The Great Divide In Our Nation

When I hear the term 'great divide,' I immediately think of a Don Ellis piece that appeared on his Fillmore album (click here for a YouTube link to that piece). Ellis's piece in in 13 and is divided, and thus the name, into the following pattern: 3-3-2-3-2. It's an excellent piece of music that Ellis's band performed in and around 1970--he was way ahead of everyone back then when it came to odd musical time signatures.


But that is not the great divide I want to complain about today. The great divide we see today is practiced by all imaginable ideological sides. It is practiced by many who are political conservatives, political liberals, and leftists. The divide that exists for them are the political views views that exist between these groups and any other groups that might exist. Thus, we have many conservatives who believe that only conservatives have anything of value to say. And the same goes with many liberals and leftists. In the end, what Martin Luther King, Jr. says about the 'Western arrogance of feeling' also applies to many conservatives, liberals, and leftists (click here for a source for King's statement):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

So when we see conservatives, liberals, or leftists so strongly claiming to have a monopoly on truth while even trying harder to discredit all others, we could easily substitute the words 'conservative,' 'liberal,' or 'leftist' in for the word 'Western' in King's statement above.

That arrogance of feeling provides more than enough rationalization for either conservatives, liberals, or leftists to not want to share power with others. And then when we add the economic elites of the nation into the mix, we also see that many of them not only do not want to share power with others, they don't want to share wealth either.

That reluctance to share power and wealth with others is an ominous harbinger of things to come. For just as sharing power and wealth with others is the beginning of peace, so to is refusing to share power and wealth with others is the beginning of war.

This should lead us to the main point of this article. The great divide that exists is not the one that exists between conservatives, liberals, and leftists. The great divide that exists in our nation today is the one that exists between those who want to share and collaborate with others from those who don't. And here we have an easy litmus test to apply to see who is working to bring peace from those who are working to bring war whether that war is with foreign powers or domestic rivals.

Did The Pope Intentionally Walk Congress?

The Pope addressed a joint session of Congress today (see here for the transcript). If one were to go over the most recent history of what the Pope has said with what has been said and debated in Congress, one would think that the Pope could challenge Congress as he did the Mafia, but he didn't. Instead, he gave them a pass. He didn't cite them for any wrongdoing. He did bring up some issues. But he didn't do so in a way that required Congress to react.

How did the Pope talk about issues to Congress? He mentioned 4 Americans whose lives or work were receiving attention because of anniversaries. The Americans he mentioned were Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, and Thomas Merton. 

When mentioning Lincoln and how he strove for freedom and liberty, the Pope warned against the increasing violence we see in the world and clearly stated that no group was immune from practicing violence. Thus we must be watchful about any group's fundamentalism according to the Pope. Here, it is obvious that the Pope and I have different ideas as to what Christian Fundamentalism is. The Pope's warning about fundamentalism had everything to do with extremism, not the basic tenets of any faith or ideology.  In addition, he warned against having a simplistic view that divides the world between those who are good and those who aren't. In contrast, we need to guard against 'feeding the enemy within.' Such is always an excellent and well needed warning to all of us. 

In contrast to those two problem any of us could display, the Pope grouped together the idea justice with rehabilitation. His words were, 'Our response must instead be of hope and healing, peace and justice.' The last pair of concepts is important because in a punitive society like our own, justice is all too often associated with exacting revenge. Such an idea goes against what the Pope was advocating.

Then as the Pope continued talking about justice and how liberty was a core value of our nation, he said the following:

If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good

  
This was the closest the Pope came to firing a fastball for a strike at Congress. Considering how some have concluded that our nation is now an oligarchy (see BBC article and Jimmy Carter's view). All that kept this statement from being either a called strike was that the Pope did not make any direct reference to Congress when saying this.

The Pope then went on to talk about Martin Luther King Jr. and the building of dreams. He related this reference to today's almost unprecedented number of immigrants in the world as well as the people who preceded us and how they were mistreated. Thus, the Pope urged all of us in saying we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past when meeting those who are different. So we must be humane to immigrants from the South who cross our paths, especially those who need help. Here, the Pope urges us to follow the Golden Rule.

The Pope then went on to mention Dorothy Day and her work to helped the oppressed. She founded the Catholic Worker Movement. Here, he continued to talk about the need for a 'global solidarity' to fight 'poverty and hunger. The Pope continued only to bring in the subject of the distribution of wealth and business. Though business can be an noble endeavor, it must be practiced for the "common good." This last idea is far from purpose of business many Americans first think of. Business, in the minds of many Americans, provides opportunities to advance oneself. And since business swims in the pool of competition, to do well for oneself is often done at the expense of others.

In addition, to working for the common good, the Pope reminded Congress as well as ourselves of what he had previously said about protecting the environment. This is an important subject to bring up when talking about business.

The Pope finally mentions Thomas Merton. Merton was born during WW I. He offered new ways of thinking for the Church that helped promote peace. From here, the Pope mentioned the global arms dealing, an activity in which America is deeply involved. Here, the Pope challenged all of us to not be complicit with the ongoing selling of weapons which only serves to deepen the wounds of conflicts and wars by remaining silent. We should note here that if Congress has any weakness, it doesn't include being silent. However, what Congress does talk about is not often pertinent to the furtherance of peace and justice in the world.

The Pope did say a lot that all of us need to hear regarding peace and justice. It is shame though that the Pope did not speak in a way that would cause Congress to react, to swing at his pitches. In the end, the Pope did not speak in a way that would cause Congress to confess its sins.

Equality And Inequality For Israel-Palestine

For as long as so many have divided themselves into camps for either side, there is no way that a peaceful settlement can be found between the Israelis and the Palestinians . Such is the price we pay for tribalism. Tribalism can make us feel good especially when it causes us to feel proud of belonging to our groups, but divisions, envy, and enmity are soon to follow. And sometimes, as has occurred with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, tribalism irrevocably leads down an irrational path to moral suicide and even physical destruction.

If we are going to search for a peaceful settlement that relies on justice, we must abhor the abduction and killing of the 3 Israeli teenagers as much as we abhor the Occupation and Israel's detention, torture, and killing of Palestinians by Israeli security forces and settlers. And if we want a peace by justice settlement, we must oppose Hamas' rockets fired at Israel as much as we oppose Israel's current coldhearted attack on Gaza. For if one has the right to attack civilians in the name of self-defense, so does the other. If Israel claims the right to attack Gaza because no country would tolerate being attacked by missiles, realize that the Palestinians have the right to attack Israel because no people should have to tolerate being permanently occupied--which includes having resources destroyed and land stolen--by a foreign power. Of course, allowing both to attack each other the way they do is to do nothing but let others be attacked because they are not us. If we continue with that philosophy, who will be left to protect us when we are attacked?

We should note that there is an argument against equating the attacks of one's enemies with own attacks on others. The argument against calls such a comparison 'moral equivalency.' Those who use this term do so to denounce the equating of one's own actions with that of one's enemies. But what those who oppose moral equivalency seem to not notice is that their rejection of moral equivalency is due to their embracing of moral relativity. And moral relativity, from a Christian perspective is nothing short of a denial of God's Word as well as His character because He is not a respecter of persons.

The above is the equality aspect in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Where the inequality exists is in the strength and oppression one side has exercised over the other. This was the witness of Rachel Corrie when she stayed in Gaza. It is also testified by the statistics gathered by B'Tselem (click here), an Israeli human rights group. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Israel continues to rob the Palestinians of their means to live. Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians. And Israel continues to treat the Palestinians like dogs and while feigning that some Palestinians would act like animals.

In the meantime, the world watches the World Cup or whatever follows it. Such is a denial of both our inter-connectivity and the humanity of all the victims, Israeli and Palestinian, of this conflict. Here, the greatest sins are being committed by both those with the most power and those who use a claim to having the moral high ground to take sides rather than work for justice for all.

Is Anti Same-Sex Marriage Rhetoric A Barrier To Peace?

The following is the result of having discussed same-sex marriage on a couple of conservative blogs. Not all conservatives overstated their case against same-sex marriage; but some did. What follows is for them.

Until the latest terrorist attack, same-sex marriage had become a focus of attention again. This time, it was because the Supreme Court just heard arguments in support of its legalization. Those who were opposed paraded a host of analogies they say could really happen if same-sex marriages are allowed. All of these comparisons live down the same slippery slope from one another and their purpose is to infuse fear for what the future could hold. However, each of the comparisons made seem to unveil more about the mindset and priorities of same--sex marriage's opponents than to inform us of the effects of legalizing these marriages.

We are told that if same-sex marriages are legalized, then comparable events, like the legalization of bestiality, the legalization of adult-child marriages and other relations, and the legalization of polygamy could happen. Of course, all of these predictions are voiced in the interrogative. It goes like this, if we legalize same-sex marriage, what will stop us from legalizing _____________? The implication being that our current laws against same-sex marriage is the last line of defense before we are totally occupied by unrestrained sin. The logic employed here  is that same-sex marriages represent one of the most base human relations people can have.

However, there are both logical and Biblical reasons why we should at least question the thinking mentioned above. First, let's take a look at the logic of the analogies. On the one hand, by asking if we will legalize bestiality, adult-child partnerships and similar kinds of relationships, and polygamy once we legalize same-sex marriages, many are implying that either same-sex marriage is more similar to these practices than heterosexual marriage or equal to it.

In either case, those who make these comparisons cannot get past, and are thus fixated on, the sexual dynamics of same-sex relations. The fact that the domination, abuse, violence or the threat of violence that exists in some these other relations take a back seat to gay sexual dynamics is an indicator of that fixation. In addition, that they see same-sex marriage as being more comparable to bestiality than heterosexual marriages is another such indicator. If someone was trying too hard to impress people, we might be tempted to say that person is overcompensating for something. And overcompensation is what we see here in the comparisons. It is as if just saying what the Bible says about homosexuality is not enough. So some are eager to go well beyond.

What do the Scriptures say? Certainly the Bible does not have a favorable view toward homosexuality. In fact, it speaks against it in the most serious way. According to Paul, homosexuality, along some very common household sins, can disqualify one from the Kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9-10). But does that justify the range of talk from hyperbolic rhetoric to hate speech against same-sex marriage?

Paul also wrote about homosexuality in Romans 1 when he spoke of those who decided to worship the creature rather than the creator. He went on to say that God gave them up to an unclean heart. But as much as he spoke against homosexuality, Paul tells us that Romans 2:1 is a coming. And just as he listed a host of other sins that comes from worshipping the creature rather than the creator and merits God's judgment, Paul tells us that Romans 2:1 is a coming. What does Romans 2:1 say? It says that all who judge others condemn themselves because they too practice the same sin. See, Romans 2:1 makes Paul's statements on homosexuality and other sins personal about ourselves rather than informational about others. Romans 2:1 demands that, after reading Romans 1, we stare in a mirror to see our own sins rather than judging the failures of others from a far. And this is another problem those who use inflated rhetoric against same-sex marriages have.

Yes, homosexuality is wrong, says Paul; but he writes this in a section of Romans where he calls everybody a sinner. So we cannot preach Romans 1 to homosexuals without first reading how it condemns us. Thus, those who are honestly referencing Paul to condemn homosexuals cannot distance themselves by overstating their case. Any attempt to do so is an exercise in self-righteousness. For the message of Romans 2:1 is that we cannot use what Paul wrote in Romans 1 to judge anybody without first condemning ourselves. This is because we are all sinners and we all deserve condemnation. We cannot distance ourselves from homosexuals or other sinners because we are all in the same boat.

So what does how we speak against same-sex marriages have to do with peace? How obvious the answer is depends on which end of the whip we live. For if we are among or benefit from the persecutors who have power, we will be clueless. But if we are among the persecuted, it cannot get anymore obvious. When we see how mere sinners like homosexuals can be talked about, we realize how much worse it is for those who pose a real threat. We see that already in our action movies. The enemy is always depicted as this irrational monster who must be destroyed at all costs if we are to survive. For our enemy attacks for no sane reason and we are saved solely through some display of anger injected hyper-masculine display of force.

Just as how some avoid describing homosexuals as people who have hurts, grievances, dreams, contributions to make, and legitimate issues to address, we rarely portray our enemies as being human. This is because both groups are all too often painted as demons who must be exorcized and destroyed rather than be understood. And in shutting our ears to what they would say to us, we slam the door on all possible peaceful resolutions. For peaceful resolutions often require that we first look into a nonmagic mirror that tells us how we might have contributed to the conflict as opposed to conveniently regarding their attacks on us as the first strike. When we can't handle that truth, we use hyperbole to describe our enemies and give ourselves the energy and permission needed to do far worse to them than they might have done to us. What we don't realize is that the more enemies we slaughter, whether with  words or weapons, the more we fall from humanity. And that affects how we relate to our families and neighbors. Many of those who have actually had to kill an enemy soldier or combatant know this, they live with this. They have forever crossed a chasm for which there is no bridge to return.

WW II veterans Gene Larocque and Howard Zinn have said that our country has learned the wrong lessons from WW II and thus makes war the rule rather than the exception. And tribalism (a.k.a., patriotism) makes us so gullible that we easily follow any flag waving opportunist into the next war. And in so doing, we engage in a perpetual, king-of-the-hill battle. And history has always told us that nobody stays king forever.

The language that many of us use on our enemies inspires hate and maintains the status quo of constant war. That is because our choice of words are often designed to distance ourselves from them. The more we distance ourselves, the greater license we give to our emotions. So when we are far enough away, we are both able and required to take extreme actions against them with inner impunity, or so we think.

Perhaps, if we focused on our own faults more than we point, with animosity, our finger at the sins of gays or other groups we dislike, we would do the same with our enemies. And perhaps, the more we also acknowledged our own faults when we accuse our enemies of wrongdoing, we would be more inclined to negotiate to resolve differences nonviolently rather than to shoot first and forget to ask any questions. After all, addressing our own sins first is a fixed cost of knowing God. And perhaps if we acknowledged the vast contributions that gays and others have made to us as individuals and our society, we would also see the valid concerns of our enemies that we would be more inclined to reach out in peace. After all, seeing only the sins of the other was what the pharisee in Jesus's parable on the two men praying did and he went home condemned.

Why The Reformed Church Cannot Work For Peace

During a Veterans For Peace protest outside the White House a few years ago, I had a very brief conversation with journalist/activist Chris Hedges. Though as a fundamentalist, I have serious disagreements with Hedges on theology, I very much appreciate his writings and have a deep respect for the courage he has shown in his life. And I hasten to add that we ignore his words about the direction of our country at our own peril. In our exchange, I told him of my efforts to get people from my denomination involved in peace activism. Though I don't remember what he exactly said, when I told him that I belong to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), he communicated a message of resignation. Basically, I have no hope, according to Chris. Today, I now have a better understanding of what he meant.

Chris was right about the OPC to a certain extent. Pertaining to the older members of the denomination and those in control, there is little to no hope for change. There is hope among the young people though.

Why is there little to no hope for the older members and those in control? Before that question can be answered, one must briefly describe the OPC and its sister denominations. The OPC and its sister denominations follow the teachings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a select set of confessions and catechisms. The extra biblical documents they follow most closely include the Belgic Confession of 1561, the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563, the Canons of Dort of 1619, and the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The most revered of these documents are the ones from Westminster. If we used the language of Jesus's day to describe these documents as a whole, we would call them the traditions of men. Or in this case, we can call them the Reformed Traditions. For just as Jesus used the word "traditions" to describe the interpretations of the Scriptures of his day, so can we do the same when referring to the interpretations of the Scriptures that today's church relies on.

The ministers from these denominations tell us that the Reformed Traditions, especially the ones from Westminster, provide the best system of doctrine of what is taught in the Scriptures. This calling the Reformed Traditions the best is a rather vague statement that is pregnant with ambiguity. For if what is meant is that after reading or sampling most, if not all, the interpretations and systems that try to describe what the Bible teaches, they think that the Reformed Traditions provide the most accurate picture of what the Bible says, then I fully agree. After all, this meaning for the word best allows for a great deal of disagreement as well as a laissez-faire attitude toward relying on material from outside of the these documents. But, if what is meant by calling the Reformed Traditions the best is that the Reformed Traditions provide the authoritative rendition of the theology taught in the Bible, then there are problems. And when one looks at the vows for church officers in the OPC and its sister denominations, tragically, the latter meaning of the word best seems to hold sway. For the Church officers are to "receive and adopt" these traditions, especially the Westminster ones, while allowing a minimal number of disagreements.

There are problems with regard to the Reformed Traditions, regardless of which documents you elevate the most, being any kind of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. By putting these traditions on such a high pedestal, they start to compete with the Scriptures for our attention. When we so admire these traditions, we are tempted to spend more and more time understanding these traditions and less and less time reading the Bible because these traditions become the key that unlocks the mysteries in God's Word. And when we have such a high regard for the Reformed traditions, if we also struggle with understanding the Bible, we are tempted to regard these traditions as Catholics regard their priests or venerate the Pope. That is the Reformed Traditions become an intermediary between us and the Bible.

The dynamics that result from having such a reverence for these Traditions tend to prohibit its adherents from working for peace. For, the degree to which one disagrees with the Reformed Traditions shows one's disagreement with the Scriptures. And to prove if a new or rediscovered insight is right or wrong, such as VanDrunen's definition of God's 2 kingdoms, one must FIRST appeal to the Reformed Traditions for support. Here is where reverence for and mastery of the Reformed Traditions can become a competition and thus result in tribalisms inside the Church at first and outside later. Inside the Church, one must definitively show that the Reformed Traditions had, in one way or another, already supported one's own positions. Those who disagree will also do the same. And thus we have these battles as to who is best interpreting the Reformed Traditions. Outside the Church, many Reformed Christians adopt an us verses them attitude toward the world. They believe that the writers of the Reformed Traditions have everything to teach the world and nothing to learn from it--to adopt a Martin Luther King line. So what many Reformed church leaders do when trying to respond  to a pressing issue of the day is to read these Traditions without questioning while avoiding all other sources of information. Just think of what is being said here; those who wrote the Reformed Traditions had nothing to learn from people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King. Neither do the writers of the Reformed Traditions have anything to learn from Hellen Keller, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and alike.

Now should one appeal to the Scriptures to prove something here, it is usually done from having studied the Scriptures through the Reformed Traditions first. Thus, such a person has studied the Bible through systems that are viewed as providing almost divinely inspired cookie cutters that shape what the Bible can and cannot say. A similar effect can be seen in churches that adhere to Dispensationalism. It isn't the mere use of the Reformed Traditions that is wrong here. For one could use the Reformed Traditions as providing flawed models of thought that comment on the Scriptures. But after a certain point, the more reverence one has for the Reformed Traditions, the less this is done.

Another problem here is that, all too often, equal weight is put on all of the parts of the Reformed Traditions. This means that what the Reformed Traditions teach us about how to relate to each other is to be treated with the same respect that the statements about God and salvation are treated with. The implication is clear but not carried out. Rather, the intention here is to maintain uniformity and obedience. The issue is control.

So how does all of this inhibit those who follow the Reformed Traditions from working for peace, world peace to be specific? The first way all of this hurts our efforts in working for peace can be seen in how we are to relate to those in authority. The second way the Reformed Traditions keep its especially older adherents from joining  peace movements is that it kills the curiosity that causes us to not question by instilling a phobia to complexity.

Let's face it, the writers of the Reformed Traditions were authoritarians. The twenty-third chapter of the Westminster Confession said that the government was to preserve the Church and was to punish "blasphemies and heresies." And though many in today's Reformed churches do not agree with the parts of this chapter that gives the government control over religious statements,  this was the mentality of the writers. And they lived in a time where elite-centered governments were in style. Those in authority were to obeyed, not questioned. To use the language of the Westminster Standards, those in authority or who are older are our "superiors" while we are their "inferiors."

The Reformed Traditions spoke in unison about our duty to obey the government. Both the Heidelberg and the Westminster Catechisms declare that obedience to the government is part of our keeping of the 5th commandment to honor our parents. In fact, the Westminster Catechisms explicitly interpret the 5th commandment as demanding that we submit to all of our superiors.

On the other hand, all those in authority have their responsibilities too. For some of the Reformed Traditions state that, as just mentioned, the government is to punish those who teach what is wrong. One only needs to remember how Servetus was burnt at the stake by Calvin's Geneva because of heresy. Besides that, the government was to encourage and reward and defend those who are good and punish evildoers. However, Government is not to provoke the people to wrath. When one compiles all that the Reformed Traditions say, the government is to be an instrument used by God to protect and guide us.

But what do the Reformed Traditions say we should do when evil results come from governments ordained by God to do good? Here, not much is said except that we should be patient with the failings of those in authority and pray for them and that we are only obligated to obey laws that are both just and not contrary to the Scriptures. But not being obligated to obey unjust laws can mean different things to different people. To the apostles, it meant preaching the Gospel despite being commanded not to. To Martin Luther King, disobeying unjust laws meant ignoring those laws that did not treat people fairly and as equals. To King, disobedience to such laws are not the concern of the law's targets only, but of all who would are concerned for others. But at the same time, King stated that we are also submitting to the authorities when we peacefully and lovingly submitting to the consequences of such disobedience (see King's Letter From A Birmingham Jail).

When we look at the Reformed Traditions, we see that there is a tendency toward tribalism built into commands to obey the government. Some even say that explicitly (see the Summary and Conclusion from John Frame's Toward A Theology Of The State). That is there is a certain myopia taught by the confessions and catechisms regarding our relationship with our government and nation. According to the Reformed Traditions, we are to submit to our own leaders, relying on them for guidance and protection. Meanwhile, these traditions say nothing of be mindful of the world outside. Should this bother us considering human history and how governments will say anything to garner and maintain popular support? But, we are told to submit to those in authority so we can lead peaceful and quiet lives, so we can keep to ourselves.

We should note the role tribalism plays in wars. For tribalism does not consist merely of some kind of familial, religious, ethnic, ideological, or national sense of belonging. We all belong to groups and belonging to a group does not mean we practice tribalism. Tribalism refers to the degree of loyalty one has for one's own group. The greater the loyalty people have for their groups, the greater the tribalism that exists. The greater the tribalism, the more people embrace moral relativity. That is because the greater the loyalty people have for their groups, the more right and wrong is decided by who does what to whom. Sooner or later, moral absolutes fade from the picture of ethics. The more we judge moral wrongs by what ill effects others cause us, the more self-righteous we will be in answering alleged evil with real evil. And how will we know that our government is practicing real evil in its responses when we depend on it for guidance and protection as the Reformed traditions tell us to?

When we see that history has provided us with a plethora of examples of the real reasons why nations go to war, that they are moved by avarice and ambition, and how these same nations lie to their own citizens so as to recruit their help to fight these wars, how can we be content with the Reformed Traditions' view of how we are to submit to the government? If we have an ounce of care for anyone outside of our own littles worlds, how can we follow the Reformed Traditions here?

To question or even challenge the Reformed Traditions within the Reformed community is to be seen as a troublemaking pariah. This perception often reveals more about the community than the individual. The community reacts this way to challenges to the Reformed Traditions because such challenges cause one-and-many panic attacks. This is because change can cause some to be afraid that they are losing vital connections to the past. So the question becomes for those in the Reformed community, how much change can we undergo and still call ourselves Reformed? The question reveals our problem. Our problem is that we are not asking ourselves the right question. Our problem is not whether the next change will disqualify us from being Reformed. The question is whether the next change either moves us closer to or takes us away from Christ? We should note that our greatest fear here reveals our greatest treasure.

One of the mottos in the Reformed Churches is that we are always reforming. And yet, the more reverence we have for our Reformed Traditions, the more we resist reform. And the older one is, the more one is likely to revere the past and resist change. This is why there is little to no hope for having the older members of the Reformed churches work for peace. But, amongst the young people there are stirrings that doctrine without love and the right works is not worth sticking around for. And indeed, some are not. But some of the some are also showing us that if we do not change what we can afford to, they will leave and change what they can't afford to let go of.

----------------------------------

Another Look At Israel And Palestine

Here's the problem, you have a people who have been oppressed for centuries. And many of them believe that it is their religious duty to guard the land. Finally, a glimmer of hope appears on the horizon, the possibility of nationalism arises, but there is an obstacle. What should they do?

Though the degree of suffering is different, the above description fits both the Jews and Palestinian Arabs. These two peoples are remarkably similar. And that is one of the major problems. The two groups have more in common than they care to admit.

Their similarities should cause dissonance in the hearts and minds of those who brutalize those from the other side. It should. But it doesn't. Bitterness and opportunism have anesthetized the consciences of many who either support or take part in the carnage.

 How should the Church respond? Unfortunately, eschatological issues and nationalism have complicated this question. Those who adhere to Dispensationalism make the God of the Universe into a tribal god. They have made Him into the god of America and Israel. Here, history tells us that this is the same old, same old. That this has been done from the beginning of time. History also tells us that making God into a tribal god should raise red flags; it should, but it doesn't. It doesn't because we fall prey to the temptation of thinking that God is on our side as we fight "His" battles for Him. This is a salve to the conscience.

We have already answered some of the religious concerns of the Dispensationalists in previous posts (Conversing With CUFI, Brickner vs Piper on Israel) and more answers can be found in the article An Open Letter To Evangelicals. We should note that Dispensationalists describe helping Israel as if it was a magical chant. And people who follow their call will feel a real and deep sense of significance because they think they are siding with God. But in the end, besides compromising the Gospel, they would have only submitted to the tribalism previously discussed.

We should also note that those who support Israel are not the only ones who can promote tribalism or a gang mentality. So can those who want to free Palestine from the Jordan to the sea if they call for dominance by the Palestinians. When I talked to CUFI conference attendees, I had to tell them that I did not support dominance by either group. Rather, I said that they should have equal access to the land.

But tribalism has a strong historical appeal to American Dispensationalists. After all, it was tribalism that oversaw European invaders as they ethnically cleansed this land from its indigenous population. This "cleansing"consisted of one atrocity after another but it was never fully dealt with, and perhaps never fully will by those European-Americans who believe in the gospel of self-exaltation. Believing that one's own group has a virtually inerrant monopoly on God's truth can make one loud and proud but also defensive toward all who question.

It is this tribalism, or gang mentality, that, in an age of inevitable proliferation of WMDs, threatens all. And this is the point that the Church must speak up. It must speak out against the gang mentality that says right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. It must speak out against the religiously based tribalism that externalizes all evil so that one's own actions are assumed to be above reproach. And for us American Christians to do that, we must come to grips with the many atrocities committed by those who preceded us.

It is only when we first disown our own tribalism and prefer principle to patriotism that we can then challenge both Israelis and Palestinians to do the same. And this is what the Church must pursue not just for morality's sake, but for our survival. We must help people  see the gross injustice that tribalism, or gang mentality, not only allows but demands. It is only then that we can be seen as representatives of God regarding Israel and Palestine. Otherwise, we will participate in just another instance of history where one group claims, by its own merits, the right to take from and destroy another group.

Does Peace Come From Ruling Or Serving?

Matthew 20:20-28 tells an all too human story in the Gospels. The mother of two of Jesus' disciples came to him asking for a particular honor for her sons; she wanted her sons to have the seats of honor in Jesus' kingdom. After Jesus answered her, the others became angry. It was then that Jesus identified key factors to spreading both peace and conflict.

Jesus said that we should not "lord it over" others as the Gentiles do but instead, we should become like him. He said that:

"the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

The contrast that Jesus draws is stark. While those who were then counted as outside of God's community of people sought honor by dominating others, the King of Kings came to give the ultimate service for all.

While we could charge people to follow Jesus' words and example here, perhaps we should first employ these verses as a barometer. That is we can tell those who are serving themselves from those who are following Jesus by checking to see if they are ruling over rather than serving others. So is the US serving Iraq or themselves when our oil companies are negotiating for no-bid contracts? And they are doing so because our gov't, having failed to move the Iraqi Parliament to privatize Iraqi oil reserves, influenced the Iraqi Oil Minister to privatize the same reserves so that they can be controlled by foreign companies.

How does this lesson relate to peace? Control and domination bring unnecessary conflict. We know this because we know how we respond to control. And yet, when it comes to our country's foreign policies, this lesson often remains unlearned. This is because since we have idealized, or idolized, our country, we interpret resistance to our nation's control as hating our freedoms, and in a sense, that is correct. People from other countries hate our assumed freedom to rule over them as we are doing in Iraq. Of course, those who insist on worshiping at the alter of American patriotism insist that others need our direction for their own good.

Such patriots show that they are either reading impaired with regards to the Bible or are following what Jesus described was the example of the godless--remember that they sought greatness by becoming tyrants. Of course, tyrant is a strong word to those seeking control; but to those who are being dominated, it is apropos.

Do we really want peace? Then we should insist that our country's foreign policies serve rather than control others. In this, we would be following Jesus. This will not eliminate all of our conflicts but it will decrease the number of our enemies because we will no longer be fighting those who resist our control. And who knows, maybe setting such an example of service would catch on which would make us leaders, by example that is.