The Sin and Sinfulness of Anger

I finished reading the excellent little book FINDING HAPPINESS: MONASTIC STEPS FOR A FULFILLING LIFE  by Abbot Christopher Jamison.  I will share some of his comments on the sin of anger – a sin which is so pervasive in our lives that many just consider it natural and human, even if potentially harmful to others, rather than sinful.  Jamison’s comments are culled from the Christian monastic tradition, and though he sees value in the psycho-analytical tradition, he is offering the particularly insightful wisdom of the monastic tradition in dealing with anger.   He especially quotes from St. John Cassian (d. 435AD) who many credit with bringing monastic spirituality to the Christian West.  Jamison writes from his own experience as monk, offering all practicing Christians sound advice on how to deal with the vice of anger:

“…I came to see that my anger came from being a very goal-oriented person.  I resented this other person’s actions threatening the achievement of my goals…”

“… the belief that we always need love and approval from those significant to us and that we must avoid their disapproval is irrational.  Its irrationality lies in the fact that we literally defeat ourselves by handing our well-being over to a whole host of significant others.  A more rational belief is that love and approval are good and we will seek them when we can, but they are not absolutely essential all the time from all significant others.”

“Cassian calls it (anger) ‘a deadly poison… that must be totally uprooted.  He quotes scripture at length to show the harm that can come to one who is angry, destroying right judgment, wisdom and the interior light of contemplation.  He insists that ‘man’s anger does not work God’s righteousness’, and then goes on to challenge those who seek to justify anger directed towards those who do wrong.  He is disdainful of those who quote passages of scripture that say ‘God was angry with Israel’, saying that such passages are figurative and notes stingingly that if people take the metaphor literally how will they cope with other passages that suggest God was ‘asleep like a man drunk with wine’. (Psalm 78:65)  To use scripture as a source for justifying anger, he says, is to derive death from the very place where the medicine of salvation is found.       Cassian is particularly critical of a monk who gets angry with the wrongdoing of another brother, which he sees as an example of taking the speck of wrongdoing out of the other person’s eye before removing the plank of wrath in our own.” 

“… our not getting angry must derive not from someone else’s perfection but from our own virtue, which is achieved not by another person’s patience but by our own forbearance.”

“The popular notions that it is good to ‘let off steam’ or that it is right ‘to give those people a piece of my mind’ are based on a very mechanistic view of human beings.  We are not steam engines, we are rational beings who can make our own choices; we are not objects that can cut off a piece of our mind, we are whole people with integrated emotions.” 

The monastic tradition according to Jamison sees anger as an especially destructive and egregious sin, especially within an intentional Christian community such as a monastery.  Of course there is recognition that anger does occur even among people committed to Christian peace, but as St. Paul says in one of very rare places where the word ‘angry’ occurs in the New Testament,  “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger…” (Ephesians 4:26)

War, What is it Good For? It Keeps Journalists Employed

Sites keeps himself in focus

I finished reading Kevin Sites’ IN THE HOT ZONE: ONE MAN, ONE YEAR, TWENTY WARS.  Kevin is credited with pioneering “solo journalism.”  As a reporter he has spent years in the world’s hot zones – covering war and conflict.   He spent 2005-2006 jetting around the globe from one conflict to another.  The book is an easy read, and at times interesting, but I would not rate it as a favorite book.  Kevin complains about Americans having little understanding about the world’s conflicts, but his book is a whole lot about him, traveling around.  He makes himself the news by being at the world’s hotspots and then reports on himself, culminating in this book about his being in all of these places.  Solo journalism enables Sites to keep his camera focused on the main person in his every story: himself.  That being said,  I gleaned a few quotes that I will share:

“The way wars are being covered by some media outlets bothers me.  Time limitations for television news programming usually mean that only the news of the day is getting reported.               In Iraq and Afghanistan, news of the day means body counts from the latest bombing.  These stories are essential – but fall short in helping educate an audience about the changing dimensions and nuances of the conflicts, which are necessary for people to truly understand them.”  (p 50)

Rarely in a war is an army, or its government, much interested in the didactic element of explicating the nuances of the situation.   Governments and militaries are interested in defeating the enemy more than in defining their positions on issues.   But the press might take upon itself this task if they have a concern about truth.  Too often though American media outlets, including news outlets – are more interested in advertising dollars, since that is who pays the bills.  So they will be ever tempted to report the news that will attract the viewer.  This plays into featuring sensationalism and bizarre stories over informative ones, or oversimplifying complex issues to spoon feed a lazy, indifferent or passive audience.

“As a society do we want to just say thank you to those soldiers – or do we need to try to understand that asking them to kill for us may also kill something inside of them?” (p 112)

We do ask soldiers to kill for us, and we pay them to do it.  Some probably would criticize Sites saying he is trying to pamper America’s young people by protecting them from the harsh realities of the world.  Danger and evil are real and so someone needs to be trained and prepared to fight for our country.   But I am reminded of some words by James Madison, founding American Father and one of our early Presidents:   “There can be no harm in declaring, that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought to be avoided, as far as it may be consistent with the protection of the community.”   (from my blog Madison: Insights and Ideals)   Madison did squirm a bit about a standing army as he feared government would always be tempted to use it rather than to seek some other method to solve a problem.  We have those soldiers trained over there, so let’s use them:  Go to war.

Marine Corps War Memorial

Yet it is also not that hard to see in this fallen world that at times the only way to get to peace is through the use of military force.  Indeed soldiers have often thought of themselves as peace keepers and peace makers.   War is not their goal  but rather they see war as that temporary but necessary stage of mortal combat which must be won in order to get to the desired state of peace.  The main question of the pacifist in challenging the reliance on the military to accomplish national goals is:  have we done everything possible – have we done enough – so that war can be avoided and yet a secure and lasting peace is attained?   War as a necessary means to an end has been taught from the Q’URAN as well as from THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.  Christianity however envisioned a different way from its beginnings as a persecuted religion without any army whatsoever, it still managed to convert an empire and change the world.   Of course once Christianity began to see itself as an imperial force, it too embraced warfare as a just means to an end.   However, personally I see little in the NEW TESTAMENT which makes me think that Christ or the apostles ever envisioned any military as the needed means to convert the world to follow the Crucified God.

“In conflict, everyone, whether they are invading force, government troops, rebels or insurgents, even journalists who help perpetuate the myth of war, has chosen violence over diplomacy, guns over statecraft, and when that happens we all lose a little bit of our humanity with every casualty.”  (p 291)

Arlington Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

To me that is Site’s most profound insight.  It is not simply soldiers who lose their humanity in war, everyone in society does (just think about the German citizens near the death camps saying, “we didn’t know” – they had closed their hearts and minds and gave up part of their humanity to live at peace with what their country was doing).   Even the victorious see in their returning soldiers increases in mental health problems, suicides, drug and alcohol abuse.  Every time we decide to go to war for whatever reason (no matter how noble),  all who support the war (for whatever reason) have decided that violence and force are the expedient way to accomplish a goal.  The cost of such decisions is the loss of a bit of our humanity.   Yes, it will be argued that the war will save more lives than are lost and might pre-empt further suffering.   But we are also saying some human lives are not valuable, and that we can kill an idea by killing some people.    One might think that Pro-Life people would be most reluctant to go to war, but that is not always the case.  Pro-lifers will defend the life of the unborn, but are often willing to send the post-born to their deaths.   I find the whole issue of war to be one of the most troubling aspects of being human and being a Christian- perhaps because I cannot say that war is never the solution to evil.   I am not in the least comforted or convinced by those who argue that God Himself in the Bible orders people to war.  That I find one of the most theologically difficult features of the God who is Love.  It also is a reason I find Islam unacceptable:  there is no allowance in the Q’uran for pacifism.  War is a duty required by God at times because in the Q’uran “God knows what we don’t know.”    In one Sura (2:216) God says there will be times when the believers won’t want to go to war, but God will require it of them anyway because He knows what we do not.   I prefer to struggle with the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of God the Trinity, who said to love even our enemies.  I do not know how to accomplish this counter intuitive love, but I find the thought far more Divine than a call to war which humans even without any God have been readily able to think up for themselves.

For Orthodox Christians the Cross of Christ remains that mysterious weapon of peace, even if Constantine’s followers saw it as a sign of victory in war.  As we sing on the Feast of the Cross (September 14):

Rejoice, O life-bearing Cross!

The invincible weapon of godliness;

The gate of paradise, the protection of the faithful!

The Cross is the might of the church.

Through it corruption is abolished.

Through it the power of death is crushed

And we are raised from earth to heaven!

The invincible weapon of peace!

The Cross is the enemy of demons,

The glory of the martyrs,

The haven of salvation

Which grants the world great mercy!

An Appeal to the Imaginations of People

When I heard last week that The Norwegian Nobel Committee had decided to award The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 to President Barack Obama I like many was surprised, as my immediate thought was “but he hasn’t accomplished anything yet.”   (To be fair the President himself said, “I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement. It’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.”)  From comments I heard on the car radio, I somehow got it into my head that this really was about his being the first African-American being elected president.  

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

Personally, I have viewed Obama’s successful presidential bid as marking a change in America regarding race.  Obviously not everything has changed for racial prejudices cannot be obliterated by one election, but a ceiling was broken through and the chance for Americans treating each other as Americans seemed more possible to me.    From this point of view, and not taking anything away from Obama’s campaign and the risks he took in seeking the presidency, it seemed to me the Nobel Prize he had won really belonged to the American people who overcame 250 years of history which included slavery to elect a Black man as president. (And to those who say Obama could equally be called a white man since his mother was Caucasian, I can only point out that when Abe Lincoln was running for President, the state of Illinois considered any person who was one-quarter black to be a Negro and they were banned from entering the state.  The color of one’s skin has determined how people in America judge someone). 

But a week after President Obama won the Peace Prize, it is clear that the Nobel Committee did not award Obama the Peace Prize for breaking color barriers or giving hope to minority or oppressed peoples.   The Committee’s own press release states clearly that Obama was chosen

“for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.”                                            

What is most clear is that Nobel Committee really was taking a pretty strong swipe at the policies of the Bush-Cheney administration, the direction they were taking America and thus dragging the world with them.  The NEW YORK TIMES (Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts) wrote:

“The Nobel committee’s embrace of Mr. Obama was viewed as a rejection of the unpopular tenure, in Europe especially, of his predecessor, George W. Bush.”

The WASHINGTON POST (Nobel for Obama Brings Praise, Ire):

President Obama on Friday won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, bringing the relatively novice leader a new measure of prestige on the world stage … the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised the president’s cooperative approach to global issues, a clear rebuke of the Bush administration’s aversion to international organizations and treaties.

NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (Gasps as Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize):

In Europe and much of the world, Obama is praised for bringing the U.S. closer to mainstream global thinking on such issues as climate change and multilateralism. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.

The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama’s predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

So clearly the assessment is that Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize is not based upon his accomplishments as president but upon a symbolic hope of what he represents in the eyes of the world (which in my estimation is how he won the presidency in the first place).   Americans, especially conservative ones, seem unconcerned how the world views America, and thus they remove America from its greater context, namely the planet which we 300 million Americans cohabit with 6 billion non-Americans.    In failing to consider the global picture in which America exists as but a small part, conservatives today mistakenly undervalue the power of symbol.  Symbol helps us understand our life and situation in a greater context.   In the rage with which they despise the new president, conservatives have blinded themselves to the reality that people do not evaluate the world purely in terms of facts and figures, for symbol and myth are very powerful forces in shaping the human imagination and causing humans to strive for something greater than what currently exists.  Not so long ago it was conservatives that were shaping that symbolic and mythical understanding of America.    Ronald Reagan in 1974  said in what is now called his “The Shining City Upon the Hill” speech:

“Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, “We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.” 

Six years later he would be elected as President of the United States in what was certainly a high point for conservatives in America.   Reagan imagined for America a role in the greater world – to be a hope to the world.   When that vision faded into selfish and self-serving values, America lost sight of its role in the world and the world lost hope in America.  People turned to someone who could enliven the imagination again and who could place America’s role in the larger picture of a world in need of hope.   In the world of politics, the appeal has to be made not just to the minds of people, but also to their dreams, aspirations, hearts and imaginations.

9-11 Remembered

“Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord”  (Hebrews 12:14 RSV)

Today is the anniversary of the attacks on the United States in 2001 by Al-Qaeda commonly referred to today as 9-11.  Talking to friends and family most all of them remember exactly where they were when the news of the events became known to them.    The attacks were planned over a long period of time and thus were the culmination of events by some Muslims who had declared the United States to be their enemy.  The evil events of 9-11 then set in motion events planned and led by the United States against those who were believed to have planned or abetted the terrorists.    Killing begets more killing.   Those who claimed to act in God’s Name did nothing but create more evil thus making their God the source of evil.

 “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21 NKJV)

The events of 9-11 get variously interpreted by those along a spectrum of religious beliefs.  Some Muslims think the attacks on the U.S. not only justified but demanded by the Q’uran.  Others think the attacks were done by a small group of fanatical fundamentalists within Islam who do not represent the true values of Muslims everywhere.  

Outside of the Islamic world, among those who believe in God many see the events as consistent with Islamic teachings as can be shown in the Q’uran and also as is obvious throughout Muslim history from the beginnings when Muhammad and followers threatened war and used the sword to spread their beliefs.   Among atheists on the other hand, the events of 9-11 are pointed to as simply a continuation of a very long line of murderous attacks carried out by the fanatical adherents of religion against any who don’t believe as they do. 

So who is responsible for the murders and mayhem committed by these members of Islamic Al-Qaeda?    Religionists (faithists as some atheists call them), Muslims, fundamentalist Muslims, Islamic terrorists, or God Himself (since these men carried out their evil in the Name of Allah)?

“Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in all ways”  (2 Thessalonians 3:16 RSV)

There is no doubt in my mind that all believers in God, no matter what their theology, should be concerned that in God’s Name other believers today can find justification for committing crimes, murder, mayhem or evil.    Since some believers, even if only a few, can still find today justification from God to carry out evil acts of destruction upon innocent people, it behooves all who believe God is Love and that God’s message is peace, in daily prayer in every language to call upon God to stop those who intend to inflict evil and suffering on the world in God’s Name.     God, we need Your help; Lord, we need Your intervention.

In Genesis it is clear that since humans fell from grace through sinful rebellion against God that inflicting death, murder, violence and war on others have become part of the human way of dealing with any we dislike or who disagree with us.    This is the way of the fallen and sinful world, not the way God intended for us to behave from the beginning.   So let us not glorify war.   Humans have come to rely on violence and death as the way to inflict their will on the rest of the world. 

“Lord, have mercy.”

Have mercy on us and bring war to an end, as well as violence, hatred, selfishness, jealousy, greed, and all of those human reasons which rouse in us a murderous hatred of others.   Bring us Your peace, O Lord.  Grant unto us a desire to live in peace.  Give peace to the world, to the Church, to all those in civil authority and to all Your people.  Bring peace to the hearts of all those who believe they are to commit murder in your Name so that they will lay down their weapons and repent in their hearts of the evil to which they wrongly believe You called them.    Lord, we have no solution for the problem of violent evil in our hearts, do not abandon us to human ways of dealing with this evil for we have no other hope than You.       

“Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing. For ‘He that would love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile; let him turn away from evil and do right; let him seek peace and pursue it.  For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil.’”  (1 Peter 3:9-12 RSV)

Please Your Neighbor Not Yourself

We who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification. For even Christ did not please Himself… (Romans 15:1-2)

Fr. Charles Joanides in his book  Attending to Your Marriage offers the following paraphrased version of a story from the desert fathers to illustrate the importance of and the possibility of people living together in harmony.  He uses the story in reference to married couples working together, but the story from the monastic tradition talks about the values and virtues any Christians need to live together in concord. 

One day, two brothers were sitting together, and one of the two offered the following observation: 

“Brother, it occurs to me that we have never had an argument.”

            “Yes,” stated the other, “this is true.”

            “Well, I would like to conduct and experiment.”

            “What kind of experiment?”

            “Let’s have an argument.”

            “Very well, but how will we do this?”

The monk offering the suggestion paused and then stated, “I have an idea. Here’s a brick. I will put the brick between us and I will say that it is mine, and you will argue that it is yours. We will then continue arguing until one of us succeeds in winning the argument. Any questions?”

“No brother, I don’t think so,” stated the second brother with some trepidation.

The second brother responds, “No brother, I believe it’s mine.”

The first brother retorts, “I distinctly remember it being my brick.”

The second brother responds, “No brother, I think it belongs to me.”

The first brother retorts with more conviction, “I believe you’re wrong. It’s my brick.”

Seeing his brother becoming distressed, the second monk says, “Yes, I think you are correct. It is your brick.”

After some silence, the first brother observes, “No brother, let it be ours-to God’s glory.”

These precious stories may sometimes seem simplistic, but they are anything but simple. In this case, these two precious souls who were coexisting in relative harmony and peace find this exercise impossible to complete. The reason why is related to their mutual struggle to live Christ-like existences. To be more specific, their chosen lifestyle compelled them to consider their neighbor’s needs as much, and more, than their own needs.

                                                                 

Psalm 72 and “America the Beautiful”

Yesterday in my daily scripture reading I read Psalms 72 , which says it is a “Prayer for Guidance and Support for the King” written by Solomon.

The Psalm made me think of the wonderful hymn, “America the Beautiful“, for a couple of reasons.  First, in verse 8 the Psalm says, “May he have dominion from sea to sea” which is paralleled by the songs “with brotherhood from sea to shining sea.”  Second, the Psalm verse 16 says, ”May there be abundance of grain in the land; may it wave on the tops of the mountains” which is paralleled in the songs “For amber waves of grain.”   Third, verse 3 says “May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness”  which is paralleled in the songs “Purple mountain majesty.”  I have no idea whether the songs composer, Katherine Lee Bates, had Psalm 72 in mind (or any other Psalm for that matter), but the Psalm verses did remind me of the song verses.

This made me also think about the claims that America is a Christian nation.  For in Psalm 72 we are given a very particular image of what godly leadership consists.   And while the Psalms are Old Testamental, thus pre-Christian, many Christian Patristic writers believed the Psalms represented the mind of Christ.

So how does Psalm 72 envision godly leadership in a godly nation?

 [72:1] Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son.

[2] May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.

[4] May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.

 [7] In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more.

[12] For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper.

[13] He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy.

[14] From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.   (The Septuagint according to the Orthodox Study Bible reads “He shall redeem their souls from usury and injustice.“)

One thing which is clear in Psalm 72 is that the ruler of a godly nation provides justice to the poor and helps secure that the poor benefit from the righteousness of the nation.   The godly nation – the Christian nation – is to care for and provide for its poor.   The godly ruler takes up the cause of the poor and defends them, has pity for them, and delivers them in time of trouble.

Another thing made clear in the Psalm is the hope that peace will abound for the godly ruler and the godly nation.  The poor often suffer the worst of all citizens in the time of war as they already live on the edge of not being able to support themselves.   If there is such a thing as a peace dividend, it ought to be used to help the poor.

 Finall the godly nation and the godly rulers protect the poor from usury – the demands of interest charged by lenders.  There is a financial burden the godly nation must bear to help its poor. The godly nation is not to just make lending to the poor easy, or even to make lending cheap.   Rather the godly nation relies on generosity from its prospering citizens to provide for the needs of the poor and the disabled.   A godly ruler is one who cares about the poor and insures that they are treated well by the nation and by the people.

Patriotism: Perpetually in Favor of War?

Each year about the time of American Independence Day (July 4) I read a book on American history.  This year I decided to read a book I bought a couple of years ago,  Doris Kearns Goodwin’s TEAM OF RIVALS: THE POLITICAL GENIUS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.   The book is really a historical multi-biography of Lincoln, Edwin Stanton, Salmon Chase, William Seward and Edward Bates – their rise to political prominence, their political rivalry and their serving America together in the  Lincoln administration.   It also is the story of the birth of the Republican Party.

One reason I enjoy reading history is because it helps me to see the present in the context of human history – history does repeat itself.  Humans behave like humans in every generation, though occasionally we do learn from the past and do better in the present.

In 1848 Abe Lincoln, a freshmen congressman and at that time a member of the Whig Party, took up a harsh criticism of President Polk, a Democrat, who had led America into a successful war with Mexico (1846-48).  The war was wildly popular with patriotic Americans.  Lincoln had opposed the war and accused President Polk of provoking the war.  Lincoln felt that Polk in going to war was trying to get attention off of himself and his failed policies.   ”Lincoln charged, the president had hoped ‘to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory … that serpent’s eye which charms to destroy.”    Fellow Whig  and also future Republican Edward Bates more harshly “charged President Polk with ‘gross and palpable lying,’ arguing that the true object of the war was ‘plunder & conquest.’”   Bates believed the real purpose of the war was to extend slavery to new territories.   He felt American economic interests should not supersede the American belief in liberty for all humans.  Lincoln felt the war was about politicians trying to win popularity and votes, but certainly not about what was good for America.  Now, would an American President engage in war just to win votes and popularity?

I write all of this because it reminds me so much of the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq and the arguments that were spawned in America about the war.   Lincoln was accused by an Illinois newspaper for his criticism of the war as being a “Benedict Arnold” who committed a “treasonable assault upon President Polk.”    And Lincoln in response “sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war, he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers.”    

Sound familiar? 

History does indeed repeat itself.   The political parties change, but the hyped rhetoric and political clarifications are all too familiar. 

Of course it is hard to know when reading history whether the historian influenced by current events cast the lesson from history in contemporary terms.   The similarity may be that we read history through our own experience and thus see it as similar to what we know and have encountered.

The way we go to war in America, and the way we debate war – accusing the anti-war people of being unpatriotic or treasonous – have followed a certain pattern.  Maybe that is the way it has to live in a democracy.   Maybe it even happens because those who support the wars find their consciences pricked by the fact that the war lacks unanimous support.   Cognitive dissonance being what it is, the pro-war people have to conclude that the opposition is evil rather than think about their own approving an action that is morally questionable. 

I’ve only read a little more than 1/9 of the 900 pages of the book.  My favorite line to this point is related to the issue of the way America goes to war.   Chicago politician Justin Butterfield having watched the vitriolic press and public reaction  against Lincoln, was asked if he too opposed the Mexican War.  “No,” he replied, “I opposed one War [the War of 1812].  That was enough for me.  I am now perpetually in favor of war, pestilence and famine.” 

Is the way to war also the way to win elections in America?   I hope not.  I will continue as an Orthodox continue to pray with the Church for peace.

It is not un-American to oppose war, even a war that purportedly will benefit the country.  Lincoln led the country to its first civil war, but obviously did not think war or even victory was always justified.

As for me, my heart  is with the Psalmist’s words (120:6-7):  

Too long have I had my dwelling

among those who hate peace.

I am for peace;

but when I speak,

they are for war.

Patriotism not Nationalism

As I’ve said in the past the wonderful thing about blogging is you really don’t have to know anything, all you have to do is have an opinion.  Fortunately, I am not in any position to have to make decisions about U.S. foreign policy, and so my opinions are of little consequence.  I have opinions anyway, however uninformed, and I vote!

I have commented in past blogs about what I find disconcerting about U.S. foreign policy:  it really does appear to me that the U.S. has come to equate and confuse its foreign policy with its military policy.  I say this as a man who prays daily “for peace for the world.”    My comment has been that when the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.  So too when the U.S. sees every foreign policy situation as a military situation, we tend to strike the nail.  At one time President Teddy Roosevelt advocated an American policy of “speak softly and carry a big stick” of which critics called it “an amoral pursuit of political power that resembles Machiavellian ideals.”   That policy however seems to have devolved in America to a notion of “stop talking and just swing that big stick.”  And when you have the best military in the world, with the most sophisticated weaponry, there is a temptation to use what you’ve got - convince not only your foes but also your friends that you intend to use that big stick not just carry it.  This (in my opinion) ends up making the USA appear constantly bellicose and belligerent in the eyes of the rest of the world, including the eyes of our allies.  That problem is compounded by the fact that many Americans could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us or U.S.

I happen to care what the rest of the world thinks, as I do pray for the “peace of the world” not just for the peace of the US of A.    I take my role as a prayer intercessor seriously.  I take the words of the prayers I say seriously.  And I take God seriously when He says that He so loved the world as to send His own Son into the world (John 3:16).  I am both a citizen of the country I am most happy to reside in, and also a citizen of this earth, and neither my prayers nor my concerns stop at the national borders of the United States. 

Over the past eight years a lot criticism was heaped on George Bush and Dick Cheney’s foreign policy and its negative impact on world affairs – much of it well deserved.  These criticisms came not just from their Democratic opponents, but from Republicans, strict conservatives (THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE readers boasted that they had a much more thorough and devastating critique of Bush than any which liberals offered), and leaders from around the world. However, Fareed Zakaria in his 23 March 2009  NEWSWEEK opinion piece, Why Washington Worries, notes: 

The problem with American foreign policy goes beyond George Bush. It includes a Washington establishment that has gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise as treason and negotiations as appeasement. Other countries can have no legitimate interests of their own-Russian demands are by definition unacceptable. The only way to deal with countries is by issuing a series of maximalist demands. This is not foreign policy; it’s imperial policy. And it isn’t likely to work in today’s world.

America through history is well noted for opposing imperialism of any kind around the globe.  Our own existence as a nation was born from opposition to imperialism.  We do need to take a good look at ourselves and our own policies, a hard and honest look to see whether in fact by our own ideas of imperialism that we have opposed, we are behaving as imperialists.   Have we confused nationalism and patriotism?  Patriotism is a good thing.  Nationalism caused untold havoc and devastation throughout the 20^th Century (Think Nazi German, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia).

Not so many years ago I remember reading some articles about how “the old world” (“old Europe” included) used to look with some admiration (and at times dismay) at America’s incredible willingness to sit down and resolve problems.  It was even said that “negotiating” solutions was thought of as an invention of those crazy Americans who seemed to believe that any problem could be resolved by ingenuity, creativity, cooperation by not being locked into a “this is the way we always did things” attitude, and by believing that win-win solutions were possible and desirable.  This is the part of America that I would like to see restored to our foreign policy. 

I want Americans to think of this contrast:  Islam does believe it will bring peace to the world by conquering the world and causing everyone to submit to Islam.  Do Americans believe our goal is to force the world to submit to the U.S. as the only means of bringing peace to the world?  I don’t believe we do.  It is one of the reasons that I prefer American values and an American vision to an Islamic one.

In Orthodoxy we pray for the leadership of our country:  “Be mindful, O Lord, of all civil authorities, of our armed forces, of this city in which we reside, and of every city and the countryside; grant them peaceful times, that we, in their tranquility, may lead a calm and peaceful life in all godliness and sanctity.”  Amen.

Israel: Would that You Knew What Makes Peace

Jesus wept as he said to Jerusalem,

“Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace!

But now they are hid from your eyes.”  (Luke 19:42)

My observation of U.S. foreign policy is that there is no such thing among politicians of either major political party of being “too” pro-Israel.  A category such as an “excessive” supporter of Israel does not exist among our politicians.  And often to me our relationship with Israel is one of the tail wagging the dog.  Whereas in Israel, Israelis can use vitriolic criticism against the policies of their country even the policies towards the Palestinians, in America almost any criticism of Israel (no matter how well founded) by a U.S. politician gets labeled as anti-semitic.

This fact is brought to light again in the  12 March 2009 issue of the WASHINGTON POST  12 -   Intelligence Pick Blames ‘Israel Lobby’ for Withdrawal.   The case involves Charles Freeman who stepped away from an appointment as chair of the National Intelligence Council (NIC).  I am not writing to defend Freeman, for I know nothing of his particular case, but want only to make a comment about the campaign that was used to prevent him from accepting his appointment.   As the WASHINGTON POST reports:

The earliest cry of alarm about Freeman’s appointment — a week before it was announced — came from a former AIPAC lobbyist. Steve Rosen wrote Feb. 19 on his blog that Freeman was a “strident critic of Israel” …

It is this last phrase that most caught my attention.   Apparently it is forbidden for any United States politician, intelligence officer, or foreign policy officer to be a strident critic of Israel or maybe more true any kind of critic of Israel.  In other words, all leaders in the American government must conform to some kind of pro-Israel position, whether or not that is in the interest of the United States.  And of course being pro-Israel is a bit hard to define when one looks at the politics in Israel and sees the sharp and oppositional ideas which exist among their own politicians, all who presumably are working for the good of Israel. 

It is not the interest of the U.S. that governs this but the interest of the pro-Israel lobby in America.  And the pro-Israel lobby does not seem to represent all of the diverse political opinions one can find in Israel, but rather demands a particular political view of American politicians.

Most interesting is that many, who claim to be ardent supporters of small government in America, do not see a problem with our government’s vast and expansive financial support of Israel.  Our government is not permitted to be critical of Israel.  The pro-Israel lobby makes sure of that.  However, if we did not have to have an American government large enough to support and supply the Israeli government and the nation of Israel, we might be able to get back to the real principles of limited government in the U.S.

Additionally, if we really are going to support free speech, and if we want influence or help bring peace to the Mideast, we need to have voices in the government which do stridently criticize Israel as well as Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria.  And if our government is ever going to embrace Madison’s principles of republican and limited government, it needs to get out of the business of being responsible for uncritically enforcing and financing the policies of Israel.

Madison on Peace, Conscience, Industry, and National Debt

I began reading earlier this year the collected WRITINGS of  James Madison.  My original interest in him was because some historians think he was the most influential of the Founding Fathers in establishing the relationship between church and state in our country.  Madison wrote copiously on a wide variety of topics, but as I’ve discovered, his comments on religion are few and far between.  Nevertheless, I continue to enjoy reading him, and will offer a few of his thoughts of which I took note.   In 1792, Madison addressed the issue of universal peace, which he thought was a philosopher’s dream but worth hoping for since war is folly.   Madison thought the temptation for a nation to go to war could be curtailed if war could only be declared by the will of the people – not by their government,  and if all the costs of the war were carried by the generation declaring the war – no national debt could be incurred and no taxes raised on future generations to pay for the debt.

“… war should not only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits: but that each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations.”

Madison usually connects religion to the rights of personal conscience – people should be free to act accoring to their own consciences, not according to the dictates of a monarch or a majority.   His desire to protect personal liberty is both rooted in and the justification for individualism.  He, however, also had a very profound sense of the individual being rooted in society.  It is hard to know what he would have made of modern absolute individualism and notions that society has no rights above the individual’s. 

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses.  This being the end (i.e., purpose – my note) of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.  …  Conscience is the most sacred of all property…”

Writing in 1792 at the pre-dawn of England’s Industrial Revolution, Madison took note of how fashion could have a negative effect on the lives of thousands.  The buckle and button manufacturers in Birmingham, England and environs put out of work 20,000 employees, who were thereby made destitute, because fashion had changed and now people were using shoestrings and slippers and no longer using as many buttons and buckles.   The numbers left unemployed give us a sense that that buckle manufacturing was labor intensive work in the day before workers were replaced by machines.  Madison notes that while fashion itself is capricious and therefore an evil, what is worse is that a great many people (the working poor) are dependent for their employment on manufacturing items which another class of people (the wealthy) are not dependent on for their existence.  Madison writes that America is somewhat spared of this dependency on manufacturing unnecessary but fashionable items because it is mostly agrarian in nature.  Madison sees an ever greater danger when one nation becomes dependent for the sale of its manufactured goods on another nation.  He certainly would have been dismayed at 21^st Century global economics, free trade, the automotive industry, and America’s trade deficit due to its addiction to the newest electronic gadgetry.   

Madison was a tireless defender of small government, few taxes, and no public debt.  To him, this was the basis of republicanism and the best way to prevent monarchical government from arising.  Trust the people to govern themselves, not the government to defend their liberties.  He wrote that

“the real FRIENDS to the Union are those,  …  Who are friends to the limited and republican system of government  …. Who considering a public debt as injurious to the interests of the people, and baneful to the virtue of the government, are enemies to every contrivance for unnecessarily increasing its amount, or protracting its duration, or extending its influence.“