Check out this post from Greg Boyd where he argues that even though he is committed to the non-violent way of Christ, he’s not convinced that pulling out of Iraq is not a good idea right now. I love how he points out the ambiguity inherent in a being non-violent Christ-follower who lives in a violent world. I struggle with this tension daily.
BUT, now that we’re there, I’m not convinced we should immediately pull out. Doing so could very well create a bloodbath among warring factions that would make the present on-going bloodbath look like a small puddle. And given the fact that the U.S. helped create this mess, one could argue that we have a responsibility to stay there and try to minimize the damage. Since Iraqi lives are as valuable as U.S. lives, this is no small consideration. (On top of this, one has to consider many other factors, such as how the impression that the mighty U.S. has been defeated might embolden Islamic extremists, etc.)
Now, I could be dead wrong about everything I just said in the previous paragraph. Perhaps there are factors I haven’t given sufficient weight to in my assessment about the U.S. getting into this war and in my assessment of whether we should immediately withdraw from this war. My views do not represent “the Christian position.” But I mention them to illustrate how complex and ambiguous political issues are – especially on an international level.
In politics, a person can sometimes end up supporting something they absolutely despise. A person committed to non-violence could end up believing their nation should stay and fight!
22 responses so far...
The value of a human life is not defined by the geographical boundries of where he lived and died. My youngest nephew will be buried Saturday in Tennessee. He died in Iraq last Friday. Our tears and mourning will be just as those families in Iraq who lose lives daily. May God have mercy on all of us, and help us to find ways to live together in this world.
I have thought often that the war was unnecessary and warranted until…….I am so sorry for James’family and I mourn for the families of all those who have lost loved ones. My own son-in-law is now in the Texas National Guard and now I am not sure how I feel about all this! Makes a hugh difference when you are directly impacted!
I don’t think we can stand by and let others do things to harm, however we have enough problems of our own to stop running around the world trying to “fix” everyone. And we have such a screwed up view of the world and how to “fix” it, certainly mixed up since it does not include Christian values most of the time.
I hate politics and yet I don’t know how our society would exist without it. So…..a big conundrum for sure!
James, you have my prayers for you and your family.
I think sometimes we read between too many lines when it comes to Christ and violence.
I need to admit that I read Boyd’s blog a couple of nights ago and I was disappointed. I usually appreciate his writing, but I’m afraid his logic here turns too many circles and leaves us nowhere (a lot like politics).
Big White Hat,
Would you be willing to flesh out your statement a little more?
You can’t really blame our government for valuing American life above Iraqi or other life. They are elected to protect us and represent us…and honestly it needs to be that way. No other country cares about foreign citizens more than its own either. If they did, they wouldn’t be a sovereign nation for long.
However, to say we don’t view them as valuable is to have lost perspective. Our military is immensely powerful, I would argue it has more destructive power than any group or organization in the world, as far as big booms are concerned. In light of all of this awesome firepower we have, we have been incredibly hesitant to use it. This in and of itself means we value the Iraqi people. If we didn’t, then the country would look more like the surface of the moon than a modern Middle Eastern country.
We have done all we can to limit the damage…I would even argue we do more to prevent casualties to civilians than to our own soldiers. Our guys over there are constantly put in more dangerous situations to help protect innocent life. Is it perfect? Far from it.
Whenever there is war there is rarely black and white, there are always shades of gray. Even when there is a fight clearly defined between good and evil (WWII comes to mind) there are decent people fighting on both sides and severely sadistic people on both sides. In conclusion…war sucks. It is an awful, awful thing and nothing more clearly illustrates the insanity of mankind than when we fight one another in such a violent way.
I choose to not support war unless it is absolutely necessary…I happened to support this one, in light of the current geo-political situation and other things. I respect the sacrifice of our young men and women, and I pray for those who have lost loved ones. James, your family will be in my prayers during your time of grief. I also choose to pray for our enemies and innocent bystanders as well….and I hope God has mercy on us for our violence to each other.
That’s all.
We need to understand that the media shows us what they want us to see and hear. The media has their own agenda. I have talked with troops who have come back from Iraq and they have told me good things that have gone on that the media hasn’t told about. Children being helped and getting an education for the first time. The message of Jesus is being shared with others as well. I even heard of a chaplin digging a baptistry out of dirt and baptizing troops as Iraqi’s who wanted to commit their lives to Jesus’ Christ. Would that happen if Saddom were in power? We need to keep our troops in our prayers. God bless them and keep them safe.
Zac,
I have to disagree with your comment about American lives needing to be more valued than our enemies lives. We live in a broken world yes, but if those who have the power to fix it do nothing, than our fate is truly sealed. Our nation is blessed beyond all other nations in wealth and power. Do we really need to be a soverign nation? Do we honestly need to hender ourselves with the baggage of societies rules? I have to believe that all lives should be valued equally. If we loose sight of this we loose sight of humanity. It doesn’t have to be this way, and there is room for change and improvement in our world. Isn’t our mission as Christ followers all about restoring the world’s humanity and reinstating peace in this reigning chaos? This is long, but I just feel a vocation to defend.
Ali, I don’t think our lives are any more valuable than their lives. I do think our leaders should focus on things from our perspective, however. The really don’t have the power necessary to change the world anyway. Like you said, we do. Let them focus on foreign policy and we will focus on spreading the love and saving power of Christ.
It is no wonder Boyd is confused and feeling a little helpless regarding this matter…he’s an open theist.
In Boyd’s mind, God doesn’t even have it figured out.
An interesting point, Jay. Read some of his blog, and he certainly seems like a deep thinker…but if he thinks that way I am not sure how much credibility he has in my book. Sometimes I think people can be so open minded that their brains fall out.
I recommend letting Boyd define himself rather than letting Jay do it for him. Boyd’s published plenty of stuff on where he’s coming from theologically. Interact with some of that and then decide how much credibility he has.
Sounds good, Wade. I have read several pages back on his blog the last couple of days, and I plan on staying back there. I did get to the open theism point and I hope to learn more about it. What I have read about that specific point, I don’t like. Digging deeper…
My remark was tongue in cheek…kind of.
As for defining him, I don’t think Boyd would argue with me calling him an Open Theist.
And as for credibility, Boyd has painted himself into an heretical corner.
To deny God’s immutability.
To deny God’s sovereignty.
and
To deny God’s omniscience to the point where you confess that God CANNOT know future events…
…this is about as uncredible as it gets.
Has Boyd said some good things outside of his ideas on openness? Yes, of course, but the dude is categorically unorthodox. And since the most important thought you have is what you think about when you think about God (Tozer), the trickle down effect of Boyd’s theology has to influence the way he thinks about things like geo-political skirmishes concerning oil and terror.
Can God create a rock so big that even he can’t lift it?
My understanding of Open Theism (which I semi subscribe to) is that if we believe in the traditional notions of God (omniscient is the biggest) then we have to say that God allows bad things to happen. I absolutely HATE it when people say to families who’ve lost a child “you needed him, but God needed him more”. That’s utter BS.
God has to make it where he doesn’t know what’s going to happen. Otherwise, free will is all an illusion. Really the whole world would be an illusion under those circumstances. We’d just be a figment of God’s imagination.
I’d suggest that you read more about different theologies with an open mind Jay.
Justin, I don’t agree with Open Theism. Not even in the slightest.
I’ll assume that since you are commenting on Wade’s blog that you are in the C of C, or at least have a background with it. And with that, I’ll assume that you subscribe to some form of Wesleyan-Arminianism. Given those assumptions I actually respect you for taking your Arminianism to its logical conclusion.
You may not be right, but at least you are consistent.
But I’m just assuming, and we all know what happens when you ass-u-me.
I’m actually a c of c universalist. which I think is the logical conclusion of studying armenianism and calvinism, and then looking at the bible.
Why don’t you agree with open theism?
Why can’t God be so big in his power that he can know the future completely and still allow us to choose him or not in freedom?
I disagree with your theology, but that question you cited was awful. I don’t care what you believe theologically, if someone says that line to a hurting family that has lost a father, mother, or sibling, they should be truly ashamed. That is not good ministry, and anyone who does it is doing plenty of harm. I think it is a bit misleading on your part to use that as an example of our position.
This thread is probably dead, but I have been gone for a few days, and noticed that Justin had posed a question.
Why don’t I agree with open theism? Well since you are all about going to the bible for your answers, let’s consider a text, and maybe you can see where I am coming from. Regarding Romans 8:28 Boyd (in God of the Possible) writes, “It [the open view] affirms whatever happens, God will work with us to bring a redemptive purpose out of the event.”
Notice two things. First, for Boyd, God does not work “in all things,” as Romans 8:28 says, but he works with us in response to all things. The problem here is Paul never says ‘he works with us’ (though, perhaps, he may); it says HE works in all things to bring about good for us. Second, the surety of the promise is subtley missing in Boyd’s version. Boyd’s claim is merely that God will work with us to bring a redemptive purpose out of the event, but there are no guarantees this will happen. For Boyd, since God must work with us, and since we may or may not cooperate with him, God simply cannot guarantee that he will bring good out of the events in our lives.
Yet, Romans 8:28 is a guarantee; God works in all things for the good of those who love Him. The simple fact is that open theism offers a model that is incompatible with this promise of this text (and hundreds of others).
E.P. Sanders, another open view proponent, would say of this text (in God Who Risks) that sometimes “the purposes of God meet with resistance, and even God does not get what he wants.” This interpretation pays zero attention to the following context in which Paul reinforces the claim of 8:28, that God achieves just what he wants on behalf of the elect–whom he foreknew he predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies. Nothing in the context would suggest that Paul has reservations about whether God will be successful in working all things for the good of his own. In fact, just the opposite is true. The God who gave to them his own Son will not fail to give them all good things (8:32).
So, you have two Open Theists who, in dealing with one of the richest promises of the NT, tell us that God can’t really secure his promises. How is this a better view? How is it even biblical?
So though I don’t agree with the scenario you presented earlier about trite comments made to someone who has lost a child, I also cannot imagine telling those same people, “Well, God may work in this…we’ll just have to wait and see if he makes good on his promises…Good luck.”
Boyd: “Since Iraqi lives are as valuable as U.S. lives, this is no small consideration.”
There certainly are no quick & painless solutions at this point, are there? The quote above is the crux of my greatest frustration with the political debate in Washington over what to do. Far too many people in both the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be operating from a base of fundamental prejudice–that Iraqi lives are somehow less valuable. On the left people say that we should not allow the deaths of Americans for people in another society. On the right the motive is oft given that we should let the terrorists fight on their soil not ours (because it’s OK to disrupt and prematurely end non-US lives?). Both, as I said, smack of foundational thoughts that our lives are more valuable than theirs. And from what I can tell, it’s because we have malls, mini-skirts, and Stern and they don’t.
At any rate, he’s correct that all this leaves us wrangling with some pretty difficult and wrenching matters. In the mean time, soldiers and civilians alike are facing what we haven’t.