinton and the Democrats is a fair question and I shall answer.

Its because of the heresy. The Democrats are guilty of much. However, they are not the ones who have hijacked the Christian faith and twisted it into something that shames the name of Christ. That will surely change as the pendulum swings back the other way. I simply don’t think its “Liberals” thathave done the most damage to our planet or our society or the church in the last 500 years. Take note that political liberalism has NOTHING to do with the matters usually attributed to “Liberals”.
Concerning the Clinton years- I was not vocal during those. Nor was I blogging. So my thoughts on those years have generally not been expressed. If it will make people feel better I’ll do some Bill bashing. I just figure the “conservative” pundits had the market cornered on that one and frankly I was quite tired of hearing about it… especially when the talk show crowd has so worn it out and spun facts in a way that is favorable to so-called “conservative” views. I can spend time on those points if necessary…. in fact wait and see.

I do blame Bill for much of the backlash that ushered in the Neocons. Thanks Bill. Those had to be the most expensive and consequential blowjobs in history.

Concerning the ire I have for Republicans- I have already told the tale and commented much about the false campaign Bush ran as a sober and Christian candidate. Perhaps I will never get over that. I am quite more familiar with the players on the RNC world stage than you might think, due to my former line of work. In my latest blog posts entitled “The Jesus Factor”, there appears more than one commentor that I have met and held conversations with. The men I refer to are from both sides of the fence. Most notable of these is Doug Wead, author of “The Raising of a President”. An interesting article about Mr. Wead that reveals the context in which I met him, Amway conventions where I handled AV,-can be found HERE.

I have met GWB and been in his home… and have actually made physical contact with him. I have been heavily exposed to Republican politics and politicians because of the area of the country I live in, my line of work, the ladies and gentlemen I work with and many of my personal friends. My thoughts on these matters have generally been illy recieved. My first political memories were of Richard Nixon…. ’nuff said, who was pardoned by Gerald Ford, another Republican. Then there was Jimmy Carter. I do not think Jimmy Carter was a great leader but I do think he generally got a raw deal. He takes the most heat for his handling of the Iran hostage crisis. However, his goal was to get the hostages home safely and not start a war. He succeeded. Carter also gets undue credit for faciliatatingthe rise of radical Islam. The trend actually started in about 1953 with the overthrow of Iran’s Prime Minister Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah. Check out that story in the article entitled: “50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran”.

The president of the U.S. in 1953 was Dwight D. Eisenhower (R).

I will say that Carter was president during the invasion of East Timor which I recently blogged about. The invasion was supported and supplied by the U.S.. This travesty is a perfect example of the selective humanitarianism and selective truth engineering of the corporate media and the western powers in general. No one I know has ever heard of this conflict. I myself did not learn about it until my trip to Sydney for the 2000 Olympics. This conflict ran though every presidency including the first stages of the current one. Thus, Carter and Clinton share some of the terrrible blame on that one. Carter was also president when the U.S. backing of the right wing extremists and death squads began in El Salvador which I have commented about at great length in the collection of posts found HERE. The assasination of Archbishop Oscar Romero also occurred on Carter’s watch very shortly after Romero made pleas to President Carter to stop funding and arming the terror forces that were killing his people. Under Reagan, the funding of these terror groups was magnified greatly. This is where the Republicans and the “Conservatives” totally lost me. These crimes generally are as yet unacknowledged and un atoned for… not to mention the Iran Contra scandal (make SURE you visit this link- taking note that the scandal began in 1980). Instead history has Reagan and the band of Neocons that served under him, including the loathesome Dick Cheney and the disgraced Donald Rumsfeld and the criminal Robert Gates (see also Robert Gates, Neocon or Paleo-Neocon) as some of the greatest heroes of the modern era. I won’t pretend I don’t resent that. I could go into how Reagan allegedly fixed our country and allegedly won the Cold War almost single handedly- but I will allow the curious to read the rest of the blog- paying special attention to the subject of Blowback , terrorism and the military industrial complex. Its also worth noting that this particular confluence of events of the rape of El Salvador and the enabling of Saddam and the actions of the REAL appeasers in the Middle East happened at just about the same time I entered high school and began to process political information data and make comments about it.

Then there was the enormous amount of e-mail propaganda I recieved during the run up to the war in Iraq. Perhaps much of what i have to say can be attributed to refuting such propaganda and an attempt at un- indoctrinating those within my circle of influence.

Maybe my take on things appears as unobjective or one sided to some…. but I am actually writing from what I know, have been exposed to and what I percieve as most threatening. I am sure some people simply think that I just make it up as I go because of some kind of unreasoned malice for Republicans- but it simply isn’t so. If one were to actually read and process all the information I provided in the links strewn in this post- I think the record speaks for itself. Yet, as requested I will find more about the crimes of Clinton and the Democrats to “balance things out”. The one that comes to mind first would be the travesties at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. There is also plenty of blame to go around for democratic leadrship in the recent post “The Torture Question Part 2″

Now, as I have said before:

Nowadays it seems , all one has to do to become a “Liberal” (a dirty word) is to refrain from singing the praises of the so-called “Conservatives” in power, dare to question them or, God forbid, challenge them on any matter. I don’t think I need to elaborate on how counter- productive and yea even dangerous this trend is. It has gotten so bad, that I no longer insist that I am actually a Conservative in these discussions. I have come to the conclusion that the definitions of conservative and liberal have become so muddled, confused and overused that the whole conservative/liberal debate is pointless, meaningless and an impediment to everything we need to be trying to accomplish as a community if people with common interests. I believe that the whole conservative-liberal debate is indeed useless and the terms are devoid of any real meaning. There is no left and right - just authoritarian/worldly and more authoritarian/worldly. There is left and further left and right and further right so that they both really fall in approximately the same position on the dial. I often encourage my fellow men, Christians and citizens to climb out of those respective boxes and become discerning human beings again. I consider myself a disciple of Christ/spiritual warrior and nothing more or less.

Though I put no stock in such accolades I find it quite ironinc that Mr. Al Gore, the sworn enemy of all that’s holy according to some, has now had a movie that won an Oscarand and an Emmy and the Nobel Peace Award while Mr. Bush, the most overtly Christian president perhaps ever, has become one of the most reviled men in the world and is considered by a vast majority across the planet to be the worst leader that the US has ever had. Not that public opinion means anything…or does it? This cannot be good for evangelism. It also has made the blowback of terrorism far more likely.

I do not necessarily consider myself as an evangelist by the way. I do consider myself as engaged in a spiritual war. Making headway in such a war can and will make work easier for those that have the gift of evangelism. I percieve my own function in the body as different. To be sure I am weary. I am anxious for this toxic trend in American politics to bleed out or at least drop to more tolerable levels. I pray every night that a man like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani does not become our next president. If that means I am stuck with Hillary then so be it. I won’t be happy about it- but I can live with it. I would like to say it doesn’t really matter. However, there are young people in my family that I do not want to see shipped to the deserts of the Middle East to fight in un-necessary wars.

All that factors in quite nicely to my theories and observations. I do not see my life as a false dichotomy between the spiritual and carnal. The world I live in is both and so long as I am alive I cannot escape that truth. Perhaps worrying about national leaders and wars and heretics is carnal to some… but to me its all very spiritual in essence.

In response to this: “All of your posts are connected to the previous, and the previous, and the previous; and that connection started and ended at the Republican pary head-quarters back in 1980.”

It actually goes back further than that. Its true that the hostile takeover of the Christian faith started with the “reconstructionist” movement in 1980. Therer’s more about that HERE and HERE. I witnessed a lot of that as I lived in close proximity to one of the country’s largest Southern Baptist churches. If you really want to know how far back it goes- you must go back to 1492 and further… perhaps all the way to Constantine and the idea that the church should rule the world also known as the constantinian cataract.

Anyhow…

Click this article:

The Evangelical Roots of American Unilateralism: The Christian Right’s Influence and How to Counter It

If anyone can find data as damning to the Democrats as these are I will be glad to post them and/or comment on them. I will note that the current day “conservative” movement sprang out of the politcal philosophy of Woodrow Wilson and “Wilsonian” democracy. Look that up. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and a secular- humanist- authoritarian- heretic as well.

Perhaps all this seems unobjective. Perhaps it is. I am very concerned with this particular dominionist political movement at this particular window in time. I see myself as focused on a specific target and specific matters and specific offenses rather than unfair. I don’t think I ever advertised as “fair and balanced” anyway. I am focused on defending the honor of the Church against political opportunists and the accompanying heresies. Show me the Democrats who have done what the Falwells and Robertsons and Bushes and Dobsons have done and I will gladly filet them.

(James Dobson’s Focus on the Family organization has on its board of directors Eric Prince, the founder of Blackwater Security which is currently involved in a scorching scandal in Iraq- a raw fact that may well speak volumes on why Dobson and his cohorts are so pro war in Iraq- because its worth zillions. This is perhaps the very epitome of a conflict in interests on the Christian side of things. Its also worth noting that this right- wing -”Christian ” coterie of political operatives are supporters of Bush and the Republican party- donating bazilly-illions to the cause)

I have been told that the Republican party is NOT Satan. I agree. However, I think there is clear evidence that they work for the World and thus for the God of This World (Satan). The same is true for Democrats of course. Yet, it is said in the Bible that the institution of government was created by God. Many institutions were created by God and yet because of the sinful and fallen nature of many of them operate outside of God’s intent and design. Consider that before I am labeled as a rebel or heretic. The Bible simultaneously tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, love our enemies, submit to government authority and yet NOT love the World or anything in it. What sayeth thee?