This is Filtered...

Final post

2006-01-12T09:01:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-28T06:36:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-20T17:58:00.000-08:00

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

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

"Realist" Response v1

2005-11-19T12:02:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-07T07:06:00.000-08:00

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

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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
(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?

2005-10-30T16:01:00.000-08:00

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

2005-10-24T00:39:00.000-07:00

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.

Causes of militarism, a first cut

2005-10-22T13:20:00.000-07:00

Resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_through_strength - the concept was mentioned in the wikipedia’s definition of militarism, so it seemed logical to follow it here.

http://www.americansecuritycouncil.org/pts_history - The history the Coalition of Peace Through Strength from a lobbying group for the protection of American interests and foreign policy.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Coalition_for_Peace_through_Strength – Provides a great overview of the topic as well as a good list of additional sources for further research.

Sun Tzu The Art of War http://www.gutenberg.org/files/132/132a-h/132a-h.htm - Many cite this book as providing a rationalization for a strong military.

F. H. Knelmann, “Pax Americana” Peace Magazine Jul-Sep 2003, p.30, http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v19n3p30.htm - Comments on the change in American foreign policy as a result of 9/11 to perform "global constabulary duties" and that "American political leadership should have ascendancy over the UN."

Zalmay Khalizad, From Containment to Global Leadership (Rand Corp, 1995) - Cites the change in stance of the Bush Administration from a policy of Containment to a more proactive role in global affairs.

Travis Charbeneau, “Good to Be King?” September 18, 2003, http://www.itmweb.com/f091803.htm - Suggests that we are now in a different paradigm where economics, not politics, are what is driving Pax Americana.

Michael Aung-Thwin, “Parochial universalism, democracy Jihad and the orientalist image of Burma: The new evangelism,” http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3680/is_200201/ai_n9044906 - Parochial universalism has always been the cause of stronger nations rationalizing their hegemonies.

“A Power Practice Methodology,” Kyle Bolger, MP520 Class Notes, Fall 2005 – Especially relevant this week as we are talking about powers and structures.

Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p213-242 – Grenz’s section on Angelology and Demonology discusses “structures of existence,” which are particularly relevant when discussing the causes of militarism and terrorism.

A Starting Point: Structures

According to Grenz, structures of existence are “those larger, suprahuman aspects or dimensions of reality which form the inescapable context for human life and which therefore condition individual and corporate human existence.” (228) These structures can be religious (astrology), political (polis or city-states), economic (Marxism), or take another form, and even though they are linked to human existence, they are actually more than simply human constructs and are actually quasi-independent and quasi-personal.

These structures are connected to the Pauline concept of “powers” which can influence human affairs through ideas and traditions (Colossians 2:20-22). The key to understanding how these structures are related to angels and demons, according to Grenz, is understanding the latter’s role in governance. One of the functions of the heavenly beings is “that of serving as agents of God’s governing of the world,” (233) and God’s intention for creating the structures of existence was essentially good: to benefit humankind and creation. According to Grenz, structures, therefore, are tools that are used by angelic beings to foster community, but because of the way in which structures provide cohesion and order to the human existence, they can also be used to hinder community and to hold the community away from God. Structures can actually be channels of evil, and demonic realities can use structures to hold humans in bondage.

These structures are a tangible channel for what may seem like distant realities, namely angels and demons, to seem much closer to home and closer to our reality. Although the Bible asserts the reality of angels and demons and thus the dangers of superstition, which almost invariably leads to some form of idolatry, demonic powers and principalities are all under the authority of the risen Christ. We can take faith in the fact that even though such powers are real, in light of Christ’s victory, they can be deemed as powerless and irrelevant.

Additional Analysis:

Michael Aung-Thwin, points out that “parochial universalism” has always been the cause of stronger nations rationalizing their hegemonies, whether it be Rome, Britain, Japan, or the United States. The problem, however, comes from the fact that the views of the stronger powers are not socially or culturally applicable to every country under its dominance. He states that this is the main reason why economic embargoes have not been effective in various countries:

“Many years of economic (that is, material) sanctions imposed on Burma (as well as Cuba and Iraq) have failed to produce the kinds of social and political consequences assumed to be self-evident, precisely because the Cubans, Iraqis, and Burmese also do not share such fundamental social and political values.7 Indeed, that they refused to turn collectively against their leaders in political ways when things became economically tough individually raises further questions about the presumed universality of western-style materialistic individualism.”

He basically states that Western materialistic individualism is the structure behind Pax Americana.

One aspect or cause of militarism that cannot be overlooked is the fact that countries may be pursuing a militaristic philosophy because of external threats to their safety and their way of life. A well-cited example is the start of the nuclear arms race. Many will say that had the United States not developed the atomic bomb, a nuclear arms race would not have ensued. But had the United States not established a nuclear capability, would not another power develop it? Germany and Japan were both pursuing nuclear programs of their own. Is the fact that the United States “won” that race the cause of the arms race or a response to an existing struggle for power that always has existed, and possibly, always will? Is the only way to preserve peace in this kind of fallen world through superior military strength? This is the rationalization, among many other factors, of a “Peace Through Strength” approach, which has resulted in such significant amounts of funds devoted to the United States military in the last few decades. Even the terms Pax Romana and Pax Britannia literally mean the “peace of Rome” and “peace of Britain” and describe the historic peace that resulted during the height of these militarily dominant empires, although it can be debated how “peaceful” these times actually were.

Excerpts from Sun Tzu’s Art of War, recommended reading for anyone in the military, and many civilians as well, definitely to suggest certain tenets that can easily lead to militarism and is used many times to rationalize a policy of peace through strength:
“Now the general is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak… Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.”

Yet Art of War also recognizes the negative effect that militarism can have on a State, specifically the economic ramifications:

“Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.”

This brings up the fact that economics is a significant structure that can potentially necessitate militaristic regimes. Travis Charbeneau in his article “Good to Be King?” suggests that we are now in a different paradigm where economics, not politics, drive Pax Americana. I’ve run out of time for now, but this is definitely something worth discussing more.

Additionally, it is possible that terrorism is caused by the oppression of militaristic powers, but it itself causes paranoia that can result in even more militaristic regimes. Peace through strength may have resulted in overcoming Soviet powers and Communism, but it resulted in the establishment of a lone superpower that left enemies of such powers to resort to terrorism to pursue its ends, which then can result in popular approval of a stronger military to protect the citizens of a country from that terrorist threat. Is it a cycle that we as followers of Christ can break?

Social Effects of Militarism

2005-10-15T12:14:00.000-07:00

Resources

Cornelius Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995 - Social problems for our purposes are many times associated with sin, so this concise work seemed appropriate.

Gary A. Haugen. Good News About Injustice: A Witness of Courage in a Hurting World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999 - Something caught my eye about this resource, specifically since military domination and state sponsored terrorism were mentioned as forms of injustice.

Martin Shaw, “Dialectics of War: An Essay in the Social Theory of Total War and Peace.” Pluto Press, 1988, www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/204shaw.htm - A good overview of the concept of total war, together with its political and social implications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics – Wikipedia overview of Keynesian Economics and below, specifically Military Keynesianism. This can be an effective economic argument that definitely has social implications.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secD8.html - An interesting overview, and if you find yourself agreeing with most of the statements, keep in mind that it’s from an anarchist FAQ.

Emma Goldman, “Preparedness, the Road to Universal Slaughter.” First published in Mother Earth, Vol. X, no. 10, December 1915, and also as a pamphlet. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Essays/preparedness.html - A response to Woodrow Wilson’s policy of military preparedness. A bit Marxist (it’s on the Berkeley site, after all. Haha!), but an interesting historical perspective.

Karl Liebknecht, “Militarism.” New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1917. Review on http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1917/liebknecht/liebTC.html - Another historical perspective from before WW2 and the rise of the Soviet Union.

Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic [The American Empire Project]. Metropolitan Books, 2004 – A similar view of America as a new Roman Empire. Talks a bit about not employing the lower echelons of society, but brainwashing them.

Moses Shayo, “Poverty, Militarism and Civil War.” http://www.ecaar.org/Newsletter/July04/shayo.htm - Provides a connection with civil war.

Betsy Hartman, “Militarism and Reproductive Freedom.” http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-12/29hartmann.cfm - Kind of a femi-nazi mentality, but it does raise some good points on the effects of militarism on women.

Analysis

Plantinga’s understanding of sin begins with his understanding of the Hebrew concept of shalom, a universal flourishing and wholeness based on “the webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight.” Sin can be defined as the culpable breaking of this shalom, an interference of the way things are supposed to be. I think this perspective of shalom can be useful in understanding the ways in which militarism and war constitute a social problem. Plantinga talks about sin and the way it corrupts and taints aspects of creation, the way it leads to a perversion of the good that God created and ultimately to destruction, the way sin acts as a parasite to God’s good creation and cannot exist apart from shalom, and the way in which sin can be confusing since it meshes together so easily with “the good” in a range of complex, ironic situations. This seems to mesh with our topic since there are so many “benefits” that are cited for a strong national defense, such as security and the protection of our values and way of life. A discussion of the nature of sin, I think, would be a good starting point for us.

Some of the benefits from militarism besides stability can be economic benefits, or a strong economy. Many attribute the military spending and industrial demands of the U.S. entry into World War II as the main reason for our recovery from the Great Depression. The same argument of war being too costly (costofwar.org) can be used to defend the position that it stimulates our economy and makes things better off for everyone else. Keynesian economics and the related concept of military Keynesianism build up this argument.

Another economic benefit is that the lower echelons of society that would otherwise be unemployed are employed and trained by the military and are thus developed into positive contributors to society and the economy upon discharge.

However, these benefits must be countered by the fact that militarism is at its root a question of power. Haugen explores this in his book, and his “anatomy of injustice” is also an interesting concept that provides a good starting point for understanding the social problem of war and militarism. He sees injustice as an abuse of power and breaks down all types of injustice, including “abusive police or military” and “state, rebel, or paramilitary terrorism” into patterns of coercion and deception. These factors are necessary in order to maintain a state of injustice, and I believe that they are key components in maintaining a state of militarism in general. Connecting militarism with injustice may not be that difficult.

There is also a marked connection with militarism and poverty. Low living standards, it appears, tends to “enhance militaristic nationalism and confidence in the armed forces and therefore, on average, more support for attempting military solutions to social conflicts.” Therefore, at a national level, poorer countries will tend to attempt a military solution to a wider range of conflicts than would richer nations and thus continue the cycle of civil war and continuing poverty.

Starting with these broader concepts of sin and injustice and then connecting it with war and militarism may be a viable approach for our wiki.

Analysis of Resources

2005-10-05T23:15:00.000-07:00

I don't know why I didn't go to it first, but the wikipedia definition of terrorism is an excellent resource for a wide array of different definitions from a range of sources. It lists not only dictionary definitions, but definitions from institutions and organizations as well as from notable individuals like Brian Jenkins and James Poland. It also cites the academic definition of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which was presented to them by terrorism expert A. Schmid in 1992:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988).

Put simply, terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of war crime." But the UN itself acknowledges that consensus on a definition is hard to come by. The question of what makes one man a terrorist and another man a freedom fighter is a question I still have. Could not the Green Mountain Rangers and other civilian patriots who subverted British forces be considered terrorists, or was it just "unconventional warfare"?

So another section of wikipedia lays out some of the key criteria: violence and the threat of violence, civilians as direct targets, an objective to provoke fear and intimidation, religious or political goals as the motive, a non-government perpetrator (which does not rule out state-sponsored terrorism), and the question of legitimacy, i.e. that the act is unlawful.

Both the wikipedia and the US Institute of Peace lay out various responses to terrorism including, but not limited to stricter immigration policies, hardening of targets, preemptive neutralization and other forms of military intervention, domestic intelligence and surveillance, negotiation with terrorists, and international working groups and conventions. Wikipedia's analysis seems much more pratical and relevant than the more academic approach of the US Institute of Peace.

The UN has a broader hub on the subject of terrorism, and this has proven to be a valuable resource as well regarding the position of the closest thing we have to an international governing body. It not only provides access to the different areas of the UN that are involved in counter-terrorism and the latest developments of these councils and working groups, but it also provides access to archives of past declarations and conventions regarding the subject all the way back to the League of Nations.

Glen Stassen's book is not about terrorism specifically, but on war in general, which is still in the scope of our project. The book was a bit redundant at times and possibly more detailed than it needed to be, but it provides a fresh look at a proactive peacemaking approach versus the approach of Just War Theory to justify war. Should we as Christians simply be questioning whether or not we should be at war or actively involved in pursuing peace? His book's title, and my own reading of Scripture, seems to suggest the latter.

Walter Wink's book takes a more spiritual approach and investigates the powers and authorities behind the war machine. Kinda spooky, if you ask me, but a different take that will nevertheless share some much needed light on an aspect of peacemaking that many of us may not pay enough attention to.

First Crack

2005-10-04T22:34:00.000-07:00

We're supposed to be going through some definitions of war, militarism, and terrorism as the first part of our assignment, so I just ran across some resources off the bat. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to digest them in more detail a bit later...

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter on "ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION": http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
UN Recommendations on Peace and Security through Disarmamanet: http://disarmament2.un.org/terrorism.htm
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
United Nations Terrorism Hub: http://www.un.org/terrorism/
Wikipedia definition of terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
United States Insitute of Peace: http://www.usip.org/class/guides/terrorism.pdf
Constitutional Rights Foundation: http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/What_Is_Terrorism_rev.htm
Stassen, Glen. Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Justice and Peace, Westminster John Knox Press, 1992
Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, Augsburg Fortress Publications, 1992
Sider, Ronald J. Christ and Violence, Herald Press, 1979

This should be interesting...

2005-10-04T22:15:00.000-07:00

So I decided last week to enter a group project addressing the social problem of war, militarism, and terrorism, mainly because I'm hoping to enter the Navy Chaplain Corps and it's important to me to be able to address this issue from a biblical perspective. I know I'll be approached by many sailors and marines facing hellish situations not only with questions of theodicy, but what my personal take on war is.

I'm not a war-monger, and although some chaplains may be offering unwavering and/or unquestioning support to the military institution and the government, I do not. I do have a brain, a conscience, and a spiritual home that is elsewhere, and my ultimate alliances are not to the US Government, but to God.

Yet I did make an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and oaths are not something I take lightly. I do my part by serving and ministering to the men and women sacrificing their lives in duty to their country. On paper, I'm serving the Department of the Navy. In real life, I just want to make sure Pfc. Ozzimo makes it home from Iraq alive, both physically and spiritually.

And I can appreciate both sides. I'm not a strict pacifist. I don't believe it would have been right for us to stand by and watch injustice unfold before our eyes in WW2 or to witness the carnage and slaughter of people in Somalia as warlords purposely starve their enemies. We're called to defend the cause of the orphan and the oppressed, and surely this can't just mean in words or policy?

Yet I also cannot deny that Christ's teaching always points to love and not to fighting or war. People who try to justify war are really stretching Scripture much more so than pacificist who use Scripture to defend their views, in my opinion. They use examples that rely on human reason, natural human reactions (e.g. would we stand aside if someone was attacking our family?), and not as much on Scripture, simply because, in my opinion, there isn't as much ammunition there for their argument.

And if all I'm here to do is to be a voice that challenges both sides, great. I'll take the crap from everyone if that brings helps us all expand our minds and humbly approach the issue looking for something we can learn and a new insight that the Spirit will reveal to us.

This is going to be interesting, and fun, I hope.

Not a blogging virgin

2005-09-29T09:58:00.000-07:00

A blog as a requirement for a seminary class. Who would've thunk it? *shrug*

Hmm. Basics. Dave Kim. Korean American. Born in Queens, NY, raised on Long Island, educated in Philadelphia, worked to death in Boston, corrupted in Sydney, Melbourne, and Bangkok, and being educated again at Fuller. I'm entering my third and final year. Man, it's gone by too fast. Not because I'm getting all sentimental or anything, but because I feel like I haven't learned anything since this quarter system makes everything move at ludicrous speed. Ah well.

The church I attend now is PCA. OK OK. REPENT! I know you're judging me. haha! But seriously, I'm taking this class because I work mainly with young adults at my church, and man, some of these people are so repressed that it's hard to find them sober on a weekend night. Well, not all of them are like that, obviously, but the ones I care about... With all the talk about wanting to engage culture and to be a part of it, I find myself yearning for something that'll make Christians different, yet still relevant. I still think that it's possible to not be "of this world" and to still engage it in love and to still be culturally relevant. How do we be a part of this culture, love the people in it, and transform it while not being overcome by it?