Secular Britain was shocked last weekend when Prime Minister Tony Blair said that God would be his judge over the war in Iraq. Similarly, President George W. Bush has often used God to justify the war on terror as a religiously blessed and righteous campaign against “evil doers.” Predictably, those who oppose the war view themselves as secular progressives untainted by religious fundamentalism and the madness it produces.
Unfortunately for liberals, the origins of Bush’s and Blair’s religious convictions lie not within Christianity but rather within the history of Western modernization and, most important, within contemporary liberalism itself.
Religious fundamentalism has often been used to justify extreme political ideologies. Currently both sides of the war on terror legitimate their actions by perverted theological reasoning.
The neo-cons and their acolytes have launched a unilateral pre-emptive conflict, masquerading as a “just war,” with horrendous consequences. In the name of good versus evil, people are being killed, imprisoned and tortured with impunity. Likewise, in a quest to rebuild and expand the imperial Caliphate, Al Qaeda and its henchmen are engaged in a modern variant of jihad: They have removed all traditional Islamic limits on warfare, propagating instead mass civilian death via the suicide of their followers.
The usurpation of the great faiths by secular ideology is not usually recognized. This process has a historical and a contemporary dimension. For all the major monotheistic faiths, their primary historical distortion lies with their utilization for the purposes of state formation and nationalism.
There is nothing new under the sun. Interesting article in The International Herald Tribune via: Religion News Blog I agree with Tony Blair in the sense that God will be his judge, as He is of all of us.
Published 2 years, 8 months ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Sometimes I don’t know how to take you when you get on this track, BD. Are your really that absolutely sure you’re right, and they’re wrong? Absolutely sure? All I can say is, go back and read Romans 1-3. Ask yourself how you’re really any better than those who disagree with you about this topic.
Ever since the Israelites chose Saul over Yahweh in I Samuel 8, the struggle has always been the same. Sure, the Bible tells us that Israel was rejecting God when it rejected Samuel, but if we are truthful with ourselves, would any of US have chosen to stick it out with a prophet/judge who couldn’t keep his own corrupt sons under control?
It’s the same decision we face when the powers that surround us threaten us (and yes, it IS possible to threaten the Great, the Powerful Oz that is the United States of America — pay no attention to that man behind the curtain). Do we have enough faith to sit back and wait for Yahweh to save us? No, and it’s certainly been a long time since anyone else tried either.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, sitting safely ensconced in the United States, said, “I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share in the trials of this time with my people.” And back to Germany he went, abandoning his pacifism and serving the resistance, even to his death, participating in the plot to kill Hitler. If we had continued to sit back and watch the evil in Iraq go on unabated, if we simply choose to do as Tom Fox, refusing to “dehumanize” people who have already dehumanized themselves by their own abandonment of their humanity, then we will have no right to participate in the restoration of a free Iraq when they would have been freed from their oppression.
By all means take it any way you’d like.:^)
I post all kinds of things - discuss freely - that’s what BDBO is here for. I’d hope this blog and it’s posts aren’t perceived as being here just for people to agree with.
Of course it is possible to threaten the US, the fear in your country can’t be iqnored, and the US will chose how to assess that threat and chose how to deal with it, and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it.
I’ll read Romans 1-3, thanks for acknowledging it ‘would be again.’
CPT was able to do what no military or political diplomacy has been able to do and that is unite Christians, Muslims, Iraqis and others to calls to stop kidnapping in Iraq. You are the theological expert, I’m not foolish enough to debate Quaker, Mennonites or Anabaptist practice with you.
If you think he died in vain, that’s fine.
Fox is only one, 350 foreigners have been kidnapped since the US declared war, 39 have been murdered. Thousands of Iraqis have also been kidnapped - we don’t even know the exact numbers or what has happened to most of them.
We are “either with you or with the terrorists”, remember?
Fox and others didn’t/don’t believe they were bound only by market democracy making.
A US journalist is being held, a Canadian Iraq negoitator…
I’ll re-read Romans 1-3, you read Tom Fox’s blog, okay, expert or not.
We sit back and watch the evil in Dufar, the former Congo, Haiti, Nepal, Somalia North Korea, and other counties; Iraq’s tribalism could put it into civil war and the US will be out of there moving on to the next ‘axis of evil’, saying it won, because war has to have winners and losers.
Bush has two countries left to go in his axis; you’ve got the money, the troops and the weapons, the plans and the no one will be able to stop you. Like I said, the US will do whatever it wants, so go do it - but I find it hard to believe you’d expect people to accept US wars because the US actually believes they are about spreading democracy. Nor do I believe most of the world thinks the US is capable of restoration, other than farming contracts out to highly politically connected companies.
I’m not sure of much of anything Mike - except that God loves even those who have ‘dehumanized themselves’ by ‘their own abandoment of their humanity’ and is merciful and longsuffering toward those face long struggles being ‘freed’ from ‘their oppression.’
He has loved me when I have dehumanized myself, abandoned my humanity and dehumanized others and He brought believers into my life to free me from my oppression. I can only go before the cross and pray - Help me Lord to be more conscious of your presence.
Teach me to recognise your presence in others.
Fill my heart with gratitude for the times Your love has been shown to me through the care of others. And I thank God His love has been shown me through your care of me, Mike.
Fox was a restorationist as are most CPT, they are highly trained, if I may be so bold as to ask - by what authority do you question his calling?
You use Romans. Fine.
Let me ask this. In Acts 7, Stephen is what, a niave, irresponsible, delusional tree hugging nut job? His life and final prayer was what? A waste?
Whoa. You add quite a bit in there that I’m not saying, so let me try to address it:
“CPT was able to do what no military or political diplomacy has been able to do and that is unite Christians, Muslims, Iraqis and others to calls to stop kidnapping in Iraq. You are the theological expert, I’m not foolish enough to debate Quaker, Mennonites or Anabaptist practice with you.
If you think he died in vain, that’s fine.”
1. I’m not even close to being a theological expert. I can hold my own with most folks, but what I think I am able to do is ask good questions and spot questionable and/or inconsistent reasoning.
2. I do not think, nor have I ever said Tom Fox died in vain. That would suggest I know the mind of God fully, and I don’t. God is fully capable of making good come of Tom Fox’s death.
3. I’m probably wrong about this, but I question the value of getting a bunch of people together who I suspect already have a similar mindset to agree from different faith perspectives on what ought fundamentally to be an obvious moral position.
“Fox is only one, 350 foreigners have been kidnapped since the US declared war, 39 have been murdered. Thousands of Iraqis have also been kidnapped - we don’t even know the exact numbers or what has happened to most of them.
We are either with you or with the terrorists, remember?”
The blood of several hundred thousand dead, tortured Iraqis cries out from the grave. Whom were YOU for in THAT ethical calculus?
“Fox and others didn’t/don’t believe they were bound only by market democracy making.”
And because I’m not a socialist, that makes my belief in democracy market-driven? How does questioning the wisdom of a particular set of ethical choices lead to subjecting me to such a presumptive ad hominem attack on views I don’t even hold?
“I’ll re-read Romans 1-3, you read Tom Fox’s blog, okay, expert or not.”
Alright. You’re on.
“We sit back and watch the evil in Dufar, the former Congo, Haiti, Nepal, North Korea, and other counties; Iraq’s tribalism could put it into civil war and the US will be out of there moving on to the next ‘axis of evil’, saying it won, because war has to have winners and losers.
Bush has two countries left to go in his axis; you’ve got the money, the troops and the weapons, the plans and the no one will be able to stop you. Like I said, the US will do whatever it wants, so go do it - but I find it hard to believe you’d expect people to accept US wars because the US actually believes they are about spreading democracy. Nor do I believe most of the world thinks the US is capable of restoration, other than farming contracts out to highly connected politically connected companies.”
My biggest beef with the Bush administration right now is that they made such outlandishly irresponsible statements in view of the fact that they had no intention of following through. I would have absolutely no problem with bringing down any of the above governments. Evil is not an all or nothing principle. There are degrees, and the fact that the United States is not morally spotless does not mean that we should be paralyzed from acting in these situations. Only a complete relativist would ask such an inane question as who are we to judge in such a situation. One must ask how we will be judged for having the ability to stop the outrages you mention. One must also ask how the rest of the world will be judged for enabling such moral indifference.
“I’m not sure of much of anything Mike - except that God loves even those who have ‘dehumanized themselves’ by ‘their own abandoment of their humanity’ and is merciful and longsuffering toward those face long struggles being ‘freed’ from ‘their oppression.’
He has loved me when I have dehumanized myself, abandoned my humanity and dehumanized others and He brought believers into my life to free me from my oppression.”
Except that God’s love and God’s mercy so often seem divorced from God’s judgment and God’s justice for so many of us. God manages to hold it all in tension. We, on the other hand, seem to have to pick one or the other.
“Fox was a restorationist as are most CPT, they are highly trained, if I may be so bold as to ask - by what authority do you question his calling?
You use Romans. Fine.
Let me ask this. In Acts, Stephen is what, a niave, irresponsible, tree hugging nut job? His prayer was what? A waste?”
By what authority? I am a part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, as are you, and by virtue of that, I and every member of Christ’s Body has EVERY right and complete authority to question someone else’s calling. In fact, it is our responsibility to exercise such discernment. As for the case of Stephen, is it inconceivable even to question the wisdom of what he did? Is Luke’s point to show Stephen as the example of how we ought to conduct ourselves, or is Stephen a point along the narrative path leading the eventual calling of Paul? Just asking. Is it wrong to ask?
And what exactly makes a “restorationist” any more “highly trained” than a “non-restorationist?” The term can apply to any number of groups who feel that the church has gone off the rails and needs to get back to the basics. Does membership in any number of Churches of Christ make one automatically “highly trained?” Maybe the advantage of a good education, BD, is not so much what you know as a result but that you stand a much better chance of knowing when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I said the article was interesting, I didn’t say it was something to fully agree with. We are having a discussion and I probably did hear more than you said.:^) Thanks for taking time to discuss and clarify.
**1. I’m not even close to being a theological expert. I can hold my own with most folks, but what I think I am able to do is ask good questions and spot questionable and/or inconsistent reasoning.**
You so more than I, and I acknowledge your better reasoning skills and superior education. That’s merely a fact, not a personal put down. Okay, you aren’t a theological expert.:^)
**The blood of several hundred thousand dead, tortured Iraqis cries out from the grave. Whom were YOU for in THAT ethical calculus?**
Indeed they have, as they have from Cambodia,China, Russia, the former Yugoslavia, Dafur, Cuba, El Savador, Chile, Rwanda, Samolia, South Korea, Nepal…
If you look at a list of the genocides of the 20th century,http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html it is estimated 6 hundred thousand people died under Hussiens rule. He is 13th on a list of ruthless, amoral leaders.
He committed genocide, that’s not in moral doubt.
**And because I’m not a socialist, that makes my belief in democracy market-driven? How does questioning the wisdom of a particular set of ethical choices lead to subjecting me to such a presumptive ad hominem attack on views I don’t even hold?**
I don’t want to presume or go on an ad hominim attack…I live in a market driven democracy. I don’t need to presume you believe you live in one.
Having said that, read some of the attacks on Tom Fox from our fellow citizens. Makes anything here we’re puzzling out here look courtly.
**Evil is not an all or nothing principle. There are degrees, and the fact that the United States is not morally spotless does not mean that we should be paralyzed from acting in these situations. Only a complete relativist would ask such an inane question as who are we to judge in such a situation. One must ask how we will be judged for having the ability to stop the outrages you mention. One must also ask how the rest of the world will be judged for enabling such moral indifference.**
Well said! The US has acted, the US believes no one else acts, or is woefully insufficient in their acts, and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. This article was about Blair, and obstensively his adoption of ‘Bush/God’ language. Similar to my react post on Harper the night he won the election. Please remember those of us that live in Australia, the UK, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere don’t want political leaders using God’s name for political fashion and convenience. Some people don’t accept religious rhetorical steps to justify aggression and politics.
So call us socialists if you must, its a convenient label, and that is all it is. Not evoking God as political buddy in every speech doesn’t make people socialists or relativists. An assumption other countries aren’t engaged in moral and humanitarian acts isn’t worth addressing.
**Except that God’s love and God’s mercy so often seem divorced from God’s judgment and God’s justice for so many of us. God manages to hold it all in tension. We, on the other hand, seem to have to pick one or the other.**
Indeed, again, well said - we do. God will not be mocked. I didn’t say or imply otherwise I hope.
**As for the case of Stephen, is it inconceivable even to question the wisdom of what he did? Is Luke’s point to show Stephen as the example of how we ought to conduct ourselves, or is Stephen a point along the narrative path leading the eventual calling of Paul? Just asking. Is it wrong to ask?**
I think it is good to ask - the how of the asking is just as important as the why. Is Tom Fox’s life also a point along a narrative path? Is yours? Mine?
**And what exactly makes a “restorationist” any more “highly trained” than a “non-restorationist?” The term can apply to any number of groups who feel that the church has gone off the rails and needs to get back to the basics. Does membership in any number of Churches of Christ make one automatically “highly trained?”**
I can only point you to the CPT training sites in the UK and US Mike. If I’m in a squabble I don’t understand, I will seek out someone with mediation training, not for the squabble, but for me. They have knowledge and experience I don’t have that I can learn and grow from.
Membership in any number of Churches of Christ makes us disciples, servants. To quote you, we conveniently forget that.
**Maybe the advantage of a good education, BD, is not so much what you know as a result but that you stand a much better chance of knowing when you don’t know what you’re talking about.**
I can’t disagree with most of that, however, acknowledging one does not know what one is talking about does not take a degree, it takes humblenss. The more I learn the less I know. I don’t expect others to be in that place. I don’t expect me to be in that place, I need’s God’s grace to open my eyes to the bleak terribleness of my pride.
Back to the article. It was written by Brits for Brits. It’s historical and analytical, and about two world religions and current leaders. This makes sense:
“Indeed, this is why Blair thinks the invasion of Iraq is consonant with his Christian beliefs: On television he explained, “The only way you can take a decision like that is to do the right thing according to your conscience.” The trouble is that once liberalism has surrendered any belief in objective truths, all personal subjective beliefs become true. Once all things are equally valid, the only way to attain supremacy is through war and power. Thus does liberalism make fundamentalists out of us all.”
The US is mentioned in the article - of course - but I do the writers a disservice in failing to acknowledge who it is directed to.
I believe Spurgeon is supposed to have said once that if a man is on fire for Christ, people will come if for no other reason than to watch him burn. I’m not sure if you and I are solving anything here, but I have noticed a spike on the Sitemeter with referrals from this post. Your readers must be wondering, “Who IS this idiot!”
I’m glad some readers went to your blog and I hope they see what I see - an immensely intelligent and gifted guy working hard, studying hard, and open to discussion. I cannot allow you to call yourself an idiot any more than I can sit by and let people call Mr. Fox and his fellow believers tree-hugging-moon- bats.
I’m really glad you took the time to talk here, it did me good.
I’m seeing Tom Fox being called a traitor, a man they hope burns in hell and all kinds of murderous thoughts spilling out on blogs. I suppose that’s because it’s inconceivable one could be merciful - (observable behaviors of mercy (eleeo/eleemon) of Matthew 5:7) It’s easier to polorize, to lump individuals into categories.
I think too because God is so conveniently tossed around in political conversation we lose who He really is and fail to appreciate people who reject using God and allow Him to use them.
What’s to solve?
This conversation isn’t about winning, it’s about understanding, and I thank you. As CPT members wait in Iraq for Loney, Kember and Sooden, I don’t think their deaths or release will garner the same attention.
I read Romans 1-3 (Amplified) and I saw a man in prison, deeply missing his friends, probably witnessing and experiencing the depravity he lays out so clearly.
Did he wrestle with frustration, discouragement, weariness, hunger, anger, hate?
Was he beaten, in pain and fighting hoplessness?
Paul understood that we reap what we sow, he knew how utterly depraved we are and he addresses our sin, rebellion and missing the mark with clear authority and experience. And even more clearly he shows us the way out as he points us to the sacrifice and glory of Jesus Christ.
I saw God’s mercy, over and over Paul turns back to God’s love, God’s longing that none should perish.
Thank you for pointing me to Hope.
I reject the God of political speeches and expedient justification Mike, no matter what country leader evokes His name, including Stephen Harper.
Sure — you get three chapters of Romans, and I have to go read Tom Fox’s entire blog?
I counted 25 posts at Waiting in the Light, suck it up Murdoch!:^)
http://waitinginthelight.blogspot.com/