Monday, March 31, 2003
Ear-ticklers # 5
The Diplomatic & Mass Media Fronts:
“[Caribbean] Cockroach doan’ business in [global] Fowl fight”?Clipped 03:03:31a
In the clippings below, the Arab League diplomatic/propaganda strategy and the associated media games are exposed. Includes a brief discussion of the underlying clash of civilizations. However, this is also very relevant to the Caribbean, especially Jamaica, which has now been isolated in the region as other Caricom members backed away from making strong remarks on the Iraq war in the UN.
For, as that earthy proverb puts it: cockroach don't business in fowl fight. One would have hoped that Jamaica would have learned from the 1970's that such an unwise cockroach soon becomes fowl food.
But prudence is not the only issue. For the underlying dynamics may be subtler than our local pundits let on. So, please scan the clippings highlighted below.
Even more bluntly, we need to reflect on why we "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." For, it seems we have a history of being systematically in error. Therefore, let us soberly reflect on the quality of our analysis, discussion, deliberation and decision-making.
The underlying themes are:
• The Arab League, in fear of the wave of democratic reform announced by GB as his onward ME policy, are closing ranks to defend one of their own – a fellow tyrant -- by launching a UN offensive.
• The US military strategy, though low in materiel and men, is clearly a breakthrough success, however, if the world opinion can be stirred as Baghdad is subjected to siege, the resulting wave of media-stirred revulsion can amplify the AL’s efforts in the UN, and those of France.
• But, on the contrary, the US strategy, if vigorously carried out, may well lead to exactly the breakthrough envisioned by GB
• Further, it turns out that the Iraqi people, in significant numbers, do in fact see the invasion as an act of liberation and an opening for hope for a real future: they want the war, argues a former peacenik who is an Assyrian Christian based in Japan.
• As of this morning as well, Peter Arnett has been fired by NBC/MSNBC in the aftermath of an Iraq TV interview in which he claimed credit for the antiwar movement in the US and stated that the US strategy is a failure currently being rewritten in the “pause” in the campaign. (One wonders why someone with his track record of false stories and propaganda masquerading as journalism would be again employed by a reputable news organization after he had to be dismissed by CNN for a story in which he falsely alleged that US forces had used nerve gas on its own POWs in Laos, and had reportedly drawn the editorial inference from this that the US was in no position to comment on Iraq and chemical weapons.)
Against this backdrop, it is worrying to see Jamaica again over-punching its weight on the international stage: apparently, only Jamaica, of the Caricom delegation, has issued strong statements in the UN regarding the war, in the face of US warnings. Have we not learned from the 1970’s that cockroach doan’ business in fowl fight? (For, then, we were heavily engaged in cold war rhetoric, on what should have been evident even then was the wrong side of history. And yet, we are currently engaging in support of the arab tyrants and islamists! Is this again a case of “never miss[ing] an opportunity to miss an opportunity”?)
Okay, happy reading.
----------------- HEADLINES ---------------------
March 28, 2003, 8:35 a.m.
Taking Care of League Business
A response to the Arab League at the U.N.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-phares032803.asp
By Walid Phares
Taking the war to the United Nations, the Arab League, this week, has called on the Security Council to stop the U.S.-led operations and withdraw from Iraq. Following an Arab foreign ministers' summit a few days ago, an offensive strategy was put in place on the diplomatic front. Led by Syria, and supported by the hard-core regimes in the region, the move aims at isolating and eventually defeating Washington — in New York . . . .
-------------------------------------
The rightness of America's war
Posted: March 31, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Vox Day
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31790
The italicized section is a half-column from a reader from Arizona, who submitted this under the guidelines of my challenge in January. It's quite good, actually, and my response follows.
Reader's perspective:
Invading Iraq doesn't protect our liberties – it weakens them – permanently. The Apache pilot swore to defend the Constitution, yet serves in an undeclared, unconstitutional war after Congress again shirked its duty . . .
Vox responds:
While I very much agree with the writer's core beliefs, I take issue with his conclusions, which, in my opinion, stem from some flawed assumptions . . . . Islam, from the very beginning, has been a religion of conquest. Modern Islamic terror began in Kashmir after the partition of India, migrated to the West during the French Algerian War in 1954, and has since slaughtered people from the African Sudan to the Zurich airport. America is hated because she is the most powerful part of the Dar-al-Harb, and will be attacked until she either submits to the Dar-ar-Islam or defeats it . . .
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31796
Dead man plotting
Posted: March 31, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Pat Buchanan
. . . Every battle death is a tragedy and a loss. But America is winning this war. Only if you predicted a "cakewalk" is this a quagmire.
Gen. Tommy Franks' war plan is straight out of Clausewitz and MacArthur. In war, said Clausewitz, strike hard at the enemy's center of gravity, be it king, army or capital.
In Iraq, all three are in Baghdad, and Franks sent his Marines and 7th Cav up the Baghdad road on day one . . . . Franks bypassed Basra, Iraq's second city, to head straight for Baghdad . . . . Yet, the great question left is not whether Baghdad falls, but when . . . . For this war is not only being fought on a military front, where Saddam cannot win. It is being fought in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Islamic and European peoples, many of whom violently oppose what they see as U.S. imperialism. Every day that the Iraqi regime and Revolutionary Guard are not broken is a victory for Saddam . . .
------------------------------
The enemy's megaphone
Posted: March 31, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31797
By Tom Marzullo
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise ... Peter Arnett is broadcasting his special brand of ego-driven, anti-American rhetoric from Baghdad once again, having been rehabilitated from his ashes and sackcloth by the "green"-driven National Geographic, and now seconded to the National Broadcasting Corporation.
For those not familiar with the symbol most closely describing the real-politik of the "greens," beyond a doubt, it would have to be the watermelon. A thin patina of green coats the exterior with a slightly bitter, hard, white rind supporting – while inside, it is red solidly to the core.
Yes, I know: Why don't I tell you how I really feel? But if one looks at some of the policy decisions made by the "greens," perhaps some justification might be found for this apparently less-than-charitable assessment . . .
--------------------------------
I Was Wrong!
By Ken Joseph, Jr.
Amman, Jordan
http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm
How do you admit you were wrong? What do you do when you realize those you were defending in fact did not want your defense and wanted something completely different from you and from the world?
This is my story. It will probably upset everybody - those with whom I have fought for peace all my life and those for whom the decision for war comes a bit too fast . . . .
The feeling as I crossed the [Iraqi] border was exhilarating - `home at last, I thought, as I would for the first time visit the land of my forefathers . . . . The first order of business was to attend Church. It was here where my morals were raked over the coals and I was first forced to examine them in the harsh light of reality.
Following a beautiful `Peace` to welcome the Peace Activists in which even the children participated, we moved to the next room to have a simple meal.
Sitting next to me was an older man who carefully began to sound me out. Apparently feeling the freedom to talk in the midst of the mingling crowd he suddenly turned to me and said `There is something you should know.` `What` I asked surprised at the sudden comment.
`We didn't want to be here tonight`. he continued. `When the Priest asked us to gather for a Peace Service we said we didn't want to come`. He said.
`What do you mean` I inquired, confused. `We didn't want to come because we don't want peace` he replied.
`What in the world do you mean?` I asked. `How could you not want peace?` `We don't want peace. We want the war to come` he continued . . .
Saturday, March 22, 2003
Ear Ticklers # 4
Addressing the "Fundamentalism' Debate in Jamaica
CONTEXT: On Jan 29, 2003, a Columnist in the Jamaica Gleaner attacked the dredibility of the NT accounts on the Resurrection of Jesus. I responded in a letter to the Editor that was published on Feb 1st. On Feb 5th, the columnist responded with an attack that was quite unjustified but even then appeared to be calculated on the premise that I was unlikely to have a right of reply. I submitted a response that exposed the response on Feb 7, and shortened it on the 18, hoping this might help. By a week ago, I was in contact with the Editor of the newspaper, ultimately being asked to submit a 400 word article, which I did by Tuesday. To date, even this stands un[published.
Sadly, this is beginning to take oin the dimensions of a major institution in Jamaica forgetting that a newspaper is not just a money-making business. As "the fourth estate," watchdog on public affairs, the media have a long recognised duty to fair play, balance and truth. A newspaper that loses these things loses its soul.
I therefore publish the below reluctantly, but as a public documentation of the pattern of attacks on Evangelical Christian Faith in Jamaica, one that seeks to subvert the very reformation under God that is Jamaica's only hope.
PROPOSED NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SERIES
On the Fundamentalism debate and the road to reformation
GEM 03:03:20c
PART I:
“Fundamentalism” as a Smear-word
If Jamaica’s many teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers and other professionals who are Evangelicals, Adventists, and Pentecostals -- often called “fundamentalists” -- were to vanish “in the twinkling of an eye” our nation would at once collapse in chaos.
Nevertheless, Gleaner columnist Peter Espeut has written that “a sensible person could not honestly continue with Fundamentalism” [Jan 29, 2003], and that he believes that “religious fundamentalism is an obstacle to solving several of Jamaica's social problems” [Jan. 13, 2001.]
In a similar vein, Rev. Rod Hewitt commented on the 9/11 tragedy as follows:
The human tragedy in USA has also served to bring into sharp focus the use of terror by religious fanatics/fundamentalists. Fundamentalism or fundamentalists are terms that are applicable to every extreme conservative in every religious system . . . . During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of these faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith . . . They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals. [Gleaner, Sept. 26, 2001, italics added.]
Clearly, “fundamentalism” is often used as an attack-word, one that is heavily loaded with quite serious accusations. Rev. Hewitt has stated some of these in a Jan. 1st 2003 Gleaner article:
The USA and its local allies . . . sought to empower the younger churches that have been planted by missionaries from the USA conservative 'Bible Belt' region. The high number of new denominations that were incorporated in Jamaica during the 1980s speaks volume to this perspective.
Some of these younger churches . . . were empowered . . . to counter the influence of liberation theology with a traditional fundamentalist theology . . . . many of the younger churches saw their fight/struggle with the older churches as saving the true church from 'a serious heresy/error' in which leaders were making too many concessions to the secular world and its godless ideology of socialism and the rationalising influences . . . They unleashed the religious version of capitalism with its emphasis on rampant individualism, innovative worship and being prosperous at all cost.
The phenomenal rise in charismatic and newer forms of evangelical churches saw some church leaders functioning like TV stars . . . Salvation became totally privatised. Christ came to change individuals without similar emphasis being invested in salvation of the community.
Here, we see that the younger –- so-called “fundamentalist” –- churches in Jamaica are those that by and large appear on Rev. Devon Dick’s list of recently incorporated churches, especially those that view the Bible as the Word of God, which thus reveals His unlimited love, power, purity, knowledge and truth.
Many of these “younger churches” are also accused of betraying Jamaica by allying themselves to US political interests and Government agendas. They are further accused of blocking nation-building by emphasizing the individual rather than the community, and by accusing the leaders of the “older churches” of drifting into rationalistic heresy and socialist ideologies.
But, are these accusations fair?
First, given the large number of educated people of the highest integrity and discernment that are members of these “younger churches” Mr Espeut’s “ignoramus” claims simply fail the common sense test. For, the required conspiracy to conceal the truth would immediately fall apart due to multitudes of whistleblowers.
Similarly, while some church leaders have clearly uncritically embraced individualism, material prosperity and associated political agendas (and have often been strongly rebuked by other Evangelical leaders for this), there is a vast gulf between having particular theological views and betraying Jamaica or being a violent fanatic.
Moreover, the Berlin Wall fell and the Socialist Bloc of countries disintegrated at the turn of the 1990’s. It then became all too evident that in a high-tech world driven by innovation, sustainable economic development and the material upliftment of the masses are critically dependent on market-based economic mechanisms. Thus, even officially Communist countries such as China and Cuba emphasise the vital role of markets and innovative entrepreneurs in economic growth.
So, it is fair comment to call for an immediate toning down of over-heated rhetoric.
Then, Jamaica’s “older” and “younger” churches can sit down to productive dialogue and partnership on matters of Faith and praxis, as we seek to bring the blessings of the gospel to the wider community.
PART II:
The key issue: Approaches to the Bible
Last time, by making a brief survey of some recent commentary in the media, we highlighted the liberationist/evangelical divide in the church. Since some of the rhetoric used is overheated, we called for toning down the voltage and for dialogue.
However, the first challenge faced by any such dialogue will be attitudes to the Bible, and how to one approaches understanding and putting it to work in our lives and communities.
For example, Deacon Espeut most recently writes: “[b]y promoting simple-minded approaches to the Bible, fundamentalists avoid coming to grips with God's deep and challenging message of liberation” [Gleaner, Jan. 29, 2003], and that: “[f]undamentalists take everything literally - except where Jesus says: ‘This is my body’, and ‘This is the cup of my blood’.” [Feb. 5th]
But surely, this example actually shows how Evangelicals etc. know that “poetic language, imagery, context and other relevant factors must be reckoned with before one can conclude as to what any text (biblical or otherwise) affirms or denies.” [“Serious misrepresentations, Deacon Espeut,” Gleaner, Feb 1 2003: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20030201/letters/letters3.html]
Mr Espeut also believes that -- as perhaps the prime example of the “thousands” of contradictions in the Bible -- the Gospel writers’ reports of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory that they “would be thrown out of court.” [Gleaner, Jan. 29 2003.]
He thus shows the key defects in his concept that biblical teachings are theologically true, but may at the same time be riddled with contradictions, historically inaccurate and scientifically false.
For, as the Apostle Paul pointed out in his epochal Mars Hill speech: “[God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” [Acts 17:30 – 31.] Luke amplifies the thought: “After his suffering, [Jesus] showed himself to [the Apostles] and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days . . . eating with them.” [Acts 1:3 – 4.]
Clearly, if the Gospel writers are so dubious as witnesses they would be thrown out of court, then it could hardly be properly said that Jesus showed himself physically alive after his death and burial by “many convincing proofs,” or that God has given proof to all men that he will one day judge the nations by raising Jesus from the dead!
But also, are the resurrection accounts as contradictory as the Deacon asserts?
Actually -- and as Rev. Chisholm has already pointed out [Love Herald, Feb 21 – 28, 2003, p. 22] -- no:
• First, the reports do not really differ as to time of day. Once we realize that erchomai -- the Greek for go/come/return -- is used in all four Gospels for the early morning trip to the tomb, we easily see that a group of women came together from Bethany and Jerusalem, and set out for Jesus' tomb as the new day was dawning. [Cf http://members.christhost.com/kairosfocus/1st_Easter_Timeline.doc.]
• From Luke 8:1 – 3 etc., this same support-group of women can be traced all the way back to Galilee.
• In Matt 28:2, the Narrator uses “behold” to call the reader’s attention to an event that made the tomb GUARDS – not the women -- freeze in fear. Had the women been present, they would surely have fled in terror, seeking reinforcements!
• When the women entered the now open tomb, they were met by two initially seated angels, who stood up to address them.
• One of these angels acted as spokesman. [Similarly, in John 20:1 – 2 “we” shows how a biblical Narrator sometimes spotlights one person when others are present.]
• Mark 16:7 does NOT say the angel "told [the women] to tell no one," but instead "go, tell his disciples and Peter...."
• Finally, Matthew 28:8 concurs with Mark 16:8 that the women first trembled with fear. So, the accounts see a temporarily silent group of terrified women, who then took heart with rising joy and ran to tell the disciples the ever-good news of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.
So, as New Testament Scholar Dr. John Wenham aptly summarises:
Conclusions [of many contemporary theologians] are the result of a long process of critical study whereby the authority of parts of the gospel text has been eroded bit by bit till nothing dependable is left. The end result is a downgrading of the canonical gospels which may ultimately put them in the category of Christian romances or merely on a level with the Gnostic gospels. This means an abandonment of the belief that the gospel-writers were competent witnesses of the events they relate. But to depart from this belief is to depart from historic Christianity into something quite other. If, however, it can be shown at the point where the evangelists are thought to be most at sixes and sevens that their accounts can be reconciled in detail and without strain, it suggests that much of the modern critical structure is on the wrong lines, and indeed that the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ saw to it that the church had a trustworthy record of that tremendous happening. [Easter Enigma, pp. 11 – 12.]
Perhaps, we can begin our dialogue on the road to reformation with a suitably high degree of confidence in the Gospels and the other Christian Scriptures.
PART III
The Debate: “Fundamentalists” and Modernists/Liberals
Rev. Rod Hewitt, in a recent Gleaner article, claims:
Fundamentalism or fundamentalists are terms that are applicable to every extreme conservative in every religious system . . . . During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of these faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith. The conservative apologists of these religions have sought to roll back the impact of the theories of evolution, rationalism and textual criticism that they claim seek to erode the divine authority and 'certainties' of their faiths. They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals. [Gleaner, Sept. 26, 2001, italics added.]
Thus, he provides a liberal/liberationist perspective on the roots of the modernist/fundamentalist debate of the early twentieth century. The Evangelical spokesman Chuck Colson, in his recent book -- The Body, provides a few balancing words:
'Fundamentalism' is really akin to [C S] Lewis's 'mere Christianity' discussed earlier, or the rules of faith in the early church; it means adherence to the fundamental facts - in this case, the fundamental facts of Christianity. It is a term that was once a badge of honour, and we should reclaim it.
At the end of the nineteenth century, evolution and the new higher biblical criticism began to challenge biblical authority. This assault affected even great theological institutions such as Princeton Seminary, which, though once orthodox, began questioning fundamental doctrines such as the Virgin Birth and inerrancy of Scripture. Meanwhile, a lively social gospel was also surfacing. Strong in good intentions, it was weak in biblical doctrine and orthodoxy.
So a group of theologians, pastors and laypeople published a series of volumes titled "The Fundamentals". Published between 1910 and 1915, these booklets defined what had been the non-negotiables of the faith since the Apostles' Creed:
1. the infallibility of Scripture
2. the deity of Christ
3. the Virgin Birth and miracles of Christ
4. Christ's substitutionary death
5. Christ's physical resurrection and eventual return.
These were then, as they are today, the backbone of orthodox Christianity. If a fundamentalist is a person who affirms these truths, then there are fundamentalists in every denomination - Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Episcopal .... Everyone who believes in the orthodox truths about Jesus Christ - in short, every Christian - is a fundamentalist. And we should not shrink from the term nor allow the secular world to distort its meaning. [pp. 185 -6]
Quite a contrast!
However, we can identify the main fault-lines. First, we must reckon with the impact of evolutionary materialism (the atheistic philosophy often adopted by those who accept Darwin’s picture of the origin of life on earth) and rationalist Bible criticism based on the rejection of the idea that the Bible is based on the self-revelation of a miracle-working Creator God. Depending on their estimation of these atheistic philosophies and associated scientific, historical and theological theories, Christians came down on opposite sides of the resulting controversy in the church as the Twentieth Century dawned.
An inspection of The Fundamentals [cf. http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/index.html], the book produced between 1910 and 1915 by the theologians who viewed modernism as apostasy – including famous Christian thinkers and leaders such as R. A Torrey, B. B. Warfield and G. Machen – shows that they raised many of the same questions that still lead many thoughtful Christians today to conclude that modernist/liberal thinking is flawed at its very roots.
They were especially concerned about:
• The Documentary Hypothesis, which used concepts of the alleged evolution of religious thought to dismiss the idea that Moses could have written the first five books of the Bible.
• The underlying rejection of the biblical view that God acts supernaturally in creation, redemption, healing, prophecy and judgement, which owes more to debatable atheistic philosophies and skeptical assumptions than to established facts.
• The late dating and undermining of the historical credibility of the Gospels and other New Testament books, for instance on the assumption that since real prophecy is impossible, Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple must have been written after 70 AD.
• The danger they perceived, that the church as a whole would be subverted from its historic core beliefs and commitments under the impact of Darwinian theories and rationalistic biblical criticism.
The “Fundamentalists” lost the resulting power struggle in the 1920’s, and there was a parting of ways in the more established churches, on terms that as a rule were quite bitter. The Scopes Monkey Trial and scathing reporting by journalists such as H. L. Mecken then cemented the popular view that “fundies” were crazy ignoramuses. (This bitterness often has a lingering impact on both popular and even academic level discussion.)
However, as the twentieth century continued, there was a resurgence of serious conservative theology and vibrant Evangelical Faith. This was especially seen through the impact of Billy Graham’s evangelistic ministry, the rise of John Stott, Canon Michael Green and many other Evangelical thinkers, as well as the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal. Indeed, the immediate past Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, is not only a noted theologian, but also both an Evangelical and a Charismatic.
Moreover, this is a time when millions around the world have personally experienced God’s miraculous, life- and community- transforming power through the saving, healing and liberating impact of the gospel. As a direct result, atheistic philosophies that deny the possibility of such miracles have much less impact now than they did a hundred years ago. The New Testament’s world view is therefore far more credible today than it was for many educated people a hundred years ago.
So, over the past thirty years the centre of gravity of the church in Jamaica has quite decisively shifted to the Evangelicals, Charismatics, Adventists and Pentecostals. This is what Devon Dick’s now-famous list of newly registered churches highlights, and it is this trend that clearly worries the liberationist thinkers who have dominated theological thinking in the more traditional churches in Jamaica over the past several decades.
The material question, then, is how will these “younger churches” engage the responsibilities of reformation leadership that now flow from their emerging dominance of Jamaica’s religious landscape?
Part IV
Evangelicals and Reformation
In his Nov. 26, 2002 column, “A Christian Boom,” the Jewish Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes begins:
Which of the world's largest faiths, Christianity or Islam, is experiencing the greater ideological reassertion and demographic surge?
"Islam" is surely nearly everyone's answer. As American Christians experiment with ever-milder versions of their faith, Muslims display a fervor for extreme interpretations of Islam. As Europe suffers the lowest population growth rates ever recorded, Muslim countries have some of the highest.
But, argues Philip Jenkins recently in the Atlantic Monthly [http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm], Islam is the wrong answer. He shows how Christianity is the religion currently undergoing the most basic rethinking and the largest increase in adherents. He makes a good case for its militancy most affecting the next century. [URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/979]
Clearly, the battle for the soul of Christianity that has marked the modernist/”fundamentalist” controversy over the past hundred years is fraught with implications for the century ahead. For, it is clear that we can make out the outlines of a three-cornered contest for global supremacy among three competing world-views: (1) the still dominant Western secularism (including its step-children, liberal and liberation theologies), (2) Islam and (3) what we may call the rising Southern Christian Reformation.
So, as we look at the current struggle between the West and Islam, and as we also see how islamists have been in conflict with Christians in places as diverse as Indonesia, Sudan and Nigeria, we can see that our region is a geo-strategic focal point of the emerging global worldviews contest. (The ongoing effort of Dr Sultana Afroz, an Islamic historian based in UWI’s History Department, to propose an alternative, Islamic view of Jamaica’s historical roots further underscores the point.)
But, if the Evangelicals are emerging as the dominant stream of the Christian Faith in Jamaica, where will they take Christianity in Jamaica?
This brings the question of reformation to the fore. In turn, that brings to focus the Northern Reformation of five hundred years ago, and its key theme: Sola Scriptura.
For history records that in the barbarous Dark Ages the people were systematically kept from having the Bible in their own language. But the sacrifices of martyrs such as Tyndale -- betrayed and burned at the stake in 1536 for the “crime” of translating the Bible into English -- unleashed the force of the gospel by putting the Bible and its message in the hands of the people. This led to centuries of reformation and liberation, as ordinary people stood up for conscience, for freedom, and to end age-old social injustices: despotic tyranny; wars of conquest; colonialism and slavery; child labour; barbaric prison conditions; the oppression of women.
And that is exactly what we should expect, given the redemptive, positive, life-transforming focus of the gospel. Therefore, let us take heart and move on from over-heated, polarised debates to the real ministry of the church: saving souls, transforming lives and reforming and blessing communities as we re-build our nation under God.
PART V
The Gospel: the Road to Reformation
Back in the early 1970’s, the old Caribbean Contact newspaper once had a Spanish-language cartoon, in which Cuban President Fidel Castro had a brief chat with a priest:
Fidel: “Christianity is liberation!”
Priest: “Yes, but of the soul.”
That cartoon retort is revealing. For, the key point at issue is not whether the region needs to find a way to break through to true freedom while sustainably meeting the needs of this and future generations. Rather, it is about what that “liberation” means, what it requires, and how it may best be achieved.
Here, the evangelical contention may be summed up in two key ideas. First, as the Psalmist observes, “except the Lord builds the house, the builders labour in vain.” That is, godliness and commitment to righteousness are non-negotiables.
Second, evangelicals point out an often-repeated pattern in the church’s history: souls are saved, minds are renewed and lives are transformed through the gospel; then as revival spreads, communities and institutions (which are abstract, soul-less entities) are reformed and transformed.
For instance, there is a former East Kingston gunman who miraculously came to Christ in the Gun Court through the preaching of a prison evangelist. So, he changed from making breakout plans to implementing education programmes for the prisoners; eventually becoming a student at CAST in the mid 1980’s. He went on to spend two years in full-time ministry, and has subsequently become a practising professional in his field of studies and a happily married family man.
This story can be multiplied many times over: converted people who are supported through the discipling ministry of the church go on to lead transformed lives that benefit and bless society. In the immortal words of the Apostle Paul:
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully . . . "In your anger do not sin" . . . He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up . . . [Eph. 4:22 – 29, NIV.]
Does this mean that Christians can afford to ignore the burning social, cultural, economic and political issues in the wider society?
No. For, as the Apostle also writes:
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things . . . by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. [Col. 1:15 – 20.]
Simply put: “all” means all. So, if “all things” were created by and for Christ, who therefore came in love into this sin-blighted world to redeem it and reconcile to himself “all things,” then there literally can be no sphere of life that does not fall under his supremacy through the redemptive and reforming power of the gospel. Specifically, that includes politics and government, as well as all the spheres of life: family, education, business, arts, entertainment, sports, culture . . .
In short, those who would isolate the gospel and godliness from the affairs of day to day life at once deny the Lordship of Christ, and fall into deepest heresy.
Does that mean we should rush out and form a “Party of God” and impose righteousness by force, as once the Puritans tried in England?
Obviously not. But it does mean that we must think through how the gospel speaks into each facet of life and community, then develop our capacity to help our nation come to a godly democratic consensus about the way forward in this challenging new century.
Last but not least, it means we must labour with God to bring his blessings to Jamaica through Christ “[who] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the ethne [i.e. nations] through Christ Jesus.” [Gal. 3:14a.]
According to the Old Testament, that blessing includes many things currently in short supply -- especially solid family life, godly abundance in a bountiful land, an orderly and just society, deliverance from oppression, and Divine protection from enemies.
Let’s roll!
Addressing the "Fundamentalism' Debate in Jamaica
CONTEXT: On Jan 29, 2003, a Columnist in the Jamaica Gleaner attacked the dredibility of the NT accounts on the Resurrection of Jesus. I responded in a letter to the Editor that was published on Feb 1st. On Feb 5th, the columnist responded with an attack that was quite unjustified but even then appeared to be calculated on the premise that I was unlikely to have a right of reply. I submitted a response that exposed the response on Feb 7, and shortened it on the 18, hoping this might help. By a week ago, I was in contact with the Editor of the newspaper, ultimately being asked to submit a 400 word article, which I did by Tuesday. To date, even this stands un[published.
Sadly, this is beginning to take oin the dimensions of a major institution in Jamaica forgetting that a newspaper is not just a money-making business. As "the fourth estate," watchdog on public affairs, the media have a long recognised duty to fair play, balance and truth. A newspaper that loses these things loses its soul.
I therefore publish the below reluctantly, but as a public documentation of the pattern of attacks on Evangelical Christian Faith in Jamaica, one that seeks to subvert the very reformation under God that is Jamaica's only hope.
PROPOSED NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SERIES
On the Fundamentalism debate and the road to reformation
GEM 03:03:20c
PART I:
“Fundamentalism” as a Smear-word
If Jamaica’s many teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers and other professionals who are Evangelicals, Adventists, and Pentecostals -- often called “fundamentalists” -- were to vanish “in the twinkling of an eye” our nation would at once collapse in chaos.
Nevertheless, Gleaner columnist Peter Espeut has written that “a sensible person could not honestly continue with Fundamentalism” [Jan 29, 2003], and that he believes that “religious fundamentalism is an obstacle to solving several of Jamaica's social problems” [Jan. 13, 2001.]
In a similar vein, Rev. Rod Hewitt commented on the 9/11 tragedy as follows:
The human tragedy in USA has also served to bring into sharp focus the use of terror by religious fanatics/fundamentalists. Fundamentalism or fundamentalists are terms that are applicable to every extreme conservative in every religious system . . . . During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of these faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith . . . They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals. [Gleaner, Sept. 26, 2001, italics added.]
Clearly, “fundamentalism” is often used as an attack-word, one that is heavily loaded with quite serious accusations. Rev. Hewitt has stated some of these in a Jan. 1st 2003 Gleaner article:
The USA and its local allies . . . sought to empower the younger churches that have been planted by missionaries from the USA conservative 'Bible Belt' region. The high number of new denominations that were incorporated in Jamaica during the 1980s speaks volume to this perspective.
Some of these younger churches . . . were empowered . . . to counter the influence of liberation theology with a traditional fundamentalist theology . . . . many of the younger churches saw their fight/struggle with the older churches as saving the true church from 'a serious heresy/error' in which leaders were making too many concessions to the secular world and its godless ideology of socialism and the rationalising influences . . . They unleashed the religious version of capitalism with its emphasis on rampant individualism, innovative worship and being prosperous at all cost.
The phenomenal rise in charismatic and newer forms of evangelical churches saw some church leaders functioning like TV stars . . . Salvation became totally privatised. Christ came to change individuals without similar emphasis being invested in salvation of the community.
Here, we see that the younger –- so-called “fundamentalist” –- churches in Jamaica are those that by and large appear on Rev. Devon Dick’s list of recently incorporated churches, especially those that view the Bible as the Word of God, which thus reveals His unlimited love, power, purity, knowledge and truth.
Many of these “younger churches” are also accused of betraying Jamaica by allying themselves to US political interests and Government agendas. They are further accused of blocking nation-building by emphasizing the individual rather than the community, and by accusing the leaders of the “older churches” of drifting into rationalistic heresy and socialist ideologies.
But, are these accusations fair?
First, given the large number of educated people of the highest integrity and discernment that are members of these “younger churches” Mr Espeut’s “ignoramus” claims simply fail the common sense test. For, the required conspiracy to conceal the truth would immediately fall apart due to multitudes of whistleblowers.
Similarly, while some church leaders have clearly uncritically embraced individualism, material prosperity and associated political agendas (and have often been strongly rebuked by other Evangelical leaders for this), there is a vast gulf between having particular theological views and betraying Jamaica or being a violent fanatic.
Moreover, the Berlin Wall fell and the Socialist Bloc of countries disintegrated at the turn of the 1990’s. It then became all too evident that in a high-tech world driven by innovation, sustainable economic development and the material upliftment of the masses are critically dependent on market-based economic mechanisms. Thus, even officially Communist countries such as China and Cuba emphasise the vital role of markets and innovative entrepreneurs in economic growth.
So, it is fair comment to call for an immediate toning down of over-heated rhetoric.
Then, Jamaica’s “older” and “younger” churches can sit down to productive dialogue and partnership on matters of Faith and praxis, as we seek to bring the blessings of the gospel to the wider community.
PART II:
The key issue: Approaches to the Bible
Last time, by making a brief survey of some recent commentary in the media, we highlighted the liberationist/evangelical divide in the church. Since some of the rhetoric used is overheated, we called for toning down the voltage and for dialogue.
However, the first challenge faced by any such dialogue will be attitudes to the Bible, and how to one approaches understanding and putting it to work in our lives and communities.
For example, Deacon Espeut most recently writes: “[b]y promoting simple-minded approaches to the Bible, fundamentalists avoid coming to grips with God's deep and challenging message of liberation” [Gleaner, Jan. 29, 2003], and that: “[f]undamentalists take everything literally - except where Jesus says: ‘This is my body’, and ‘This is the cup of my blood’.” [Feb. 5th]
But surely, this example actually shows how Evangelicals etc. know that “poetic language, imagery, context and other relevant factors must be reckoned with before one can conclude as to what any text (biblical or otherwise) affirms or denies.” [“Serious misrepresentations, Deacon Espeut,” Gleaner, Feb 1 2003: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20030201/letters/letters3.html]
Mr Espeut also believes that -- as perhaps the prime example of the “thousands” of contradictions in the Bible -- the Gospel writers’ reports of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory that they “would be thrown out of court.” [Gleaner, Jan. 29 2003.]
He thus shows the key defects in his concept that biblical teachings are theologically true, but may at the same time be riddled with contradictions, historically inaccurate and scientifically false.
For, as the Apostle Paul pointed out in his epochal Mars Hill speech: “[God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” [Acts 17:30 – 31.] Luke amplifies the thought: “After his suffering, [Jesus] showed himself to [the Apostles] and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days . . . eating with them.” [Acts 1:3 – 4.]
Clearly, if the Gospel writers are so dubious as witnesses they would be thrown out of court, then it could hardly be properly said that Jesus showed himself physically alive after his death and burial by “many convincing proofs,” or that God has given proof to all men that he will one day judge the nations by raising Jesus from the dead!
But also, are the resurrection accounts as contradictory as the Deacon asserts?
Actually -- and as Rev. Chisholm has already pointed out [Love Herald, Feb 21 – 28, 2003, p. 22] -- no:
• First, the reports do not really differ as to time of day. Once we realize that erchomai -- the Greek for go/come/return -- is used in all four Gospels for the early morning trip to the tomb, we easily see that a group of women came together from Bethany and Jerusalem, and set out for Jesus' tomb as the new day was dawning. [Cf http://members.christhost.com/kairosfocus/1st_Easter_Timeline.doc.]
• From Luke 8:1 – 3 etc., this same support-group of women can be traced all the way back to Galilee.
• In Matt 28:2, the Narrator uses “behold” to call the reader’s attention to an event that made the tomb GUARDS – not the women -- freeze in fear. Had the women been present, they would surely have fled in terror, seeking reinforcements!
• When the women entered the now open tomb, they were met by two initially seated angels, who stood up to address them.
• One of these angels acted as spokesman. [Similarly, in John 20:1 – 2 “we” shows how a biblical Narrator sometimes spotlights one person when others are present.]
• Mark 16:7 does NOT say the angel "told [the women] to tell no one," but instead "go, tell his disciples and Peter...."
• Finally, Matthew 28:8 concurs with Mark 16:8 that the women first trembled with fear. So, the accounts see a temporarily silent group of terrified women, who then took heart with rising joy and ran to tell the disciples the ever-good news of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.
So, as New Testament Scholar Dr. John Wenham aptly summarises:
Conclusions [of many contemporary theologians] are the result of a long process of critical study whereby the authority of parts of the gospel text has been eroded bit by bit till nothing dependable is left. The end result is a downgrading of the canonical gospels which may ultimately put them in the category of Christian romances or merely on a level with the Gnostic gospels. This means an abandonment of the belief that the gospel-writers were competent witnesses of the events they relate. But to depart from this belief is to depart from historic Christianity into something quite other. If, however, it can be shown at the point where the evangelists are thought to be most at sixes and sevens that their accounts can be reconciled in detail and without strain, it suggests that much of the modern critical structure is on the wrong lines, and indeed that the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ saw to it that the church had a trustworthy record of that tremendous happening. [Easter Enigma, pp. 11 – 12.]
Perhaps, we can begin our dialogue on the road to reformation with a suitably high degree of confidence in the Gospels and the other Christian Scriptures.
PART III
The Debate: “Fundamentalists” and Modernists/Liberals
Rev. Rod Hewitt, in a recent Gleaner article, claims:
Fundamentalism or fundamentalists are terms that are applicable to every extreme conservative in every religious system . . . . During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of these faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith. The conservative apologists of these religions have sought to roll back the impact of the theories of evolution, rationalism and textual criticism that they claim seek to erode the divine authority and 'certainties' of their faiths. They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals. [Gleaner, Sept. 26, 2001, italics added.]
Thus, he provides a liberal/liberationist perspective on the roots of the modernist/fundamentalist debate of the early twentieth century. The Evangelical spokesman Chuck Colson, in his recent book -- The Body, provides a few balancing words:
'Fundamentalism' is really akin to [C S] Lewis's 'mere Christianity' discussed earlier, or the rules of faith in the early church; it means adherence to the fundamental facts - in this case, the fundamental facts of Christianity. It is a term that was once a badge of honour, and we should reclaim it.
At the end of the nineteenth century, evolution and the new higher biblical criticism began to challenge biblical authority. This assault affected even great theological institutions such as Princeton Seminary, which, though once orthodox, began questioning fundamental doctrines such as the Virgin Birth and inerrancy of Scripture. Meanwhile, a lively social gospel was also surfacing. Strong in good intentions, it was weak in biblical doctrine and orthodoxy.
So a group of theologians, pastors and laypeople published a series of volumes titled "The Fundamentals". Published between 1910 and 1915, these booklets defined what had been the non-negotiables of the faith since the Apostles' Creed:
1. the infallibility of Scripture
2. the deity of Christ
3. the Virgin Birth and miracles of Christ
4. Christ's substitutionary death
5. Christ's physical resurrection and eventual return.
These were then, as they are today, the backbone of orthodox Christianity. If a fundamentalist is a person who affirms these truths, then there are fundamentalists in every denomination - Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Episcopal .... Everyone who believes in the orthodox truths about Jesus Christ - in short, every Christian - is a fundamentalist. And we should not shrink from the term nor allow the secular world to distort its meaning. [pp. 185 -6]
Quite a contrast!
However, we can identify the main fault-lines. First, we must reckon with the impact of evolutionary materialism (the atheistic philosophy often adopted by those who accept Darwin’s picture of the origin of life on earth) and rationalist Bible criticism based on the rejection of the idea that the Bible is based on the self-revelation of a miracle-working Creator God. Depending on their estimation of these atheistic philosophies and associated scientific, historical and theological theories, Christians came down on opposite sides of the resulting controversy in the church as the Twentieth Century dawned.
An inspection of The Fundamentals [cf. http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/index.html], the book produced between 1910 and 1915 by the theologians who viewed modernism as apostasy – including famous Christian thinkers and leaders such as R. A Torrey, B. B. Warfield and G. Machen – shows that they raised many of the same questions that still lead many thoughtful Christians today to conclude that modernist/liberal thinking is flawed at its very roots.
They were especially concerned about:
• The Documentary Hypothesis, which used concepts of the alleged evolution of religious thought to dismiss the idea that Moses could have written the first five books of the Bible.
• The underlying rejection of the biblical view that God acts supernaturally in creation, redemption, healing, prophecy and judgement, which owes more to debatable atheistic philosophies and skeptical assumptions than to established facts.
• The late dating and undermining of the historical credibility of the Gospels and other New Testament books, for instance on the assumption that since real prophecy is impossible, Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple must have been written after 70 AD.
• The danger they perceived, that the church as a whole would be subverted from its historic core beliefs and commitments under the impact of Darwinian theories and rationalistic biblical criticism.
The “Fundamentalists” lost the resulting power struggle in the 1920’s, and there was a parting of ways in the more established churches, on terms that as a rule were quite bitter. The Scopes Monkey Trial and scathing reporting by journalists such as H. L. Mecken then cemented the popular view that “fundies” were crazy ignoramuses. (This bitterness often has a lingering impact on both popular and even academic level discussion.)
However, as the twentieth century continued, there was a resurgence of serious conservative theology and vibrant Evangelical Faith. This was especially seen through the impact of Billy Graham’s evangelistic ministry, the rise of John Stott, Canon Michael Green and many other Evangelical thinkers, as well as the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal. Indeed, the immediate past Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, is not only a noted theologian, but also both an Evangelical and a Charismatic.
Moreover, this is a time when millions around the world have personally experienced God’s miraculous, life- and community- transforming power through the saving, healing and liberating impact of the gospel. As a direct result, atheistic philosophies that deny the possibility of such miracles have much less impact now than they did a hundred years ago. The New Testament’s world view is therefore far more credible today than it was for many educated people a hundred years ago.
So, over the past thirty years the centre of gravity of the church in Jamaica has quite decisively shifted to the Evangelicals, Charismatics, Adventists and Pentecostals. This is what Devon Dick’s now-famous list of newly registered churches highlights, and it is this trend that clearly worries the liberationist thinkers who have dominated theological thinking in the more traditional churches in Jamaica over the past several decades.
The material question, then, is how will these “younger churches” engage the responsibilities of reformation leadership that now flow from their emerging dominance of Jamaica’s religious landscape?
Part IV
Evangelicals and Reformation
In his Nov. 26, 2002 column, “A Christian Boom,” the Jewish Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes begins:
Which of the world's largest faiths, Christianity or Islam, is experiencing the greater ideological reassertion and demographic surge?
"Islam" is surely nearly everyone's answer. As American Christians experiment with ever-milder versions of their faith, Muslims display a fervor for extreme interpretations of Islam. As Europe suffers the lowest population growth rates ever recorded, Muslim countries have some of the highest.
But, argues Philip Jenkins recently in the Atlantic Monthly [http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm], Islam is the wrong answer. He shows how Christianity is the religion currently undergoing the most basic rethinking and the largest increase in adherents. He makes a good case for its militancy most affecting the next century. [URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/979]
Clearly, the battle for the soul of Christianity that has marked the modernist/”fundamentalist” controversy over the past hundred years is fraught with implications for the century ahead. For, it is clear that we can make out the outlines of a three-cornered contest for global supremacy among three competing world-views: (1) the still dominant Western secularism (including its step-children, liberal and liberation theologies), (2) Islam and (3) what we may call the rising Southern Christian Reformation.
So, as we look at the current struggle between the West and Islam, and as we also see how islamists have been in conflict with Christians in places as diverse as Indonesia, Sudan and Nigeria, we can see that our region is a geo-strategic focal point of the emerging global worldviews contest. (The ongoing effort of Dr Sultana Afroz, an Islamic historian based in UWI’s History Department, to propose an alternative, Islamic view of Jamaica’s historical roots further underscores the point.)
But, if the Evangelicals are emerging as the dominant stream of the Christian Faith in Jamaica, where will they take Christianity in Jamaica?
This brings the question of reformation to the fore. In turn, that brings to focus the Northern Reformation of five hundred years ago, and its key theme: Sola Scriptura.
For history records that in the barbarous Dark Ages the people were systematically kept from having the Bible in their own language. But the sacrifices of martyrs such as Tyndale -- betrayed and burned at the stake in 1536 for the “crime” of translating the Bible into English -- unleashed the force of the gospel by putting the Bible and its message in the hands of the people. This led to centuries of reformation and liberation, as ordinary people stood up for conscience, for freedom, and to end age-old social injustices: despotic tyranny; wars of conquest; colonialism and slavery; child labour; barbaric prison conditions; the oppression of women.
And that is exactly what we should expect, given the redemptive, positive, life-transforming focus of the gospel. Therefore, let us take heart and move on from over-heated, polarised debates to the real ministry of the church: saving souls, transforming lives and reforming and blessing communities as we re-build our nation under God.
PART V
The Gospel: the Road to Reformation
Back in the early 1970’s, the old Caribbean Contact newspaper once had a Spanish-language cartoon, in which Cuban President Fidel Castro had a brief chat with a priest:
Fidel: “Christianity is liberation!”
Priest: “Yes, but of the soul.”
That cartoon retort is revealing. For, the key point at issue is not whether the region needs to find a way to break through to true freedom while sustainably meeting the needs of this and future generations. Rather, it is about what that “liberation” means, what it requires, and how it may best be achieved.
Here, the evangelical contention may be summed up in two key ideas. First, as the Psalmist observes, “except the Lord builds the house, the builders labour in vain.” That is, godliness and commitment to righteousness are non-negotiables.
Second, evangelicals point out an often-repeated pattern in the church’s history: souls are saved, minds are renewed and lives are transformed through the gospel; then as revival spreads, communities and institutions (which are abstract, soul-less entities) are reformed and transformed.
For instance, there is a former East Kingston gunman who miraculously came to Christ in the Gun Court through the preaching of a prison evangelist. So, he changed from making breakout plans to implementing education programmes for the prisoners; eventually becoming a student at CAST in the mid 1980’s. He went on to spend two years in full-time ministry, and has subsequently become a practising professional in his field of studies and a happily married family man.
This story can be multiplied many times over: converted people who are supported through the discipling ministry of the church go on to lead transformed lives that benefit and bless society. In the immortal words of the Apostle Paul:
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully . . . "In your anger do not sin" . . . He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up . . . [Eph. 4:22 – 29, NIV.]
Does this mean that Christians can afford to ignore the burning social, cultural, economic and political issues in the wider society?
No. For, as the Apostle also writes:
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things . . . by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. [Col. 1:15 – 20.]
Simply put: “all” means all. So, if “all things” were created by and for Christ, who therefore came in love into this sin-blighted world to redeem it and reconcile to himself “all things,” then there literally can be no sphere of life that does not fall under his supremacy through the redemptive and reforming power of the gospel. Specifically, that includes politics and government, as well as all the spheres of life: family, education, business, arts, entertainment, sports, culture . . .
In short, those who would isolate the gospel and godliness from the affairs of day to day life at once deny the Lordship of Christ, and fall into deepest heresy.
Does that mean we should rush out and form a “Party of God” and impose righteousness by force, as once the Puritans tried in England?
Obviously not. But it does mean that we must think through how the gospel speaks into each facet of life and community, then develop our capacity to help our nation come to a godly democratic consensus about the way forward in this challenging new century.
Last but not least, it means we must labour with God to bring his blessings to Jamaica through Christ “[who] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the ethne [i.e. nations] through Christ Jesus.” [Gal. 3:14a.]
According to the Old Testament, that blessing includes many things currently in short supply -- especially solid family life, godly abundance in a bountiful land, an orderly and just society, deliverance from oppression, and Divine protection from enemies.
Let’s roll!
Ear Ticklers #3
Moment of truth on Iraq?
GEM03:03:22
The below clippings are presented as an alternative to the nearly monolithic perspective presented in the local and regional media on the current Iraq crisis. While we may not wish to agree with all or even much of what is clipped below, it seems to me that it is at least worth the investment of time to broaden our perspectives. (A longer form with the complete clippings exists, as research notes.)
Context: Romans 13:1 - 7
In light of a disturbing conversation I recently had with some sincere Christians who evinced ignorance on the biblical principles of biblical morality relating to civil government and the use of force, I first include an excerpt from Rom 13:1 – 7, and comment briefly on it:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, then pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
I have highlighted the critical portion of Paul’s remarks. We see where, though his primary focus is on the duties of citizenship, in addressing this, as usual Paul highlights the corresponding duties of civil authorities:
• Being God’s servant to do the citizen good – i.e. looking after the general and particular welfare of the citizens, especially through maintaining justice and sound government
• Doing good to the citizens, commending the right and restraining wrongdoers through the deterrence of the sword, or if that fails, punishing wrongdoers
• Governing: that is, properly administering the affairs of the state in the interests of the public and even the individual citizen, with high competence backed up by undivided loyalty and attention – the basis for reasonable (as opposed to confiscatory – “Thou shalt not steal”) taxing power
Clearly, the principal qualification, objective – and test -- of the civil authority is justice. However, the power of the sword, administrative control and taxation are inevitably great temptations, leading to two principal problems, corruption and tyranny. Compounding this is simple incompetence, due to a gap between holding power and having wisdom to use it well.
Thus, we come to the issues envisioned in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, namely the rights of reformation and if necessary revolution.
The Right of Reformation – and if necessary, Revolution
This sounds peculiarly strange to Christian ears, but let us first see what the US DOI says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm [cf. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html for a direct precursor]
Indeed, we can see the roots of this political philosophy in the biblical history of Israel, where there were several revolutions in the face of the tyranny of Kings warned of by Samuel in 1 Sam 8:1 – 20.
Moreover, we have the words of the apostles in Acts 5:27 – 39, esp. v. 29, when the authorities in Jerusalem wished to silence the leaders of the early church:
“We gave you strict orders not to teach in his name . . . Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
“We must obey God rather than men! The God of our Fathers raised Jesus from the dead – whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree . . .”
This case is especially revealing, as it shows how the authorities plainly intended to use the power of the sword to cover up an earlier injustice on their part – the judicial murder of Jesus [cf. Mt. 27:1 – 26] – by silencing those who spoke the truth. So, ever since, the cross has loomed on the skyline of cities and their magistrates, as they contemplate their duty of justice.
Plainly, there is a limit to the just power of governing authorities. One that, should they persistently overstep, people have a right to protest and seek reformation, flee or -- in the extreme case -- to appoint representatives who, using their new status of legitimate power, seek to change the government, by peace if possible, by force if necessary to protect life and prevent further injustice. This has been long since discussed in the works such as Duplesis Mornay’s Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos [cf. http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html for its impact on the US Revolution], or Rutherford’s Lex, Rex, or even Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto.
But What of National Sovereignty?
In the case in view, we are looking at the international situation. For that context, the right of self-defense in the face of blatant aggression is not in dispute – though propaganda can sometimes lead well-intentioned people to imagine that aggression is not what it is, as has happened with Israel in the face of half a century of declared intent and repeated attempts to destroy it.
(Consider: why is it that lands repeatedly used as stages for wars of declared intent to annihilate “the Jews,” lands that were then captured by that doughty nation in defending itself are demanded back without reasonable resolution of the underlying issue? [Cf. Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial for an admittedly controversial perspective, but one with detailed and to date un-refuted documentation.])
What is in dispute today, is the new situation, in which the world confronts faceless terrorism to advance the Islamist cause, potentially using so-called weapons of mass destruction, as well as failed states with tyrannical, rogue regimes that seek to acquire WMDs to use and/or to share with their terrorist partners through their intelligence services.
But, what about sovereignty?
The best answer lies in considering the issue of aggressive tyranny that threatens to spill over into wars of aggression. For, as the history of the 1930’s clearly shows, when dictators rise to power and begin to acquire the means of international aggression, prompt action by the great powers could avert the horrors that such dictators are wont to unleash.
For instance, after the First World War, Germany, as the principal aggressor, was subjected to a regime of arms control and inspection. However, the inspections failed (due to the non-compliance and evasion of the Weimar Republic) and Hitler was able to tap the resentment over defeat and the terms of the peace as well as economic instability and rise to power in the early 1930’s.
His first act of aggression was to attempt to re-occupy the Rhineland in 1936, which had long been the forge on which the German sword was made. Under the terms of the 1919 Versailles Treaty, French troops occupied the zone, but there had been an uprising in 1923, leading to several deaths of civilian protesters under questionable circumstances.
The French failed to stand their ground, even though Hitler’s intent was evident to all who would but seriously read his Mein Kampf. This book had been written in 1923, after he had been jailed for an attempted coup – the half-comical, but ever so portentous Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
Had the French and other leaders of the League of Nations simply resisted the German bluff (which was not backed by serious military strength), Hitler would have had to turn tail, and his regime would have collapsed. No wonder Churchill remarked in his The Gathering Storm, that never had there been a war that could so easily have been averted as the Second World War.
A few years later, after forcible incorporation of Austria into the now growing Reich, and after a campaign of agitation based on the bogus claim that the Czechs were oppressing the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland, Chamberlain and Daladier forced Benes the leader of Czechoslovakia to hand over these lands -- which contained the main Czech defensive fortifications -- to Hitler at the now infamous Munich summit: land for peace.
The picture of Neville Chamberlain returning to Britain and triumphantly waving the agreement, announcing that Appeasement had achieved “peace in our time,” is now deservedly infamous.
In the aftermath of this fiasco, Roosevelt asked Hitler to clarify his non-aggressive intent towards the nations of Europe and the nearby regions. As William Shirer records in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler replied in a clever speech at the port city of Hamburg.
The sum of that speech was this: (1) Mr Roosevelt was a fine one to be raising such questions while standing on the bones of the dead Indians, and (2) he would be best advised to inquire of the British and French, who had carved up the world between them. Six years, a devastated continent and nearly sixty million dead later, the world learned a lesson that one had thought would never be forgotten.
The main lesson can be summarised: failure to stand up to aggression, because one is repelled by the horrors of a limited war, may set the nations down the road to a later war when aggressors have built up their capacity, ending in an unimaginable scale of barbarity, devastation and loss of life.
The second is like unto it: in a mass-media, public-opinion driven democratic age, aggressive tyrants will use the so-called “Turnabout” propaganda stratagem, to create the impression that they are the aggrieved, oppressed party. Echoing a current slogan, one could ever so easily imagine the chant: “Hitler is no angel – but Churchill is no saint!”
But, there is a third lesson: aggressors and tyrants leave behind them a trail of evidence: re-armament in the teeth of treaty obligations, oppression and scapegoating of minorities in their own country, suppression of civil rights, mass murder of their own civilian population (Hitler started on the infamous 1934 “Night of the Long Knives,” in which he slaughtered hundreds of alleged plotters and personal enemies all over Germany).
Thus, it should be possible to identify and restrain such would-be aggressors well in advance, and to hold them accountable before treaty and human rights obligations. Indeed, that is one of the major reasons for the cluster of Human Rights and armaments control agreements that are embedded in the UN system!
The problem is, that there may not be the moral clarity will to stand up in good time. This was why the League of Nations failed, and that is the peril that evidently faces the UN today.
But does Iraq really pose a threat?
Mr Hussein’s tyrannical and aggressive track record is not in doubt.
Over the twenty plus years since he seized power, he has twice launched wars of aggression against his neighbours: Iran, 1979, and Kuwait, 1991. He has lobbed 39 ballistic missiles into Israel’s cities. He has slaughtered upwards of a hundred thousand of his own countrymen, especially the Kurds in the North and the Shiite Muslims of the South. In so doing, he has resorted to gas attacks – thereby violating the longest-standing set of arms limitations obligations -- not only against opposing armies and guerrilla forces, but also against civilian villagers. His torture chambers are notorious, as are the ruthless methods by which he silences dissent, even to the level of personally shooting a Cabinet Minister who dared to differ with him.
Unfortunately, the world has consistently lacked the moral clarity to deal with these tyrannical and aggressive activities. Since Iran was perceived as the greater threat in the 1980’s, Western nations supported Iraq in its war against Iran and winked at his use of poison gases and programme to acquire other WMDs. The Kuwait invasion was triggered by an American Ambassador’s remark that suggested that the US was indifferent to the underlying dispute. When in the aftermath of the resulting war the North and South rose up, only token help was given (resulting for instance in the “No-fly zones”).
Sanctions-busting is notorious, and no effective counter has been made to the diversion of funds from the oil-for-food programme to rearmament and the building of grandiose palaces. (The West of course, is blamed for the resulting starvation and gaps in health services that have led to an estimated 500,000 deaths – never mind the contrasting picture in the Kurd-controlled regions that are under the same sanctions and relief programmes.)
Finally, the inspections and disarmament process have built up a twelve year track record of chicanery as rearmament plainly continues. Tied to this, there is a shadowy penumbra of worrying links to terrorist incidents and organizations.
Credible direct and indirect threats that could easily be deployed in support of the Baathist regime’s agendas therefore include:
• The use of improvised weapons -- such as the utility knives and associated hijacking techniques developed by Iraqi Intelligence services (who may well have trained al Quaida operatives using training camps that are complete with disused 707 jets) -- to convert civil airliners full of fuel and hapless passengers into suicide cruise missiles. Already, 3,000 are dead in one incident.
• Short-range, IR-sensing shoulder-fired missiles capable of bringing down airliners: possibly, TWA 800 is one case, and there was an attempt in Mombassa Kenya
• Ballistic and/or cruise missiles as well as drone aircraft capable of acting as cruise missiles with low-observability (i.e. “stealth”) characteristics. These can deliver WMD warheads at ranges to 100’s or 1,000’s of miles and ultimately inter-continentally. (In the case of the drones, we could wake up any morning to learn that a ship hundreds of miles at sea has delivered such a cruise missile tipped with anthrax or VX or a “dirty” radiological bomb to one or more coastal cities anywhere in the world.)
• Chemical WMD warheads with nerve gases such as Sarin, Tabun, VX or the WWI vintage gases such as Mustard Gas, capable of killing 100’s – 1,000s of people with the equivalent of super-insecticides. (In fact, Sarin and Tabun were discovered by German Chemists seeking to create insecticides in the ‘30’s.) Mr Hussein has already used such weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians, and apparently the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome and a surge in deformities and cancers in Iraq are due to attempts to use these horrors in 1991.
• Radiological bombs. By wrapping explosive warheads with intensely radioactive materials, such as Plutonium (which is also a deadly poison), it is possible to spread huge, toxic clouds across cities and regions. While this would not kill a very large number of people (right away – cancer!) it would spread panic far and wide similar to the Chernobyl accident.
• Biological agents, such as Anthrax or Smallpox or Bubonic Plague, or new germs created in biowar labs. These can be delivered using warheads, or even through the mail. They are capable of killing millions, through triggering epidemics.
• Nuclear warheads. Capable of wiping out entire cities with one blast. Sadly, in the 1960’s, it was demonstrated through an experiment with first degree graduates in Physics with access to only open literature, that within a couple of years, a credible weapons design can be made for a fission bomb similar to those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Thus, anti-proliferation has to focus on control of access to Plutonium, Highly Enriched Uranium and just possibly Thorium, and on the key electronics components to trigger the blast.
• Also, there are persistent rumours of missing “suitcase nukes” from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union, which were intended as battlefield demolition munitions.
The Parallel to Terrorism: Piracy
It seems to me that the closest parallel to this so-called asymmetric warfare situation is the traditional international problem of piracy, which often depended for its success on sponsor states. Such states, at one time or another, included even Britain.
Clearly, the hands of the major nations, then -- as now -- were not fully clean!
However, when the major nations finally came to a consensus that this age-old horror was a threat to all, and made concerted efforts to wipe it out, it was eventually largely suppressed. (It thrives today in the Philippines and off Malaysia. There is even some still in the Caribbean, linked to the drugs trade!)
But, along the way, that included wars against sponsoring states, most notably against the home states of the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
The difference is, that while 16th – 18th Century pirates could sack a city or seize a ship, now the threat is on a much larger scale, and it can come out of nowhere, with little or no warning, to strike anywhere, leaving massive devastation and unconscionable loss of life in its wake.
So, the challenge to the leaders of the nations is how to use their power and charge to protect their citizens from evildoers, to counter the new global threats.
Sadly, so far it seems the international community is not doing a very good job.
In Prayer for Justice and true peace,
Gordon
March 18, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE URLs & CLIPPINGS:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003205
AT WAR
My Grandfather Invented Iraq and he has lessons for us today.
BY WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
. . . I have a confession to make: It was my grandfather, Winston Churchill, who invented Iraq and laid the foundation for much of the modern Middle East. In 1921, as British colonial secretary, Churchill was responsible for creating Jordan and Iraq and for placing the Hashemite rulers, Abdullah and Faisal, on their respective thrones in Amman and Baghdad. Furthermore, he delineated for the first time the political boundaries of biblical Palestine. Eighty years later, it falls to us to liberate Iraq from the scourge of one of the most ruthless dictators in history. As we stand poised on the brink of war, my grandfather's experience has lessons for us . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31577
Moment of truth for the world
A Star Tribune cartoon, as republished Saturday in the Washington Post, has six panels, which surely capture the ethos of our time . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31639
Iraqi people can smell freedom
On the eve of the U.S.-led assault on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, a New York Times reporter in Baghdad had an epiphany of sorts.
In an interview with PBS, John Burns reported from the Iraqi capital city that Iraqis are now speaking out – not just in hushed tones and whispers – about how they welcome the impending invasion.
They see the military action as their moment of liberation, he said . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31620
Saddam's day of reckoning, America's year of discovery
. . . The invasion of Iraq caps a year of high political comedy that, in the final analysis, accomplished little for Saddam Hussein but changed the face of global politics well into the foreseeable future . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31578
Has U.S. diplomacy failed in Iraq crisis?
. . . According to many commentators, including some of those who support President George Bush's stance, the answer is yes.
The truth is that we need historical perspective to know the answer . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31576
Blame the Jews?
Some Americans apparently believe that we are going to war with Iraq "because of the Jews." Having written a book explaining anti-Semitism ("Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism," Simon & Schuster), all I can do is marvel at the durability of anti-Semitism and the eternality of the charge that the Jews are responsible for everything anti-Semites fear . . .
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/oped/_Old_Europe_and_Sudan_s_jihadP.shtml
'Old Europe' and Sudan's jihad
THE LANGUAGE of human rights flows smoothly from the lips of the leaders of France and Germany. But continuing Franco-German hegemony in Europe is bad news for human rights, especially for victims whose oppressors are European Union partners. Take, for example, the victims of the Sudanese government's genocidal jihad. In the words of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, there is ''no greater tragedy on the face of the earth than the tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.'' . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31500
Why we're going to liberate Iraq
The following is adapted from a speech I gave Saturday at Southern Oregon University to a group largely made up of anti-war students and professional activists . . .
My speech didn't go over too well with that crowd, so I thought I'd try it out on WorldNetDaily's readers.
Since our purpose today is to try to shed some light on America's imminent invasion of Iraq, let's look at the situation together – honestly – and try to separate reality from fantasy and foolishness . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31502
Kofi Annan's arrogance
On television screens around the world, Kofi Annan said: "The members of the Security Council now face a great choice. If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support of any such action will be seriously impaired."
Mr. Annan, you're dead wrong.
Military action by the United States is legitimized by the U.S. Congress, not by the U.N. Security Council. On Oct. 16, 2002, Congressional Resolution 114 became Public Law 107-243 . . . .
Not another word is needed.
It is the U.N.'s 12-year failure to enforce 17 of its own resolutions that has allowed Iraq to become a serious threat to the United States. Now that Iraq is a threat which the U.S. must remove, Kofi Annan has the audacity to condemn the actions as "illegitimate." This pronouncement by Kofi Annan will make any action taken by the U.S. subject to the war-crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court, in the eyes of the United Nations . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31526
Why Saddam must go
. . . To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must either deter or remove the countries in which terrorism is manufactured. Groups like al-Qaida thrive on state sponsors – countries that provide shelter, funds, and/or the fundamentalist environment that breeds terrorism in the first place. We must somehow motivate these states to abandon the terrorist infrastructure they currently maintain . . . . As long as terrorism serves its purpose, as long as there is more to gain than to lose, Mideast rulers will continue to exploit terrorist strategy . . .
AND, TO BALANCE OFF OUR THINKING . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31512
The morality of war
In one last attempt to drum up support for war in Iraq, the White House is wrapping itself in the divine . . . [You may wish to look on the notes on Just War.]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?cp1=1
FBI probes fake papers on Iraq Investigation eyes possible role of foreign intelligence service
By Dana Priest and Susan Schmidt
THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON, March 13 — The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq.
“IT’S SOMETHING we’re just beginning to look at,” a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service . . .
Moment of truth on Iraq?
GEM03:03:22
The below clippings are presented as an alternative to the nearly monolithic perspective presented in the local and regional media on the current Iraq crisis. While we may not wish to agree with all or even much of what is clipped below, it seems to me that it is at least worth the investment of time to broaden our perspectives. (A longer form with the complete clippings exists, as research notes.)
Context: Romans 13:1 - 7
In light of a disturbing conversation I recently had with some sincere Christians who evinced ignorance on the biblical principles of biblical morality relating to civil government and the use of force, I first include an excerpt from Rom 13:1 – 7, and comment briefly on it:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, then pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
I have highlighted the critical portion of Paul’s remarks. We see where, though his primary focus is on the duties of citizenship, in addressing this, as usual Paul highlights the corresponding duties of civil authorities:
• Being God’s servant to do the citizen good – i.e. looking after the general and particular welfare of the citizens, especially through maintaining justice and sound government
• Doing good to the citizens, commending the right and restraining wrongdoers through the deterrence of the sword, or if that fails, punishing wrongdoers
• Governing: that is, properly administering the affairs of the state in the interests of the public and even the individual citizen, with high competence backed up by undivided loyalty and attention – the basis for reasonable (as opposed to confiscatory – “Thou shalt not steal”) taxing power
Clearly, the principal qualification, objective – and test -- of the civil authority is justice. However, the power of the sword, administrative control and taxation are inevitably great temptations, leading to two principal problems, corruption and tyranny. Compounding this is simple incompetence, due to a gap between holding power and having wisdom to use it well.
Thus, we come to the issues envisioned in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, namely the rights of reformation and if necessary revolution.
The Right of Reformation – and if necessary, Revolution
This sounds peculiarly strange to Christian ears, but let us first see what the US DOI says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm [cf. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html for a direct precursor]
Indeed, we can see the roots of this political philosophy in the biblical history of Israel, where there were several revolutions in the face of the tyranny of Kings warned of by Samuel in 1 Sam 8:1 – 20.
Moreover, we have the words of the apostles in Acts 5:27 – 39, esp. v. 29, when the authorities in Jerusalem wished to silence the leaders of the early church:
“We gave you strict orders not to teach in his name . . . Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
“We must obey God rather than men! The God of our Fathers raised Jesus from the dead – whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree . . .”
This case is especially revealing, as it shows how the authorities plainly intended to use the power of the sword to cover up an earlier injustice on their part – the judicial murder of Jesus [cf. Mt. 27:1 – 26] – by silencing those who spoke the truth. So, ever since, the cross has loomed on the skyline of cities and their magistrates, as they contemplate their duty of justice.
Plainly, there is a limit to the just power of governing authorities. One that, should they persistently overstep, people have a right to protest and seek reformation, flee or -- in the extreme case -- to appoint representatives who, using their new status of legitimate power, seek to change the government, by peace if possible, by force if necessary to protect life and prevent further injustice. This has been long since discussed in the works such as Duplesis Mornay’s Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos [cf. http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html for its impact on the US Revolution], or Rutherford’s Lex, Rex, or even Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto.
But What of National Sovereignty?
In the case in view, we are looking at the international situation. For that context, the right of self-defense in the face of blatant aggression is not in dispute – though propaganda can sometimes lead well-intentioned people to imagine that aggression is not what it is, as has happened with Israel in the face of half a century of declared intent and repeated attempts to destroy it.
(Consider: why is it that lands repeatedly used as stages for wars of declared intent to annihilate “the Jews,” lands that were then captured by that doughty nation in defending itself are demanded back without reasonable resolution of the underlying issue? [Cf. Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial for an admittedly controversial perspective, but one with detailed and to date un-refuted documentation.])
What is in dispute today, is the new situation, in which the world confronts faceless terrorism to advance the Islamist cause, potentially using so-called weapons of mass destruction, as well as failed states with tyrannical, rogue regimes that seek to acquire WMDs to use and/or to share with their terrorist partners through their intelligence services.
But, what about sovereignty?
The best answer lies in considering the issue of aggressive tyranny that threatens to spill over into wars of aggression. For, as the history of the 1930’s clearly shows, when dictators rise to power and begin to acquire the means of international aggression, prompt action by the great powers could avert the horrors that such dictators are wont to unleash.
For instance, after the First World War, Germany, as the principal aggressor, was subjected to a regime of arms control and inspection. However, the inspections failed (due to the non-compliance and evasion of the Weimar Republic) and Hitler was able to tap the resentment over defeat and the terms of the peace as well as economic instability and rise to power in the early 1930’s.
His first act of aggression was to attempt to re-occupy the Rhineland in 1936, which had long been the forge on which the German sword was made. Under the terms of the 1919 Versailles Treaty, French troops occupied the zone, but there had been an uprising in 1923, leading to several deaths of civilian protesters under questionable circumstances.
The French failed to stand their ground, even though Hitler’s intent was evident to all who would but seriously read his Mein Kampf. This book had been written in 1923, after he had been jailed for an attempted coup – the half-comical, but ever so portentous Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
Had the French and other leaders of the League of Nations simply resisted the German bluff (which was not backed by serious military strength), Hitler would have had to turn tail, and his regime would have collapsed. No wonder Churchill remarked in his The Gathering Storm, that never had there been a war that could so easily have been averted as the Second World War.
A few years later, after forcible incorporation of Austria into the now growing Reich, and after a campaign of agitation based on the bogus claim that the Czechs were oppressing the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland, Chamberlain and Daladier forced Benes the leader of Czechoslovakia to hand over these lands -- which contained the main Czech defensive fortifications -- to Hitler at the now infamous Munich summit: land for peace.
The picture of Neville Chamberlain returning to Britain and triumphantly waving the agreement, announcing that Appeasement had achieved “peace in our time,” is now deservedly infamous.
In the aftermath of this fiasco, Roosevelt asked Hitler to clarify his non-aggressive intent towards the nations of Europe and the nearby regions. As William Shirer records in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler replied in a clever speech at the port city of Hamburg.
The sum of that speech was this: (1) Mr Roosevelt was a fine one to be raising such questions while standing on the bones of the dead Indians, and (2) he would be best advised to inquire of the British and French, who had carved up the world between them. Six years, a devastated continent and nearly sixty million dead later, the world learned a lesson that one had thought would never be forgotten.
The main lesson can be summarised: failure to stand up to aggression, because one is repelled by the horrors of a limited war, may set the nations down the road to a later war when aggressors have built up their capacity, ending in an unimaginable scale of barbarity, devastation and loss of life.
The second is like unto it: in a mass-media, public-opinion driven democratic age, aggressive tyrants will use the so-called “Turnabout” propaganda stratagem, to create the impression that they are the aggrieved, oppressed party. Echoing a current slogan, one could ever so easily imagine the chant: “Hitler is no angel – but Churchill is no saint!”
But, there is a third lesson: aggressors and tyrants leave behind them a trail of evidence: re-armament in the teeth of treaty obligations, oppression and scapegoating of minorities in their own country, suppression of civil rights, mass murder of their own civilian population (Hitler started on the infamous 1934 “Night of the Long Knives,” in which he slaughtered hundreds of alleged plotters and personal enemies all over Germany).
Thus, it should be possible to identify and restrain such would-be aggressors well in advance, and to hold them accountable before treaty and human rights obligations. Indeed, that is one of the major reasons for the cluster of Human Rights and armaments control agreements that are embedded in the UN system!
The problem is, that there may not be the moral clarity will to stand up in good time. This was why the League of Nations failed, and that is the peril that evidently faces the UN today.
But does Iraq really pose a threat?
Mr Hussein’s tyrannical and aggressive track record is not in doubt.
Over the twenty plus years since he seized power, he has twice launched wars of aggression against his neighbours: Iran, 1979, and Kuwait, 1991. He has lobbed 39 ballistic missiles into Israel’s cities. He has slaughtered upwards of a hundred thousand of his own countrymen, especially the Kurds in the North and the Shiite Muslims of the South. In so doing, he has resorted to gas attacks – thereby violating the longest-standing set of arms limitations obligations -- not only against opposing armies and guerrilla forces, but also against civilian villagers. His torture chambers are notorious, as are the ruthless methods by which he silences dissent, even to the level of personally shooting a Cabinet Minister who dared to differ with him.
Unfortunately, the world has consistently lacked the moral clarity to deal with these tyrannical and aggressive activities. Since Iran was perceived as the greater threat in the 1980’s, Western nations supported Iraq in its war against Iran and winked at his use of poison gases and programme to acquire other WMDs. The Kuwait invasion was triggered by an American Ambassador’s remark that suggested that the US was indifferent to the underlying dispute. When in the aftermath of the resulting war the North and South rose up, only token help was given (resulting for instance in the “No-fly zones”).
Sanctions-busting is notorious, and no effective counter has been made to the diversion of funds from the oil-for-food programme to rearmament and the building of grandiose palaces. (The West of course, is blamed for the resulting starvation and gaps in health services that have led to an estimated 500,000 deaths – never mind the contrasting picture in the Kurd-controlled regions that are under the same sanctions and relief programmes.)
Finally, the inspections and disarmament process have built up a twelve year track record of chicanery as rearmament plainly continues. Tied to this, there is a shadowy penumbra of worrying links to terrorist incidents and organizations.
Credible direct and indirect threats that could easily be deployed in support of the Baathist regime’s agendas therefore include:
• The use of improvised weapons -- such as the utility knives and associated hijacking techniques developed by Iraqi Intelligence services (who may well have trained al Quaida operatives using training camps that are complete with disused 707 jets) -- to convert civil airliners full of fuel and hapless passengers into suicide cruise missiles. Already, 3,000 are dead in one incident.
• Short-range, IR-sensing shoulder-fired missiles capable of bringing down airliners: possibly, TWA 800 is one case, and there was an attempt in Mombassa Kenya
• Ballistic and/or cruise missiles as well as drone aircraft capable of acting as cruise missiles with low-observability (i.e. “stealth”) characteristics. These can deliver WMD warheads at ranges to 100’s or 1,000’s of miles and ultimately inter-continentally. (In the case of the drones, we could wake up any morning to learn that a ship hundreds of miles at sea has delivered such a cruise missile tipped with anthrax or VX or a “dirty” radiological bomb to one or more coastal cities anywhere in the world.)
• Chemical WMD warheads with nerve gases such as Sarin, Tabun, VX or the WWI vintage gases such as Mustard Gas, capable of killing 100’s – 1,000s of people with the equivalent of super-insecticides. (In fact, Sarin and Tabun were discovered by German Chemists seeking to create insecticides in the ‘30’s.) Mr Hussein has already used such weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians, and apparently the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome and a surge in deformities and cancers in Iraq are due to attempts to use these horrors in 1991.
• Radiological bombs. By wrapping explosive warheads with intensely radioactive materials, such as Plutonium (which is also a deadly poison), it is possible to spread huge, toxic clouds across cities and regions. While this would not kill a very large number of people (right away – cancer!) it would spread panic far and wide similar to the Chernobyl accident.
• Biological agents, such as Anthrax or Smallpox or Bubonic Plague, or new germs created in biowar labs. These can be delivered using warheads, or even through the mail. They are capable of killing millions, through triggering epidemics.
• Nuclear warheads. Capable of wiping out entire cities with one blast. Sadly, in the 1960’s, it was demonstrated through an experiment with first degree graduates in Physics with access to only open literature, that within a couple of years, a credible weapons design can be made for a fission bomb similar to those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Thus, anti-proliferation has to focus on control of access to Plutonium, Highly Enriched Uranium and just possibly Thorium, and on the key electronics components to trigger the blast.
• Also, there are persistent rumours of missing “suitcase nukes” from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union, which were intended as battlefield demolition munitions.
The Parallel to Terrorism: Piracy
It seems to me that the closest parallel to this so-called asymmetric warfare situation is the traditional international problem of piracy, which often depended for its success on sponsor states. Such states, at one time or another, included even Britain.
Clearly, the hands of the major nations, then -- as now -- were not fully clean!
However, when the major nations finally came to a consensus that this age-old horror was a threat to all, and made concerted efforts to wipe it out, it was eventually largely suppressed. (It thrives today in the Philippines and off Malaysia. There is even some still in the Caribbean, linked to the drugs trade!)
But, along the way, that included wars against sponsoring states, most notably against the home states of the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
The difference is, that while 16th – 18th Century pirates could sack a city or seize a ship, now the threat is on a much larger scale, and it can come out of nowhere, with little or no warning, to strike anywhere, leaving massive devastation and unconscionable loss of life in its wake.
So, the challenge to the leaders of the nations is how to use their power and charge to protect their citizens from evildoers, to counter the new global threats.
Sadly, so far it seems the international community is not doing a very good job.
In Prayer for Justice and true peace,
Gordon
March 18, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE URLs & CLIPPINGS:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003205
AT WAR
My Grandfather Invented Iraq and he has lessons for us today.
BY WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
. . . I have a confession to make: It was my grandfather, Winston Churchill, who invented Iraq and laid the foundation for much of the modern Middle East. In 1921, as British colonial secretary, Churchill was responsible for creating Jordan and Iraq and for placing the Hashemite rulers, Abdullah and Faisal, on their respective thrones in Amman and Baghdad. Furthermore, he delineated for the first time the political boundaries of biblical Palestine. Eighty years later, it falls to us to liberate Iraq from the scourge of one of the most ruthless dictators in history. As we stand poised on the brink of war, my grandfather's experience has lessons for us . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31577
Moment of truth for the world
A Star Tribune cartoon, as republished Saturday in the Washington Post, has six panels, which surely capture the ethos of our time . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31639
Iraqi people can smell freedom
On the eve of the U.S.-led assault on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, a New York Times reporter in Baghdad had an epiphany of sorts.
In an interview with PBS, John Burns reported from the Iraqi capital city that Iraqis are now speaking out – not just in hushed tones and whispers – about how they welcome the impending invasion.
They see the military action as their moment of liberation, he said . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31620
Saddam's day of reckoning, America's year of discovery
. . . The invasion of Iraq caps a year of high political comedy that, in the final analysis, accomplished little for Saddam Hussein but changed the face of global politics well into the foreseeable future . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31578
Has U.S. diplomacy failed in Iraq crisis?
. . . According to many commentators, including some of those who support President George Bush's stance, the answer is yes.
The truth is that we need historical perspective to know the answer . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31576
Blame the Jews?
Some Americans apparently believe that we are going to war with Iraq "because of the Jews." Having written a book explaining anti-Semitism ("Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism," Simon & Schuster), all I can do is marvel at the durability of anti-Semitism and the eternality of the charge that the Jews are responsible for everything anti-Semites fear . . .
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/oped/_Old_Europe_and_Sudan_s_jihadP.shtml
'Old Europe' and Sudan's jihad
THE LANGUAGE of human rights flows smoothly from the lips of the leaders of France and Germany. But continuing Franco-German hegemony in Europe is bad news for human rights, especially for victims whose oppressors are European Union partners. Take, for example, the victims of the Sudanese government's genocidal jihad. In the words of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, there is ''no greater tragedy on the face of the earth than the tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.'' . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31500
Why we're going to liberate Iraq
The following is adapted from a speech I gave Saturday at Southern Oregon University to a group largely made up of anti-war students and professional activists . . .
My speech didn't go over too well with that crowd, so I thought I'd try it out on WorldNetDaily's readers.
Since our purpose today is to try to shed some light on America's imminent invasion of Iraq, let's look at the situation together – honestly – and try to separate reality from fantasy and foolishness . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31502
Kofi Annan's arrogance
On television screens around the world, Kofi Annan said: "The members of the Security Council now face a great choice. If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support of any such action will be seriously impaired."
Mr. Annan, you're dead wrong.
Military action by the United States is legitimized by the U.S. Congress, not by the U.N. Security Council. On Oct. 16, 2002, Congressional Resolution 114 became Public Law 107-243 . . . .
Not another word is needed.
It is the U.N.'s 12-year failure to enforce 17 of its own resolutions that has allowed Iraq to become a serious threat to the United States. Now that Iraq is a threat which the U.S. must remove, Kofi Annan has the audacity to condemn the actions as "illegitimate." This pronouncement by Kofi Annan will make any action taken by the U.S. subject to the war-crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court, in the eyes of the United Nations . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31526
Why Saddam must go
. . . To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must either deter or remove the countries in which terrorism is manufactured. Groups like al-Qaida thrive on state sponsors – countries that provide shelter, funds, and/or the fundamentalist environment that breeds terrorism in the first place. We must somehow motivate these states to abandon the terrorist infrastructure they currently maintain . . . . As long as terrorism serves its purpose, as long as there is more to gain than to lose, Mideast rulers will continue to exploit terrorist strategy . . .
AND, TO BALANCE OFF OUR THINKING . . .
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31512
The morality of war
In one last attempt to drum up support for war in Iraq, the White House is wrapping itself in the divine . . . [You may wish to look on the notes on Just War.]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?cp1=1
FBI probes fake papers on Iraq Investigation eyes possible role of foreign intelligence service
By Dana Priest and Susan Schmidt
THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON, March 13 — The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq.
“IT’S SOMETHING we’re just beginning to look at,” a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service . . .
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Ear TICKLERS # 3
Clearing the Air on the Iraq Crisis
href="El%20Momento%20de%20Verdad%20for%20the%20World2_files/filelist.xml">
href="El%20Momento%20de%20Verdad%20for%20the%20World2_files/editdata.mso">
Moment of truth on Iraq
Clearing the Air on the Iraq Crisis
href="El%20Momento%20de%20Verdad%20for%20the%20World2_files/filelist.xml">
href="El%20Momento%20de%20Verdad%20for%20the%20World2_files/editdata.mso">
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Moment
of truth on Iraq?
The below clippings are presented as an alternative
to the nearly monolithic perspective presented in the local and regional media
on the current Iraq crisis. While we may not wish to agree with all or even
much of what is clipped below, it seems to me that it is at least worth the
investment of time to broaden our perspectives.
Romans 13:1 - 7
In light of a disturbing conversation I recently had
with some sincere Christians who evinced ignorance on the biblical principles
of morality relating to civil government and the use of force, I include an
excerpt from Rom 13:1 – 7, and comment briefly on it:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement
on themselves. style='color:red'>For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those
who do wrong.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Do you want to be free from fear of the one
in authority? Then do what is right
and he will commend you.
For he is God’s servant
to do you good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the class=SpellE>the sword for nothing. He
is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit
to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because
of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the
authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes,
then pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if class=SpellE>honour, then honour.
I have highlighted the critical portion of Paul’s
remarks. We see where, though his primary
focus is on the duties of citizenship, in addressing this, as usual Paul highlights
the corresponding duties of civil authorities:
- Being God’s servant to do the citizen goodstyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> – i.e.
looking after the general and particular welfare of the citizens, especially
through maintaining justice - Doing good to the citizens, commending the
right and restraining the wrong through the deterrence of the
sword, or if that fails, punishing wrongdoers - Governing:style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> that is,
properly administering the affairs of the state in the interests of the public
and even the individual citizen, with high competence backed up by undivided
loyalty and attention – the basis for reasonable (as opposed to confiscatory
– “Thou shalt not steal”) taxing power
Clearly, the principal qualification, objective –
and test -- of the civil authority is justice.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> However, the power of the sword, administrative
control and taxation are inevitably a great temptation, leading to two principal
problems, corruption and tyranny. Compounding this is simple incompetence,
due to a gap between power and wisdom.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
Thus, we come to the issues envisioned in the US Declaration
of Independence of 1776, namely the rights of reformation and if necessary
revolution.
The Right of Reformation – and if necessary, Revolution
This sounds peculiarly strange to Christian
ears, but let us first see what the US DOI says:
style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial;color:black'>
style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial;color:black'>We hold these truths to be self-evident:style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial;color:black'>
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that
whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not
be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new
guards for their future security.
href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm
[cf. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html
for a direct precursor]
Indeed, we can see the roots of this political philosophy
in the biblical history of Israel, where there were several revolutions in
the face of the tyranny of Kings warned of by Samuel in 1 Sam 8:1 – 20.
Moreover, we have the words of the apostles in Acts
5:27 – 39, esp. v. 29, when the authorities in Jerusalem wished to silence
the leaders of the early church:
“We gave you strict orders not to teach in his name
. . . Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined
to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
“We must obey God rather than
men! The God of our Fathers
raised Jesus from the dead – whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree
. . .”
This case is especially revealing, as it shows how
the authorities plainly intended to use the power of the sword to cover up
an earlier injustice on their part – the judicial murder of Jesus – by silencing
those who spoke the truth. So, ever
since, the cross has loomed on the skyline of cities and their magistrates,
as they contemplate their duty of justice.
Plainly, there is a limit to the just power of governing
authorities. One that, should they
persistently overstep, people have a right to protest and seek reformation,
flee or -- in the extreme case -- to appoint representatives who, using their
new status of legitimate power, seek to change the government, by peace if
possible, by force if necessary to protect life and prevent further injustice.
This has been long since discussed in the works such as class=SpellE>Duplesis Mornay’s class=SpellE>Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos [cf. style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black'>href="http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html">http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html
for its impact on the US Revolution], or Rutherford’s href="http://www.natreformassn.org/lexrex/index.html">Lex,
Rex, or even Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto.
style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>But What of National Sovereignty?style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>
In the case in view, we are looking at the international
situation. For that context, the right of self-defense in the face of blatant
aggression is not in dispute – though propaganda can sometimes lead well-intentioned
people to imagine that aggression is not what it is, as has happened with
Israel in the face of half a century of declared intent and repeated attempts
to destroy it.
(Consider: why is it that lands repeatedly used as
stages for wars of declared intent to annihilate “the Jews” that were then
captured by that doughty nation in defending itself are demanded back without
reasonable resolution of the underlying issue?)
What is in dispute today, is the new situation, in
which the world confronts faceless terrorism to advance the islamist
cause, potentially using so-called weapons of mass destruction, as well as
failed states with tyrannical, rogue regimes that seek to acquire class=SpellE>WMDs to use and/or to share with their terrorist partners
through their intelligence services.
But, what about sovereignty?style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
The best answer lies in considering the issue of aggressive
tyranny that threatens to spill over into wars of aggression.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> For, as the history of the 1930’s clearly shows,
when dictators rise to power and begin to acquire
the means of international aggression, prompt action by the great powers could
avert the horrors that such dictators are wont to unleash.
For instance, after the First World War, Germany,
as the principal aggressor, was subjected to a regime of arms control and
inspection. However, the inspections
failed (due to non-compliance and evasion) and Hitler was able to tap the
resentment over defeat and the terms of the peace as well as economic instability
and rise to power.
His first act of aggression was to attempt to re-occupy
the Rhineland in 1936, which had long been the forge on which the German sword
was made. Under the terms of the Versailles
Treaty, French troops occupied the zone, but there had been an uprising in
1923, leading to several deaths of civilian protesters under questionable
circumstances.
The French failed to stand their ground, even though
Hitler’s intent was evident to all who would but seriously read his class=SpellE>Meinstyle='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'> Kampf, which
had been written in 1923, after he had been jailed for an attempted coup –
the half-comical, but ever so portentous Munich Beer Hall Putsch.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Had the French and other leaders of the League
of Nations simply resisted the German bluff (which was not backed by serious
military strength), Hitler would have had to turn tail, and his regime would
have collapsed. No wonder Churchill
remarked in his The Gathering Storm,
that never had there been a war that could so easily have been averted as
the Second World War.
A few years later, after forcible incorporation of
Austria into the now growing Reich, and after a campaign of agitation based
on the bogus claim that the Czechs were oppressing the ethnic Germans in the
Sudetenland, Chamberlain and Daladier handed over
these lands to Hitler at the now infamous Munich summit.
The picture of Neville Chamberlain returning to Britain
and triumphantly waving the agreement, announcing that Appeasement had achieved
“peace in our time,” is now deservedly infamous.
In the aftermath of this fiasco, Roosevelt asked Hitler
to clarify his non-aggressive intent towards the nations of Europe and the
nearby regions. As William class=SpellE>Shirer records in his The
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler replied
in a clever speech at the port city of Hamburg.
TRhe sum of that speech was this: (1) class=SpellE>Mr Roosevelt was a fine one to be raising such questions while
standing on the bones of the dead Indians, and (2) he would be best advised
to inquire of the British and French, who had carved up the world between
them.
Six years and nearly sixty million dead later, the
world learned a lesson that one had thought would never be forgotten.
The main lesson can be summarised:
failure to stand up to aggression, because one is repelled by the horrors
of a limited war, may set the nations don the road to a later war when aggressors
have built up their capacity, ending in an unimaginable scale of barbarity,
devastation and loss of life.
The second is like unto it: in a mass-media, public-opinion
driven democratic age, aggressive tyrants will use the so-called “Turnabout”
propaganda stratagem, to create the impression that they are the aggrieved,
oppressed party. Echoing a current
slogan, one could ever so easily imagine the chant: “Hitler is no angel –
but Churchill is no saint!”
But, there is a third lesson: aggressors and tyrants
leave behind them a trail of evidence: re-armament in the teeth of treaty
obligations, oppression and scapegoating of minorities
in their own country, suppression of civil rights, mass murder of their own
civilian population (Hitler started on the infamous 1934 “Night of the Long
Knives,” in which he slaughtered hundreds of alleged plotters and personal
enemies all over Germany).
Thus, it should be possible to identify and restrain
such would-be aggressors well in advance, and to hold them accountable before
treaty and human rights obligations. Indeed,
that is one of the major reasons for the cluster of Human Rights and armaments
control agreements that are embedded in the UN system! style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
The problem is, that there
may not be the moral clarity will to stand up in good time.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> This was why the League of Nations failed, and
that is the peril that evidently faces the UN today.
But does Iraq really pose a threat?
Mrstyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> Hussein’s
tyrannical and aggressive track record is not in doubt.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
Over the twenty plus years since he seized power,
he has twice launched wars of aggression against his neighbours:
Iran, 1979, and Kuwait, 1991. He has
lobbed 39 ballistic missiles into Israel’s cities. style='mso-spacerun:yes'> He has slaughtered upwards of a hundred thousand
of his own countrymen, especially the Kurds in the North and the Shiite Muslims
of the South. In so doing, he has resorted to gas attacks – thereby violating
the longest-standing set of arms limitations obligations -- not only against
opposing armies and guerrilla forces, but also against civilian villagers.
His torture chambers are notorious, as are the ruthless methods by
which he silences dissent, even to the level of personally shooting a Cabinet
Minister who dared to differ with him.
Unfortunately, the world has consistently lacked the
moral clarity to deal with these tyrannical and aggressive activities.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Since Iran was perceived as the greater threat
in the 1980’s, Western nations supported Iraq in the war against Iran.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> The Kuwait invasion was triggered by an American
Ambassador’s remark that suggested that the US was indifferent to the underlying
dispute. When in the aftermath of the
resulting war the North and South rose up, only token help was given (resulting
for instance in the “No-fly zones”).style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Sanctions-busting is notorious, and no effective
counter has been made to the diversion of funds from the oil-for-food programme
to rearmament and the building of grandiose palaces. (The West of course,
is blamed for the resulting starvation and gaps in health class=GramE>services that has led to an estimated 500,000 deaths – never
mind the contrasting picture in the Kurd-controlled regions that are under
the same sanctions and relief programmes.)
Finally, the inspections and disarmament process have
built up a twelve year track record of chicanery as rearmament plainly continues.
Tied to this, there is a shadowy penumbra of worrying links to terrorist
incidents and organizations.
Credible direct and indirect threats that could easily
be deployed in support of the Baathist regime’s
agendas therefore include:
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
The use of improvised weapons -- such as the utility
knives and associated hijacking techniques developed by Iraqi Intelligence
services (who may well have trained al Quaida operatives
using training camps that are complete with disused 707 jets) -- to convert
civil airliners full of fuel and hapless passengers into cruise missiles.
Already, 3,000 are dead in one incident.
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
Short-range, IR-sensing shoulder-fired missiles capable
of bringing down airliners: possibly, TWA 800 is one case, and there was an
attempt in Mombassa Kenya
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
Ballistic missiles and drone aircraft capable of acting
as cruise missiles; delivering WMD warheads at ranges to 100’s or 1,000’s
of miles and ultimately intercontinentally.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> (In the case of the drones, we could wake up
any morning to learn that a ship hundreds of miles at sea has delivered such
a cruise missile tipped with anthrax to one or more coastal cities anywhere
in the world.)
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
Chemical WMD warheads with nerve gases such as class=SpellE>Sarin, Tabun, VX or the WWI vintage
gases such as Mustard Gas, capable of killing 100’s – 1,000s of people with
the equivalent of super-insecticides. (In fact, Sarin
and Tabun were discovered by German Chemists seeking
to create insecticides in the ‘30’s.) class=SpellE>Mr Hussein has already used such weapons against the Kurds
and the Iranians, and apparently the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome and a surge
in deformities and cancers in Iraq are due to attempts to use these horrors
in 1991.
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
Radiological bombs.
By wrapping explosive warheads with intensely radioactive materials,
such as Plutonium (which is also a deadly poison), it is possible to spread
huge, toxic clouds across cities and regions.
While this would not kill a very large number of people (right away
– cancer!) it would spread panic far and wide similar to the Chernobyl accident.
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
Biological agents, such as Anthrax or Smallpox or
Bubonic Plague, or new germs created in biowar labs.
These can be delivered using warheads, or even through the mail.
They are capable of killing millions, through triggering epidemics.
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
Nuclear warheads.
Capable of wiping out entire cities with one blast.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Sadly, in the 1960’s, it was demonstrated through
an experiment with first degree graduates in Physics with access to only open
literature, that within a couple of years, a credible weapons design can be
made for a fission bomb similar to those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in 1945. Thus, anti-proliferation has
to focus on control of access to Plutonium, Highly Enriched Uranium and just
possibly Thorium, and on the key electronics components to trigger the blast.
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·
Also, there are persistent rumours
of missing “suitcase nukes” from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union, which
were intended as battlefield demolition munitions.
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>The Parallel
to Terrorism: Piracy
It seems to me that the closest parallel to this so-called
asymmetric warfare situation is the traditional international problem of piracy,
which often depended for its success on sponsor states.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Such states, at one time or another, included
even Britain.
Clearly, the hands of the major nations, then – as
now -- were not fully clean!
However, when the major nations finally came to a
consensus that this age-old horror was a threat to all, and made concerted
efforts to wipe it out, it was eventually largely suppressed.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> (It thrives today in the Philippines and off
Malaysia. There is even some still
in the Caribbean, linked to the drugs trade!)
But, along the way, that included wars against sponsoring
states, most notably against the home states of the Barbary Pirates of North
Africa.
The difference is, that while 16th – 18th
Century pirates could sack a city or seize a ship, now the threat is on a
much larger scale, and it can come out of nowhere, with little or no warning,
to strike anywhere, leaving massive devastation and unconscionable loss of
life in its wake.
So, the challenge to the leaders of the nations is
how to use their power and charge to protect their citizens from evildoers,
to counter the new global threats.
Sadly, so far it seems the international community
is not doing a very good job.
In Prayer for Justice and true peace,
Gordon
March 18, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLES:
href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31577">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31577
Moment of truth for the worldstyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
A Star Tribune cartoon,
as republished Saturday in the Washington Post, has six panels, which surely
capture the ethos of our time . . .
href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31620">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31620
Saddam's day of reckoning, America's year of discoverystyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
. . . The
invasion of Iraq caps a year of high political comedy that, in the final analysis,
accomplished little for Saddam Hussein but changed the face of global politics
well into the foreseeable future . . .
href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31578">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31578
Has U.S. diplomacy failed in Iraq crisis?style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
United States diplomacy failed in the Iraq crisis?
According
to many commentators, including some of those who support President George
Bush's stance, the answer is yes.
The truth is that we need historical perspective to know the answer
. . .
href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31576">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31576
Blame the Jews?
Some Americans apparently believe that we are going to war with Iraq
"because of the Jews." Having written a book explaining
anti-Semitism ("Why the Jews? The Reason for class=SpellE>Antisemitism," Simon & Schuster), all I can do is
marvel at the durability of anti-Semitism and the eternality of the charge
that the Jews are responsible for everything anti-Semites fearstyle='mso-spacerun:yes'> . . .
href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/oped/_Old_Europe_and_Sudan_s_jihadP.shtml">http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/oped/_Old_Europe_and_Sudan_s_jihadP.shtml
'Old
Europe' and Sudan's jihad
THE LANGUAGE of human rights
flows smoothly from the lips of the leaders of France and Germany. But continuing
Franco-German hegemony in Europe is bad news for human rights, especially
for victims whose oppressors are European Union partners. Take, for example,
the victims of the Sudanese government's genocidal jihad. In the words of
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, there is ''no greater tragedy on the face
of the earth than the tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.'' . . .
href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31500">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31500
Why we're going to liberate Iraq
The following is adapted from a speech I gave Saturday at Southern Oregon
University to a group largely made up of anti-war students and professional
activists . . .
My speech didn't go over too well with that crowd, so I thought I'd
try it out on WorldNetDaily's readers. style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Palatino'>
Since our purpose today
is to try to shed some light on America's imminent invasion of Iraq, let's
look at the situation together – honestly – and try to separate reality from
fantasy and foolishness . . .
The misguided peaceniks
Remember the old poster from the 1960s – "War is not healthy for
children and other living things"?
I think it's time to revise that for the sake of the misguided peaceniks
of this era – "War is not healthy for tyrants and other living thugs."
. . .
Kofistyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Palatino;
color:black'> Annan's arrogancestyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
On television screens around the world, Kofi
Annan said: "The members of the Security Council
now face a great choice. If they fail to agree on a common position, and action
is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and
support of any such action will be seriously impaired."
Mr. Annan, you're dead wrong.
Military action by the United States is legitimized
by the U.S. Congress, not by the U.N. Security Council. style='mso-spacerun:yes'> On Oct. 16, 2002, Congressional Resolution 114
became Public Law 107-243 . . . .
Not another word is needed.
It is the U.N.'s 12-year failure to enforce 17 of its own resolutions
that has allowed Iraq to become a serious threat to the United States. Now
that Iraq is a threat which the U.S. must remove, Kofi
class=SpellE>Annan has the audacity to condemn the actions as "illegitimate."
This pronouncement by Kofi class=SpellE>Annan will make any action taken by the U.S. subject to the
war-crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court, in the eyes of
the United Nations . . .
href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31526">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31526
Why Saddam must go
. . . To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must either deter or remove the
countries in which terrorism is manufactured. Groups like al-class=SpellE>Qaida thrive on state sponsors – countries that provide shelter,
funds, and/or the fundamentalist environment that breeds terrorism in the
first place. We must somehow motivate these states to abandon the terrorist
infrastructure they currently maintain . . . . style='mso-spacerun:yes'> As long as terrorism serves its purpose, as long
as there is more to gain than to lose, Mideast rulers
will continue to exploit terrorist strategy . . .
AND, TO BALANCE OFF OUR THINKING
. . .
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31512">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31512
The morality of war
In one last attempt to drum up support for war in Iraq, the White House
is wrapping itself in the divine . . .
http://www.msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?cp1=1
FBI probes
fake papers on Iraq
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black'>Investigation eyes possible role of foreign intelligence servicestyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
WASHINGTON,
March 13 — The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence
linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that
a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military
action against Iraq.
“IT’S SOMETHING we’re
just beginning to look at,” a senior law enforcement official said yesterday.
Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try
to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of
a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service.
style='mso-special-character:line-break'>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)