Drug war.
Culture war.
War on terror.

The terms have become so much a part of mainstream speech, or the speech of segments of the churched, I wonder if we stop to consider what we are saying and why we say it.
Rev. Mike knows what his hot button issues are, and in attempting to address one, addresses himself first.

Last Thursday, Tim Bednar posted something on his blog that seriously chapped my backside, and I have spent the better part of this weekend trying to think of a way to respond to what he wrote in a manner that challenges what he wrote without tearing him apart. So often that’s what we end up doing in these discussions or even arguments. Even if we have no intention of attacking the person, often the attack on the argument is indistiguishable because we invest so much of our identities in our beliefs.

And that is where attempts to communicate have to start.

I have invested a good measure of my identity as a Christian in general and as a clergyman in particular in the notion that God did not put me in this world to yield a net increase in its level of hate and discontent, to wit, God has given us, among other things, a ministry of reconciliation (II Cor. 5:18). However, as we have so often seen, reconciliation requires us to understand first what separates us, and the process of engaging one another from different perspectives can be extremely time consuming. I think that is why so much of what passes for dialogue today is fatuous — we are unwilling to spend the time it takes to understand one another, and it is so much easier for us to allow our frustration to get the better of us.

I think Mike is going to tackle the identity of the culture wars and the difference between love and tolerance.

Meantime DashHouse muses on an intense two weeks of classroom work.
Things learned that aren’t in the books.

Throw yourself in a room full of individuals, and you’ll find that you like almost everyone after a while. Even people who disagree with you on almost every conceivable point.
Twenty-five people thinking together is a lot better than one person thinking alone.
You can be direct and still be kind.
If you’re too arrogant to do things that aren’t cool, or to cheer on those who aren’t cool, you’re too arrogant.

And Richard Hall is on a major roll as he tackles the language of the war on terrorism. The more I watch Richard attempt to engage some US pundits, the more respect I have for him. He comments on blogs where he is told his opinion is bankrupt, etc. and rises above the common denominator of name calling and labels.
I have noticed that the comments sections at connexions remain quiet under posts such as this, and indeed under most posts.
I’ve wondered if it is because it is difficult for some to look at their language, speak with care and venture from their blog to be received with kindness.
Maybe it’s just easier to stay put and pontificate.

I’m more and more convinced that to use the language of war to describe the struggle against terrorism is not only inappropriate but highly dangerous. I can see why it is attractive, and nothing stirs the blood of the male like the sight and sound of military hardware on the move. Believe me, it’s a guy thing. Declaring war makes us feel like we’re doing something, it identifies a clear enemy and stops us being victims. But this is not a war, at least not in any way that makes real sense.

Blogging is challenging isn’t it?
It can help us define our identity in our beliefs.
I’ve always hoped it could do more, and that is open up the chance to see how big the world is, how diverse we are, and how we can show respect.

The danger of the language of war is precisely that it does tend to lend legitimacy to the targetting, or at least the intimidation, of those who might sympathise with the enemy. Detention without trial, draconian security and the determination for revenge not justice do nothing to improve our security.

Terrorists are not enemy soldiers. Their relatives and neighbours have no place in the sniper’s cross-hair. The proper response to terrorism is detection and prosecution. Calling it a war plays into their hands and legitimizes what they do. In this, I think, the Spanish appear to be setting a good example.

Richard had another post that gave me great pause.

I see blog pundits getting themselves lathered over the Spanish election results. They’re cowards and appeasers, those Spaniards. Voting in a horrid socialist instead of a manly conservative. Shame. Or something like that.

I’m not a pundit, and I haven’t followed Spanish politics. If it hadn’t been for the Madrid bombing, the Spanish elections would barely have registered on my radar. And I venture that they wouldn’t have been even that in the US media. But terrorists struck and it seems pretty clear, though not certain, that the outcome of the election changed as a result.

I’m no pundit either.
And again, I go back to basic questions.
Those of us thousands of miles away would be well served to pause, think, listen, before we hit the keyboard.