Final post

I'm not sure if we have to post this week, especially since we're not going to be incorporating Weight of the World into our wiki, but here goes:

Reflections from The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Societies by Pierre Bourdieu.

This book is basically a collection of anecdotes and narratives from people who have experienced some sort of intersection of different cultures and what their experience was like in the midst of that intersection. It is an interesting concept because even if we live in an urban environment like Los Angeles, we all come to the table with our own biases, history and unique experiences, and it is difficult to see other people’s perspectives on concepts such as housing projects and glass ceilings since they may be subjects that we have no direct experience with and probably never will. It is easier for us to see the poor as an economic class of people and to not see the vast realm of different areas where people suffer, mainly because of their economic “starting point.”

Reading through the first section, I thought this may be the best section on which to comment because it had the most substantial shock factor. Also, I admittedly was too lazy to read the entire book to see which area was the most relevant to our subject of war, militarism and terrorism. However, now that I think about it, the ideas brought up in the first 200 pages can have relevance to our wiki specifically because it is this churning sense of suffering and injustice that feeds much of the violence that we see in certain hotspots, especially those that are known for terrorism like Israel / Palestine.

Bourdieu mentions how the disenfranchised and those who are neglected and excluded adopt certain practices that are destructive and that further entrench them in their status as an excluded people. They destroy the public spaces that are allotted to them, they may be caught stealing or getting involved in violent incidents both at the workplace and at home… they reinforce stereotypes both within the community and outside the community that are destructive at a deep level. Terrorism and war are expressions of frustration, anger, and sadness that only fuels this endless cycle of exclusion, fear, and oppression. In our efforts to tackle this problem, we have to tackle the underlying sources of the problem, not its expression or aftermath.

This goes back to what we’ve been trying to emphasize in our wiki, although our wiki is more focused on war and militarism than it is on terrorism. Nevertheless, we have to be proactive in addressing the underlying causes of these problems more so than taking positions on how to deal with those lashing out because of their frustrations from the weight of the world. Just as “Just Peacemaking” is a proactive effort to curb the outbreak of war, education on the plight of the people in Bourdieu’s collection of stories should encourage us to be more proactive in acts of inclusion, healing, and wholeness. Some urban planning projects, like one I encountered in Boston, integrate yuppied looking for cheap housing and bohemian style lofts with those in need of low-income housing. It’s an alternative to the radical gentrification of certain areas of the city. Such proactive efforts sounds a lot like communism, but then again, so does a lot of the Old Testament.

Inventing Popular Culture

I'm not sure how much direct relevance this book had to our topic of War, Militarism, and Terrorism, but it was an interesting read nonetheless. I'm still in the midst of processing aspects of it as it was much for me to think through during one sitting, but I'll post my initial thoughts here in the meantime.

Right off the bat, I was confused as to terminology. I actually never knew what folk culture was, and is popular culture that closely connected? I always considered popular culture to be... the pulse of the populace. The rhythm of the society, which may or may not be instituted from on high as mass culture is. It was a confusing place to start from for this book, but I just went with it. I think the author and I were already on different pages after Chapter 1.

But the more I read through the book, the more it seemed that I was catching on to where the author was headed and began to see how my own views of what popular culture was were limited and specific to my context. The ways in which popular culture was and continues to be in many ways connected to issues of power was a foreign concept, but there was much weight and validity to the arguments and the points of view presented in this book. I think that as someone born in a democratic society in a modern culture in the midst of a transition to a postmodern culture, it is easy for me to dismiss issues of power and to assume that we as the people and the populace have the power to influence and shape our culture. In many ways, I saw popular culture as a reaction to the establishment, but now I am beginning to see how that is a more contemporary nuance rather than the norm throughout history. The fact that the populace even has a significant voice is a very specific to our current situation.

So recognizing the role of power even in our current context (see Chapter 7 on Popular or Mass Art and the role of the powers that be in this sphere) is not only relevant to how we see ourselves and our role in shaping popular culture going forward, but is also relevant to our topic of War, Militarism and Terrorism since it deals with the pervasive influence of powers, struggling powers that are also influential in the underlying causes of violence. Culture as a means and a voice of potential control of hegemonic powers over the masses is a scary, almost Orwellian concept , but it is nonetheless a present reality and we need to confront the situation as Jesus followers in one way or another. Especially, as in the final chapters of the book, our popular culture is becoming more and more global, and this can and does ensue conflict in areas where this homogenization is being resisted, conflict that can often turn to violence.

Resources

Just a quick list of resources for my posting this week:

1. Lisa Cahill, “Nonresistance, Defense, Violence and the Kingdom in Christian Tradition,” Interpretation 38, no. 4 (1984): 380-397
2. Martin Luther, Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved, Luther’s Works 46, ed. Robert C. Shultz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967
3. Martin Luther, “Temporal Authority,” Luther Selected Political Writings, ed. J.M. Porter. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974
4. http://www.nd.edu/~theo/research/jhy_2/writings/home/ind-jw.htm
5. Willard Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women. Herald Press, 1983
6. http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp
7. http://www.salvationhistory.com/
8. John Mabus, "Luther and the Christian Soldier"
9. Hauerwas, Stanley. “In Time of War.” First Things 120 (February 2002): 11-15
10. Yoder, John Howard. When War is Unjust. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1984

"Realist" Response v1

Here's my first cut. Gotta jet, but I'll get back to this and will also look at Reed's entry and adjust accordingly. I just wanted to give you guys a chance to read this sooner rather than later.

The first thing I want to say before I begin writing this response is that I am starting from a place that begins and ends with the Word of God. I believe that two people both with the same amount of respect for the authority of the Scriptures can come to two different perspectives on the same issue. I can believe that my interpretation is correct, but this does not bar fellowship with and love for another brother who also lives and abides by the Bible as a follower of Christ.

That being said, I will reference various references to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) because I believe that as Jesus-followers, we are called to look at God’s work through all of history. Since I am not a dispensationalist, I do not believe that we as Christ-followers serve a God who is markedly different from the God of Ancient Israel nor that the Sermon on the Mount invalidates all of the Hebrew Scriptures. It renders a new understanding, to be sure, but we are gifted with the Bible in its entirety and we need to look at it holistically in our attempts to seek out the way forward as Christ-followers.

To center this discussion around Scripture is a challenge, especially since a realist or a just war response to the position of pacifism seems so much more natural to us as emotional, rational, and passionate human beings. It is easy to defend these positions using ethical arguments or challenges to place ourselves in certain situations, but I’ll avoid that route for the most part and focus on how the Bible can guide us to this position as Christ-followers.

There can be no doubt that the early church took a pacifist position and that the greater acceptance of warfare in the circles of Christ followers came after Constantine endorsed Christianity. But to say, then, that warfare has no place in “pure” Christianity and that this growing acceptance was a sign of corruption is too short-sighted. To classify the contributions of Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Augustine, to name just a few, as corruptions of biblical interpretation on this subject is a bit extreme.

Loving Our Neighbors

The basis for Augustine’s view, which formed the foundation for Just War theory, was the view that war, although acknowledging the evils of war in agreement with Tertullian (Lisa Cahill, “Nonresistance, Defense, Violence and the Kingdom in Christian Tradition,” Interpretation 38, no. 4 (1984): 380), war could also be seen as an act of love. The argument, as a friend of mine put it, is “if one's neighbor is powerless to defend her/himself against aggression and destruction, and you, as a responsible follower of Christ, both recognize this oppression and are able to intervene to ameliorate its consequences, then any decision to not act is not a loving decision.”

I do believe that Augustine may have gone a bit too far in a several ways, first in spiritualizing the Sermon on the Mount and making it more an individual issue of one’s heart and by seeing the punishment of sin as an act of love. I do agree, however, that bringing safety to the greater community is an act of love, and we as Christ followers are called to action and our faith and beliefs cannot simply be positions we take that have no practical manifestations. To say that you love your neighbor and yet you do not raise your arm to defend them to me is a separation of faith and works. When discussing faith and works, James asks, “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” (James 2:15-16, NRSV) How was to U.S. to feed the hungry of Somalia without the use of military force given the influence of the warlords there to prevent the fair distribution of food? UN Peacekeepers were ineffective in this role. Would we be loving our global neighbor to nonviolently airdrop food so that the warlords could hoard it and exercise even more power over the starving populace?

Pursuing Justice

In line with the motive of loving one’s neighbor is the idea of pursuing justice. We are called to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Once again, James speaks on this issue: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” (James 1:27, NRSV) This echoes the call of the Hebrew prophets, who continually cite Israel’s inability to defend the cause of the weak and oppressed as the cause for YHWH’s displeasure. One cannot read through the prophets, even at a cursory level, without acknowledging the call to social justice that inundates the Hebrew Scriptures. (Isaiah 1:17, 10:2, 16:3, 42:1, 56:1, Jeremiah 21:12, 22:3, Ezekiel 18:8, Amos 5:24, Micah 3:1, 6:8) Justice, no doubt, is a key characteristic in the Kingdom or Reign of God that Jesus proclaimed.

In line with this argument, Thomas Aquinas also saw the use of force as an instrument of social justice and not so much as a means of punishment, as Augustine may have seen it. (Lisa Cahill, “Nonresistance, Defense, Violence and the Kingdom in Christian Tradition,” Interpretation 38, no. 4 (1984): 382). The problem with Aquinas, however, is that he did see the clergy as being obligated to follow Jesus’ example of nonviolence while the laity did not have this obligation. This dichotomy between clergy and laity seems inconsistent with what the church should be as the Body of Christ. Along these lines, Anabaptists (e.g., Menno Simons) and other traditions have seen this obligation to nonviolence as extending to all followers of Christ.

Nevertheless, the ultimate ends of pursuing justice may ultimately necessitate the use of force at a national-political level.

Ensuring Peace

Luther believed that war for the sake of an enduring peace was of value: “The small lack of peace called war or the sword must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which would destroy everyone.” (Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved, Luther’s Works 46, ed. Robert C. Shultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 93) Whether or not we accept the dual government system that Luther saw as mutually intertwined, the secular and the spiritual governments, it is difficult not to acknowledge his point that in a position of authority, the ruler cannot rule with the gospel alone and that God has established secular authority, what he refers to as “temporal authority”, to ensure social order and justice on earth. (“Temporal Authority,” Luther Selected Political Writings, ed. J.M. Porter (Philadelphia: Fortress))

Luther spends his time laying out guidelines for Christ-followers in ruling positions, citing that their responsibility as temporal authorities is to care for and serve their subjects, ensuring their welfare, which includes their defense. He is trying to apply the teachings of Christ to a situation that Christ was not faced with: Christ followers in positions of influence, trying to reconcile their beliefs with their civic duties. He encouraged his followers not to pursue positions of influence, but Luther finds himself in a different context where his followers are already in a ruling role.

It is also important to note that Luther also acknowledged that one’s ultimate allegiance was not to a prince or the State, but to God. “If one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ruler is in the wrong, one must not submit to him, even at the cost of persecution and punishment; one must fear God and not man.” (Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved, Luther’s Works 46, ed. Robert C. Shultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 117) The same applies to soldiers, sailors, and Marines in the armed forces today. The question of one’s ultimate allegiance to the Kingdom should never be in question.

Biblical Examples

Although Christ may not have addressed this issue of Christians in positions of political power directly, other New Testament examples provide more than enough evidence that politics, and even warfare, are legitimate practices and powers that can be redeemed and transformed from the inside out. In Luke 3 when John the Baptist comes proclaiming a baptism of repentance and the forgiveness of sins, a message that in the other Synoptics is referred to as the message of the Kingdom of God, he was confronted by soldiers asking what they should do in response. His answer was not to leave their profession, but to “not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.” (Luke 3:14, NRSV) In other words, he encourages them to do their jobs in an honorable way, not to cease and desist. This forms the basis for jus ad bellum, jus in bellum and jus post bellum in Just War Theory.

Similarly, the fact that Cornelius is converted (Acts 10) and used in a significant way because of his position of influence as a military and civic leader to bring the gospel to the Gentiles can be another indication of the way in which God uses people where they are to make his reign and his kingdom a reality in this world. Although there is no indication of what happened to his military career, it is clear that Luke, the author of Acts, did not think that the termination of his military position was a necessary component to his new life as a follower of Christ.

In addition, it is clear that warfare is used continually by YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures to carry out the will of God. Throughout the Pentateuch and Joshua, warfare is used to punish the wicked and to carry out the promises of God. YHWH uses the Assyrians and the Babylonians to carry out judgment on his people, and Nehemiah is called to use force to re-establish the remnant in Jerusalem upon their return to the land. Although we can see the negative effects of warfare and the abuse of power throughout books such as Judges, it is clear that warfare has historically been a tool of YHWH to carry out his purposes in the world at an international level, and although Christ has called us to a new life, has God completely abandoned the means in which he has worked in the past?

[to be continued]

Initial Reading Reflections

Reflections from Global Trandformations: Politics, Economics and Culture by David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999)

1. Political Reach versus Military Reach (33) - Held and his colleagues have introduced in my mind a difference in the political reach and military reach of countries and empires, the latter being much more limited. It is easier to project military power to a far-off location, but in order to govern it, in order to be involved politically, it takes much more in terms of resources and personnel. Empires can rule vast areas, but to govern them is a different story. An interesting point, especially considering what we may be trying to do internationally in Iraq and other locations.
   
2. Westphalia Model (37) – “a world order consisting of territorial, sovereign states in which there is no supreme authority.” This apparently is what has governed global politics from 1648 (after the Thirty Years’ War) until 1945, although some contend that it is still the prevailing model today. Basically, this model endorses a mentality of “survival of the fittest,” or more closely related to militarism, the idea that “might makes right,” and this is only made more evident when Held points out that one of the key characteristics of this model is that “differences among states are often settled by force.” (38) This is an extension of the intense individualism that is characteristic of modernity, but it breeds the idea that the strongest survive and forms a foundation for building military structures and pursuing arms races.
   
3. International Regimes (51) – “implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue area of international relations.” This marks an increasing globalization and institution of global politics, but in many ways, it still seems to be battling proponents of the Westphalia model. Is the U.S. bucking this trend by continually acting in a unilateral manner?
   
   
4. Changing ideas around sovereignty (53, 65) - Is there a difference between the decreasing autonomy of nation-states, as Held suggests, and a decreasing notion of sovereignty of nation-states? “Sovereignty per se is no longer a straightforward guarantee of international legitimacy.” (65) International regimes surrounding communications, economics, human rights, and other areas are becoming the new centers of influence. How much will military power be of importance in an increasingly global political environment governed by international regimes? UN Peacekeepers are a joke in terms of military power and authority in many situations.
   
5. Applicability of international regimes on warfare on non-nation-states (72) – There are definitely an increasing number of multilateral conventions governing warfare, and the simple fact of the matter is that these would not be a problem if everyone simply “played by the rules.” However, this is not the case. Do these rules of warfare apply to non-nation-states, e.g., terrorist groups? What does the international community do in response to these violations? The language of the agreements simply outline “parties” and “belligerents,” but terror cells can choose to abide by these principles or to violate them at their whim. This is the frustration that many face in the military today. These rules are set up to render the most appalling aspects of warfare illegal and to make warfare as humane as possible given the assumption that warfare cannot be completely abolished, (71) but it is difficult to extend this humane treatment of the enemy when it is not being extended to you. Yet this is what a soldier as a Jesus follower is called to do, although it is a separate discussion altogether whether a Jesus follower can be a soldier.There is also the additional problem of armed conflict outside the realm of formal warfare. Does our “war on terror” formalize our anti-terror policies (even though we still have no formal declaration)? Held acknowledges that there is “a very find line between explicit formal crimes committed during acts of national war, and often major attacks on the welfare and physical integrity of citizens in situations that may not involved a declaration of war by states.” (72)
   
6. (Additional Areas for Reflection)
   Evolution of a World Military Order (90)
   Economic stimuli to militarism (arms production) (118-119)
   International Security Regimes (124)
   Comparative forms of military globalization (133)
   U.S.’s role in World Military Order (139-140)

Christian Response?

Resources

John Humphries, “Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice,” from In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond, edited by Jeremy Brecher, Jill Cutler, and Brendan Smith (New York: Metropolitan, 2005) - An article on activism against the war in Iraq

Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice - a Connecticut statewide interfaith gathering of religious leaders and people of faith committed to peace, specifically with regards to the War in Iraq.

http://www.forusa.org/articlesandresources/default.html - Various articles and statements for peace.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.community – Sojourners Statement of Faith.

Dan Peters, “Should Christians Have Guns? A Biblical Basis for the Second Amendment.” The Biblical Evangelist, Vol. XXIX No. 3 (May/August 1998) page 1, 14-16 - A stretch, at best, but this does raise some good points that can be extended to a defense for a strong national military.

Norman Jackson, “It’s God’s Mission” - A missiological base for a justice ministry

Martin Shupack, “Biblical Basis for Our Advocacy,” Washington Memo, Jan-Feb 1999 - Biblical basis for the Advocacy ministry of the Mennonite Church.

Micah 6:8 – The biblical basis for several organizations to be a prophetic voice.

Pete Ward, Liquid Church, Hendrikson Publishers, 2002 – Describes some of the changes in the church in our contemporary culture, including the increased involvement in social issues.

“A Big Pay-off for Two Game Theorists,” The Economist, October 15, 2005 – Summarizes the work of two Nobel Prize Winners in Economics and their work in game theory, which arose from analyzing the arms race.


Analysis

Humphries mentions our commitment to international accords and our place in a global community as the reason why we need to be outspoken on the issues of war and militarism. When the non-profit organization “Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice” was established, a statement summarized their views of individual and shared responsibilities for active resistance: “We believe it is our duty as both Americans and members of the international community to insist that our government immediately adhere to the international agreements binding us….” Individual responsibility is at the heart of the statement, as the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal is quoted as stating, “Anyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent the commission of the crimes.”

We are called as Christians to peace. Sojourners claim that “Jesus' way of nonviolent transformation and peacemaking is not a Utopian dream but a necessary path” and that “our obedience to the state or any other institution must be conditioned, tempered, and sometimes rendered impossible because of our higher loyalty to the reign of God.”

The simple fact of the matter is that we live in a violent culture but this is not an excuse for militarism. As an illustration of this, we can look at some of the findings of recent Noble Prize winners Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann. Schelling of the University of Maryland in “The Strategy of Conflict” (1960) argues that a country’s best safeguard against nuclear war is to protect its weapons, not its people. Schelling “invests his hopes for peace not in arms reductions or fall-out shelters but in preserving the ability to retaliate, for example by putting missiles into submarines.” In other words, “it is better to show your enemy that you can hit back after a strike than to show him you can survive one.”

This is not a foreign argument to Christians as well, as some Christians are convinced that the Bible defends their right to bear arms. Dan Peters, D.Min, asserts that “Peace in a man's palace or home is the result of being armed, not disarmed. Law abiding citizens, trained in the proper use of firearms, can only enhance the peace of our communities. Armed homes are a deterrent to violent crime.”

Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice understands that we are living in a culture of violence and they attempt to offer an alternative to this culture. The see that “the authority and powers of the U.S. government can and has been usurped for illegitimate and immoral purposes, making it necessary for U.S. citizens, both individually and collectively, to take action to halt the war crimes being perpetrated in their names.” Sojourners believe in “the absolute necessity of spiritual formation and prayer to counter the assault of the world's dominant values on our hearts and minds and to center our lives and rest our souls in God.” We are called not to succumb to what culture accepts, but to speak out against it when necessary.

Reflections on Lunch

Dr. Dauermann presented some interesting points of view, but I am a bit at a loss as to how this is directly related to our topic of War, Militarism and Terrorism. A later discussion topic may have been more directly linked with the subject of terrorism, but the discussion over lunch seemed less connected to where we are going in our analysis. It did, however, reveal the importance of keeping one's heritage and history, and to me, this indicated how this may be a structure or power that can be used for the glory of God or for the oppression of man. Heritage and history, cultural identity, and ethnic distinction can lead to nationalism that can then lead to violence or aggression. An inherently good thing bent by the Enemy into a tool of oppression.