Dan Minette wrote:
I'd give him a bit more leeway than that. While he and we are not God, he and we can be willing instruments of God's will for the world. The idea of the United States as "the last best hope of mankind" didn't begin with him or Reagan....it is a quote from Lincoln.
Lincoln -- and every other US president who did it -- quoted Scripture quite differently, as I see it. I have no problem with a president using the Bible to illustrate a point or to argue that their chosen path is moral. What I see Bush doing with Scripture is setting himself and our country in God's place. (But "the last best hope..." isn't Scripture, is it?")
This view has its risks of course. Calls are often mistaken for liscence. But, it is without doubt that the US is the most important single power in the world. It seems clear to me that this power's net effect has been more for the good than for the bad. Turn the US into Balkanized, feuding groups of states...a very possible outcome of the Civil War...and liberal democracies might very well be few and far between now.
There's quite a leap between "we do good" and "we are god" or "we are god's chosen instrument," don't you think?
Discernment is a critical issue, of course. But, there are some things that are reasonably straightforward. The continuation of slavery in the US was wrong. The actions of Stalin were wrong. Some things we should end if it within our capacity.
It's wonderful to be able to say that we have done good things. Is it Christian to boast of them? Do we have license to get a big head about it?
We're reading that quite differently, perhaps. This says to me that faith calls and empowers us to good works, and to avoid the temptation of simply offering "lip service."
Ouch -- substitute "grace" for "faith" there.
I understand that's a fairly traditional non-Methodist Protestant approach. But, quoting the Cost of Discipleship, about 1/4th of the way in the Call to Discipleship chapter:
"The idea of a situation in which faith is possible is only a way of stating the facts of a case in which the following two propositions hold good and are equally true: 'only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.'"
I don't see the point you're offering here...?
I don't think so, not completely. The point to stop worrying is at the end
point of the struggle, not the beginning. Well worry is probably the wrong
word to use; wressle would probably be better.
That's completely different, assuming you mean wrestle in the manner of how Israel gained its name. I see it so, also.
Rereading it, I see he also talks about joining our suffering with that of Christ...a very Catholic concept. Its not that he argues that we are not saved by grace; its that he argues that we are only saved by costly grace. Thus, we can't just start by saying we are forgiven...that has to be the capstone..to quote him again.
Thus returning sacrifice to a central position in our faith, where it belongs. Do you hear this in GWB's rhetoric?
Again, that's a worthy goal...but we don't have to play God with them in order to respond. People like Bin Ladin have a vision for the future of the world...a vision I find abhorent. There is a real conflict...and he and other terrorists will be willing to kill millions to have the world as they want it.
Did I suggest otherwise?
I agree with Tommy Aquinis in that God wants us to use our reason.
Again, did I suggest otherwise? Is that not happening right before your eyes?
What can I change about the Sudan? My vote, for one thing. Where I donate money (Lutheran World Relief is in there, thank goodness).
They are, but unfortunately the difficulties are mostly political.
Of course. "Give us this day our daily bread" has always been answered, figuratively and literally. But people have kept others' bread from them.
I have walked through (dodging human waste everywhere), worshipped in and had serious conversations with people of some of the poorest places on earth. Not as horrible as what's happening in the Sudan, but devastatingly tragic. I will never forget a mother who apologized to us for her skinny daughter's big stomach -- she said that her little girl, who was perhaps five years old, just likes to hold her stomach that way. I stood there, realizing that she had no idea that her daughter was dying of malnutrition. And why? One answer is that they live in a country where corruption is rampant, where any sort of labor organizing is fiercely repressed. Another answer is that we were willing to buy cars built there by cheap labor, and we buy their best corn and send them our worst (as animal feed, but people eat it). Another answer is that the church has helped maintain a harsh class system there for centuries and only since the mid-60s began to try to exercise a preferential option for the poor. There are many answers.
A photo I took in a squatters' settlement hangs on my wall, a little boy with a shirt but no pants, his belly distended, standing in an alley between shacks amid trash. It is not a pleasant picture, but it hangs in our house to help me remember the world beyond the mountains that ring Silicon Valley.
I wanted to feed that little girl who "like to stick her stomach out" (and my companions and I did give her mother money). But knowing there were thousands like her nearby, millions throughout the world, I also want to do much, much more. It is overwhelming, so I pray to change the things I can, accept the things I cannot, and for the wisdom to know the difference.
While I haven't checked on the effectiveness of Lutheran World Relief (not being a Lutheran), I'm sure it is a well respected, hard working NGO. But NGOs do not have the resources to deal with armed forces who are opposed to any relief.
I wasn't suggesting that LWF can solve the problem. I'm grateful that through them, I am doing a small thing.
The US has threatened the government of Sudan with consequences if the genocide contineus. Alas, it had to water down its Security Council Resolution in order to get it passed. And, with the debacle in Iraq, its hard to believe that the US will streatch its forces to go alone in the Sudan.
To me, this is a reason to abandon the current administration's policies, to head in a direction in which real coalitions can be created at a global level.
What I was hoping to get at with this question was some sense of what a reasonable response to evil actions is. You and I, by ourselves, the NGOs by themselves can do little to stop this evil. But, collectively, the people of the United States can...while simultaneously limiting other actions that may protect us and help the world. It seems to me that you are not against intevening against bad actions with force; you are arguing for prudence...knowing when we can be effective and knowing when action is likely to cause more harm than good....which is a judgement reasonable people can differ on in many cases.
Is that accurate?
It is, but I'll be first to say that there's not much there. I'm not so interested in making the argument for intervention by force as I am in electing leaders who I believe will do so and do it well. Bush's arguments regarding Iraq, which seemed tenuous before the war, now seem to me to be horrible misrepresentations of Iraq and his own motivations.
We may be having trouble with semantics here, because I see you repeatedly "adressing your sins" in your posts...including this one. Obviously, adressing your sins does not mean taking care of them yourself. But, repentance is critical. We are called to work on our own spiritual development...which includes understanding and working on our habits of sin. I realize that you are not opposed to this, because you proclaim your need to do this. So, my conclusion is that we have a language problem.
I don't have any sins. However, there are some that have me. I don't work on my sins. However, sometimes I let God work on them. To me, this is not just semantics, it is at the core of the attitude that seems to allow my spiritual growth.
There is a line of Paul's that is often misinterpreted: "if God is for us, who can be against us." I know of a number of people who think God guarantees sucess for those who truely try to follow him. Its not that they think they are God, its that God has made a promise: you choose to work towards a goal that fits with my will, and I'll make sure you suceed.
I suspect that the most popular form of self-deception is to act as though one thinks one is God while simultaneously denying it. The fact that Bush doesn't think he's God wouldn't dissuade me for a moment from my impression that he does think he's God. I do that all the time, when I try to control things that are beyond my control; or yield to the temptation to think, "If I were God..." -- a sentence that by defintion is insane... even though I am happy to report that I am not God.
Also, one thing I find ironic and frustrating about all this is that you and Gautam have gotten into very heated arguements in this area....when it now appears that you have been arguing from similar starting points. He has frequently argued that the US is the most powerful nation, but is not all powerful and must act based on that reality.
Har. I must agree. Gautam and I manage to apologize to one another when we get carried away, which is wonderful. That's real unity, in my mind.
Nick
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
