Here's a fascinating article about an East German Christian family behind the Berlin Wall (before it fell 20 years ago) who stayed faithful to God and maintained their integrity in many ways, accepting the difficulties that came with refusing to join the Communist Party.

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200911.htm#20091110a

Awesome example to us all...

This was an interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18098-murderer-with-aggression-genes-gets-sentence-cut.html

Basically a convicted murderer had his prison sentence reduced because scientists found that the genetic code in his body contained a particular variant that was "linked to aggression" in other people who had the same genetic variant.

This raises all sorts of interesting questions.  Are people's actions merely products of their genetics?  Are people's actions "deterministic" (they don't have any choice in their actions despite the "illusion of free will")?  If it is true that particular genetic variants are linked to particular temptations (alcoholism, gluttony, sexual immorality, homosexuality, etc), does the presence of the temptation excuse the sin?  Indeed, for naturalists, on what basis could one ever say that any act is "right" or "wrong"?  Thus, on what basis could a legitimate government (with laws and punishments for lawbreaking) ever be enacted in the first place?  Etc.

How about this question - If one believes in natural selection ("survival of the fittest") and also that one's actions are determined by their genes, shouldn't one favor the Biblical Jewish-theocracy capital punishment for acts like murder, reasoning that such genes should be removed from the gene pool as quickly as possible?

Of course, I don't believe that one's actions are determined by their genes.  But it seems that naturalists should consider the implications of their beliefs....

When is it right to pay ransom money for a kidnapped loved one?   What are the Biblical principles which apply?

This is a huge question which I'm pondering right now.  It may seem distant in America, but I think it will shortly become more relevant for us here, and it is already extremely relevant for Christians in most parts of the world.

Please read the article below, from last week, and ponder the above questions.   Then there are a couple more questions I ask at the bottom.

 

 

Kidnapped Christian Doctor in Iraq Freed in Critical Condition
http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/iraq/9776/

Here are some of my recent thoughts on politics, specifically the economy and the election.  Sorry for the rambling nature of the post.  I doubt it will sway any of you one way or the other, as most people have already made up their minds.  Yet I hope these thoughts will be profitable to you.  As always, I will appreciate hearing your opinions.

1. The economy... in two words. "debt" and "oil".

Our national debt of trillions of dollars seems problematic.  Likewise the 'social security' system, with the 'baby boomers' expecting to retire while a smaller number of people are paying into the system.  Meanwhile personal credit card debt averages around $8000 per family (not including mortgages).  As for mortgages, the Carter administration and Clinton administration (and 1992 and 1999 Congresses) apparently urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their 'subprime' mortgage loans to low-income families, which recently caused turmoil as they almost failed and the government chose to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts.

The issue is: do we allow the consequences of people's poor financial decisions to sting them, or ought the government to step in and provide public money to try to ease or eliminate the consequences?  Which is the most wise and loving thing to do, in the long term?

Most people in government these days seem to be calling for "more regulation", and bailouts, etc. (http://casey.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=1999877173.90323.383&gen=1)  If this trend continues, it will likely apply also to the other financial tsunamis looming, such as the national debt, the credit card debt, social security, etc.  The government will spend taxpayer money to try to keep the system afloat, instead of letting those who were in debt go bankrupt.  This will work, until the government runs out of money.  Then hyperinflation will occur.

I think Alexander Tyler's quote is extremely applicable and prescient:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

Meanwhile, oil is the trigger that has surfaced these problems again this year (coincidentally right before the election, or maybe not so coincidentally).  I personally think most people still underestimate how dependent the western economy is upon oil... for energy, transportation, and consequently, for food and water.  The holders of the majority of the world's oil (the Middle East, Venuzuela, Russia, Nigeria) are currently not very friendly with the USA. The 1930's depression had the advantage that more people lived within walking distance of food production than they do today. If oil and gas got really expensive, life might drastically change here in America, and it might trigger a large economic depression and possibly chaos until food and water and jobs became more accessible.

Yet the Bible gives plenty of hope for such times.  Matthew 24, Luke 21... Jesus predicts war, famines, and lots of persecution for Christians.  But He says to 'lift up your eyes, for your redemption draws near."  Habakkuk picks up the same theme:

Though the fig tree should not blossom
And there be no fruit on the vines,
Though the yield of the olive should fail
And the fields produce no food,
Though the flock should be cut off from the fold
And there be no cattle in the stalls,
Yet I will exult in the LORD,
I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
In other words, even if the economy completely fails and anarchy prevails, we who hope in Christ are completely secure - our citizenship and our hope is in heaven.  The situation will be ripe for reaching out with love and with the gospel to our neighbors.  No matter how we die (as we all will), whether by starvation or persecution or mob violence or cancer, we will wake up "in the presence of the Lord", Jesus Christ the Living Word of God.

 

2. The election - specifically Obama versus McCain.

Obama seems somehow more a discussion topic than McCain... perhaps McCain is seen as somewhat tamer, as a 'continuation' of Bush's presidency, while Obama is seen as more of a change.  I was interested to read tonight perspectives from Brian McClaren and Randy Alcorn on Obama... I'll comment on them below.  I have friends and family whose sentiments lie on both sides, so it's been interesting to hear the different perspectives.

From what I've seen, Christians who are voting for Obama give the following main reasons:

• In foreign policy, Obama emphasizes 'peace and reconciliation', not 'war' (or 'national defense', as the McCain side would say).  I think this means, at the bottom line, that he is more in favor of letting the United Nations handle international affairs, rather than 'unilateral' actions.  War is always horrific, and Obama is emphasizing the need for the United States to extricate itself from the conflicts it is involved in.  Many Christians see Bush as a president who arrogantly went against the world's opinion and thrust the nation into war.  The question of how to deal with Islamic terrorism is not often discussed these days, or at least not as often as it was discussed immediately after 9/11.

 

• Obama emphasizes helping the poor through government action, i.e. moving in a more socialistic direction, in healthcare, expanding welfare programs, mortgage assistance, etc.  It could be termed "helping the poor and needy among us", or "taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor", or "social justice and equity"... regardless of the terms used, his policies are undeniably more socialistic than McCain's, and to many Christians, this indicates to them that he is more concerned about the poor than is McCain.

 

• Also, of lesser prominence, Obama more emphasizes the need to protecting the environment, and he promises more changes in fiscal policy (i.e. more "government regulation" of Wall Street, health care, etc) than McCain, and so for those who think the current economic problems are due to Bush's policies, such change is welcomed.

Christians who are voting against Obama give the following main reasons:

• Obama is strongly pro-choice.  In other words, he does not consider the aborted fetuses as human babies unjustly killed by the millions each year, but rather as blobs of tissue without rights, whose life or death should be controlled by the mother's wishes.

 

• Obama's socialistic leanings are seen as ultimately harmful to the poor, to the economy, etc.  In other words, his plans to give money to the poor are seen in the light of other unsuccessful socialistic experiments of the past century.

 

• Obama's views on many other topics reflect the Democratic liberal positions, and do not jive with the Bible's teachings (on homosexual marriage, race, and other areas).

My own thoughts on the issues of the war, socialism, and abortion:

• The War on Terror (an ill-conceived title because it is unwinnable) - War is horrible - everybody admits this... including Obama, McCain, and me.  However, what is the alternative?  It is easy to criticise an incumbent president, and say "if I was president, I would withdraw from international conflict; I would bring home the troops."  But the actuality is that there are and will be wars, some of which will inevitably involve us.  Consider the 9/11 attacks, or the Saddam Hussein regime kicking out the nuclear inspectors.  How would Obama react to such events?  Unless I hear from him a novel plan, his 'peace' talk sounds like mere armchair quarterbacking.  I am guessing he would emphasize submission to the UN.  Since I do not trust the UN, this smells bad to me.

 

• Taking money from the rich to give to the poor strikes me as a bad decision for long-term national prosperity.  I personally think that individuals, especially Christians and the Church, should be helping the poor, not the government.  I think the government should step back and get less involved (and shrink itself in general)... drastically reduce welfare, etc.  It seems to me that whenever the government has increased taxes and given more money to low-income people (even back in Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in the 1930's), the subsidy/welfare mentality that has resulted has had long-term detrimental effects on low-income people and families. So when I hear Christians say that we should hold Jesus' emphasis on helping the poor and should thus vote for Obama's socialism, I agree with the former and disagree with the latter.  Government doleouts to the poor, to me, seems less loving, farther from Jesus'/the Bible's recommended approach.  Is McCain any better?  Well, he may be the lesser of two evils...

 

• Abortion = murder.  Government-sanctioned abortion = government-sanctioned murder.

I have heard the following question from my friends: Why would you put advocacy for the unborn above advocacy for the poor, and above advocacy for those being killed by US troops in foreign countries?

My response (openminded, but based on the evidence I have seen so far) is: Government socialistic aid is actually probably not the most loving response to the poor.  War is indeed extremely tragic, but one must weigh whether the carnage from foreign policies of 'appeasement' or inaction might actually be greater than the casualties of 'unilateral regime change', as ugly as that may be.  So advocacy for the unborn is actually the only real advocacy question in this year's election... and there is a clear answer as to whether McCain or Obama is a stronger advocacte for the unborn babies.

 

Finally, two perspectives worth reading (though I have already commented above on their main points)

Brian McClaren, four reasons why he is voting for Obama
http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/why-im-voting-for-obama-and-why.html

My reaction: On his reason #1, claiming that Jesus' message was one of "reconciliation"... Really???  Reconciliation with whom or what?  How?  The main reconciliation Jesus talked about was between sinners and God.  How does McClaren's post fit with Jesus' emphasis on 'straight and narrow way' leading to life which few find, or "he who is not for me is against me", or Himself as "the way, the truth, and the life... no man comes to the Father but by Me"?  I suspect that McClaren would find the rhetoric of Jesus Himself quite "militant" and "polarizing", were Jesus to be speaking in today's culture.
Also, McClaren's reason #3, on caring for the poor, I have addressed above by questioning whether socialism really provides more hope for the poor than does capitalism; whether big government is the solution, and indeed whether searching for "a solution" is actually a red herring since "the poor you will always have with you"... and whether instead we ought to focus on individual and church-based generosity and urban transformation...

Randy Alcorn, on why he is not voting for Obama
http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-cool-obamas-pro-abortion-stance.html

Here's a great quote from his post:
"Please don't tell me abortion isn't the only issue. Of course it isn't. Treatment of the Jews wasn’t the only issue in 1940 Germany. Buying, selling and owning black people wasn’t the only issue in the United States of 1850. Nonetheless, both were the dominant moral issues of their day. Make no mistake about it. In our own day if we support a candidate who defends abortion, who is dedicated to that cause, we are supporting the killing of children. Yes, even if he’s the coolest candidate to come along in decades."

 

 

 

... a day to gratefully remember those who have given their lives in service to our country and who are currently serving.  I am thankful.  Yet I can't help thinking that our country needs hardship more than it needs peace, to straighten out many of its problems (i.e. by pointing it back to God).  May God's will be done (in the coming election and beyond).

... a day also to remember one's own life.  God has been so good to me.  Loving and God-focused family, physical provision, many friends and especially a few very close friends, but most of all, The Gift of Jesus Christ coming to earth and dying for me / to pay for my sins, so that I could live with Him and the rest of the redeemed people in heaven forever.   Wow.

... one year ago today, life was extremely exciting, and also confusing and stressful.  Today, life is still confusing and stressful, but it is rather more 'bleak' than 'exciting'...  except for heaven, which is hopefully coming soon.  God lovingly removes the (relatively) cheap treasures of our lives so we can better see the value of the genuine treasure He has already given to us (those of us who are believers in Christ)....

"...God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:19

...thinking a bit about patriotism tonight.  Here are some interesting links:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/10/easy-to-be-hard-easy-to-be-cold.html - Real versus imaginary patriotism...

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/10/my-country-tis-of-me.html -  'designer love' and other things...

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/pride_and_shame.php - 'America' - a real culture, or only an abstract ideal?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/americas-identity-crisis/ - is nationalism wrong?

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/obama_will_no_longer_wear_amer.php - why Barack Obama says he will no longer wear an American flag lapel pin.    What would you think of a husband who said he would no longer wear his wedding ring because it was "only a substitute for true loyalty and love"??

and finally, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27427_UK_Debate-_We_Should_Not_Be_Reluctant_to_Assert_the_Superiority_of_Western_Values&only - a debate on the proposition "We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of western values."  What do you think?

 

My own situation - I grew up nominally/untestedly patriotic, then went through four years at college of extreme discomfort at the apparently unquestioning 'God-and-country patriotism' mentality being promulgated, then began to think 'deeper' and ponder more whether there might actually be a place for true patriotism.  I like the twofold contrast given by the top two links above: patriotism might be a commitment to sacrificial loyalty to one's homeland/country (the older conception), or it might be a commitment to 'ideal' behavior, as in, 'I will support whichever country or leader operates with the best morality/legitimacy at the moment' (the newer conception).  But since all men and all countries without exception are deeply flawed and sinful (and since many actions of countries are so vast as to be hard to analyze - e.g. were the Americans in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" as Ward Churchill claimed?), the latter definition of patriotism usually seems to simplify down to treason: aiding the enemy.

Yet what to do when one's country pursues actions and policies which seem very wrong, and all the (typical) legal ways to change the country's course seem ineffective?   E.g. Vietnam...?  Dietrich Bonhoeffer?  Peter and John?

Is America actually worth dying for?  If so, how does that fit with our higher allegiance to the Kingdom of God (which is unquestionably worth dying for)... ?

From FKIProfessor, here is a very interesting speech by George W. Bush:

 

 

Excerpts from a speech delivered by President George W. Bush to the VFW, Kansas City MO, 22 August 2007. (listen):

The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight.

If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia.

Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.

The lesson from Asia's development is that the heart's desire for liberty will not be denied. Once people even get a small taste of liberty, they're not going to rest until they're free. Today's dynamic and hopeful Asia -- a region that brings us countless benefits -- would not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance.

There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we're fighting today. But one important similarity is at their core they're ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force their ideology on others. Today, the names and places have changed, but the fundamental character of the struggle has not changed. Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own -- a harsh plan for life that crushes freedom, tolerance, and dissent.

Like our enemies in the past, they kill Americans because we stand in their way of imposing this ideology across a vital region of the world. This enemy is dangerous; this enemy is determined; and this enemy will be defeated.

We're still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we do know how the others ended -- and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today. The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up a Asian Tiger that is the model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East. The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America, not attack America.

At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Along the way to this freer and more hopeful Asia, there were a lot of doubters. Many times in the decades that followed World War II, American policy in Asia was dismissed as hopeless and naive. And when we listen to criticism of the difficult work our generation is undertaking in the Middle East today, we can hear the echoes of the same arguments made about the Far East years ago.

In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.

Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.

There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic."

Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system.

And the result of all these steps was that every Japanese citizen gained freedom of religion, and the Emperor remained on his throne and Japanese democracy grew stronger because it embraced a cherished part of Japanese culture. And today, in defiance of the critics and the doubters and the skeptics, Japan retains its religions and cultural traditions, and stands as one of the world's great free societies.

A democratic Japan has brought peace and prosperity to its people. Its foreign trade and investment have helped jump-start the economies of others in the region. The alliance between our two nations is the lynchpin for freedom and stability throughout the Pacific. And I want you to listen carefully to this final point: Japan has transformed from America's enemy in the ideological struggle of the 20th century to one of America's strongest allies in the ideological struggle of the 21st century.

Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from communist invasion. Then as now, the critics argued that the war was futile, that we should never have sent our troops in, or they argued that America's intervention was divisive here at home.

After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South -- and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated. Initially, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate endorsed Harry Truman's action, saying, "I welcome the indication of a more definite policy" -- he went on to say, "I strongly hope that having adopted it, the President may maintain it intact," then later said "it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war."

Throughout the war, the Republicans really never had a clear position. They never could decide whether they wanted the United States to withdraw from the war in Korea, or expand the war to the Chinese mainland. Others complained that our troops weren't getting the support from the government. One Republican senator said, the effort was just "bluff and bluster." He rejected calls to come together in a time of war, on the grounds that "we will not allow the cloak of national unity to be wrapped around horrible blunders."

Many in the press agreed. One columnist in The Washington Post said, "The fact is that the conduct of the Korean War has been shot through with errors great and small." A colleague wrote that "Korea is an open wound. It's bleeding and there's no cure for it in sight." He said that the American people could not understand "why Americans are doing about 95 percent of the fighting in Korea."

Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. And while it's true the Korean War had its share of challenges, the United States never broke its word.

Today, we see the result of a sacrifice of people in this room in the stark contrast of life on the Korean Peninsula. Without Americans' intervention during the war and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime. The Soviets and Chinese communists would have learned the lesson that aggression pays. The world would be facing a more dangerous situation. The world would be less peaceful.

Instead, South Korea is a strong, democratic ally of the United States of America. South Korean troops are serving side-by-side with American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And America can count on the free people of South Korea to be lasting partners in the ideological struggle we're facing in the beginning of the 21st century.

Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating.

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America.

Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon's foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration's policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous.

Here's what they said: "Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.

In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one. So we pursue the extremists wherever we find them and we stand with the Iraqis at this difficult hour -- because the shadow of terror will never be lifted from our world and the American people will never be safe until the people of the Middle East know the freedom that our Creator meant for all.

I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.

The American military graveyards across Europe attest to the terrible human cost in the fight against Nazism. They also attest to the triumph of a continent that today is whole, free, and at peace. The advance of freedom in these lands should give us confidence that the hard work we are doing in the Middle East can have the same results we've seen in Asia and elsewhere -- if we show the same perseverance and the same sense of purpose.

In a world where the terrorists are willing to act on their twisted beliefs with sickening acts of barbarism, we must put faith in the timeless truths about human nature that have made us free.

Across the Middle East, millions of ordinary citizens are tired of war, they're tired of dictatorship and corruption, they're tired of despair. They want societies where they're treated with dignity and respect, where their children have the hope for a better life. They want nations where their faiths are honored and they can worship in freedom.

And that is why millions of Iraqis and Afghans turned out to the polls -- millions turned out to the polls. And that's why their leaders have stepped forward at the risk of assassination. And that's why tens of thousands are joining the security forces of their nations. These men and women are taking great risks to build a free and peaceful Middle East -- and for the sake of our own security, we must not abandon them.

There is one group of people who understand the stakes, understand as well as any expert, anybody in America -- those are the men and women in uniform. Through nearly six years of war, they have performed magnificently. Day after day, hour after hour, they keep the pressure on the enemy that would do our citizens harm. They've overthrown two of the most brutal tyrannies of the world, and liberated more than 50 million citizens. (Applause.)

In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year. We're in the fight. Today our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful life.

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed.

Despite the mistakes that have been made, despite the problems we have encountered, seeing the Iraqis through as they build their democracy is critical to keeping the American people safe from the terrorists who want to attack us. It is critical work to lay the foundation for peace that veterans have done before you all.

A free Iraq is not going to be perfect. A free Iraq will not make decisions as quickly as the country did under the dictatorship. Many are frustrated by the pace of progress in Baghdad, and I can understand this. As I noted yesterday, the Iraqi government is distributing oil revenues across its provinces despite not having an oil revenue law on its books, that the parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation.

Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century.

Prevailing in this struggle is essential to our future as a nation. And the question now that comes before us is this: Will today's generation of Americans resist the allure of retreat, and will we do in the Middle East what the veterans in this room did in Asia?

The journey is not going to be easy, as the veterans fully understand. At the outset of the war in the Pacific, there were those who argued that freedom had seen its day and that the future belonged to the hard men in Tokyo. A year and a half before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan's Foreign Minister gave a hint of things to come during an interview with a New York newspaper. He said, "In the battle between democracy and totalitarianism the latter adversary will without question win and will control the world. The era of democracy is finished, the democratic system bankrupt."

In fact, the war machines of Imperial Japan would be brought down -- brought down by good folks who only months before had been students and farmers and bank clerks and factory hands. Some are in the room today. Others here have been inspired by their fathers and grandfathers and uncles and cousins.

That generation of Americans taught the tyrants a telling lesson: There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children. And when America's work on the battlefield was done, the victorious children of democracy would help our defeated enemies rebuild, and bring the taste of freedom to millions.

We can do the same for the Middle East. Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or the Soviet communists were of theirs. They are destined for the same fate.

The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will help those countries' peoples stand up functioning democracies in the heart of the broader Middle East. And when that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the American people will be safer.

 

 

What are your thoughts?   Is his history correct?   Are his applications correct?

I was reading John Mortenson's blog tonight, while reading more on the internet about the postmodernist/emergent controversy stewing at Cedarville University these days (about which I had already heard an inside perspective or two).  Specifically this post and especially the three other previous posts linked from that one.

I am so heartbroken to see my friends embracing postmodernism and "teaching others to do the same".  (I revived my similar post below from October of last year... same thoughts once again... these same thoughts burn through my mind increasingly more frequently).

I am delighted to see the love and acceptance which friends like Mortenson pour out on the needy people around them, and I seek to do this more myself.  But I have "great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart" when I see postmodern friends avoiding the exclusive and absolute teachings of God's Word (the Bible) and and allowing the culture to dictate the Church's perspective on the Bible, Christian life, and God Himself.

I will tread as lightly as possible as I quote below from Mortenson's earlier post:

"We go outside and he smokes. He is way across the yard from the children and worries that he is smoking too near them. He asks my permission to speak freely, meaning, can he swear in front of me. He says bullshit and watches to see if I will condemn him."...
Eddie comes by. Eddie is on the same road, but much farther gone. Eddie is deeply lined in his face, and skinny, and walks unrhythmically. He shakes hands with everyone over and over. Yeah, hey, hi, you’re a gentleman, thanks a lot, great to be here, shake my hand. He works a crowd like a politician. But this isn’t Eddie; this is Eddie’s robot, the mechanical part of him that the addiction needs to keep going. The addiction gladly kills all that is human, keeping only the smooth scheming parts, the clever negotiating parts, so that the body can get a little food and live another day and keep the addiction alive.
Ray knows this will be him.
He tells me where the crack houses are in this neighborhood, and then says this place gets bad after dark and he wants to leave now.  Gets bad? What could you meet that is worse than this?
He shakes my hand, not scheming like Eddie, but heavy and slow and sad. He walks away.
What Bible verse would you read to Ray?  ...
“Jesus of Nazareth…went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.”

 

There is an extremely fine line to walk.   It is good to be brokenhearted on behalf of others, to "weep with those who weep."   Yet there are words by which we are told to "comfort one another".   Jesus of Nazareth certainly did go about doing good and healing, but He also called people "broods of vipers" and even told some people "Go and sin no more".

Job's three friends sat with him in his misery for seven days without saying a word.  Then they opened their mouths.  The emergents/postmoderns say they should have kept their mouths closed-- that's where they went awry.

But I disagree.  Their problem was that they lost sight of God!   They "knew not the scriptures, nor the power of God".  They went astray not in their confidence about who God was, but in the content of their incorrect supposed knowledge.  They should have known from Genesis (Abraham's story, Joseph's story, etc) that God is not a cosmic karma machine.

The postmodernist will say, "But that's exactly it Tim - don't you see, Job's friends thought they knew God, but actually they were mistaken.  Herein is the lesson for us, never to speak with full authority or confidence on our interpretation of the Scriptures, because we might be wrong.  We ought never to rule out any perspective- be it McClaren, McClaine, or Bin Laden... because we might arrogantly miss some aspect of the truth that they could teach us."

Two thoughts in response: first a tiny caveat, then the main point.  Caveat- I agree that "100% certainty" is an unhelpful thing- it can lock one in to incorrect notions from which there is henceforth no possibility of getting out.  However, I suggest that 99.999...% "asymptotic certainty" is not only very legitimate in many cases, but that it can look outwardly indistinguishable from "100% certainty" in many situations.  Where do we ever see Jesus or Paul or Peter or any Biblical character preaching "Thus and thus says the Lord, and thus and thus you should do in response, but I might be mistaken in my interpretation of His message, so let's dialog about this-- what do you think God is saying to you?"    !
I do suspect that Peter and Paul and Jude had "only" 99.999...% asymptotic certainty, but it didn't preclude them from taking a firm, "dogmatic" stand on what God had previously stated (i.e. the very words)... and it didn't preclude them from saying things like "...I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.  For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

 

Now the main point:
Notice the Emergent/Postmodern emphasis on avoiding condemnation... as in the quote above "...and watches to see if I will condemn him".    I suggest that the focus in Emergent/Postmodern Christianity is too small... too limited... too terrestial.   My arbiter ought not to be my fellow man.  In fact, if I am looking to peers' approval to make sure I am on the right spiritual track in life, I am committing idolatry.

Rather, my arbiter must be God Himself, through His Word, the Bible (unmediated by human gatekeepers of traditions, but rather aided through the Holy Spirit to understand (cf. Alvin Plantinga's writings on 'warrant')...  yet trusting even no "spirit guidance" except what concurs with the revealed written Word of God, following Jesus' example).

My chief concern should be whether Jesus Himself would want me to confront the swearing man or not... rather than whether or not the swearing man might feel uncomfortably 'judged' by a Christian and henceforth perhaps spurn God.

 

In the words of the old song, "There's a call going out..."   a call to all true Christians in America and the West... to be broken....  doubly broken... in Christ's service and for His sake.

The first brokenness is an empathetic understanding of our postmodern peers... to seek to understand where they're coming from, to listen to them, to engage in gentle kindness and hospitality to them, to avoid the strident sounds of 'harsh, fundamentalistic, modernistic, arrogant, simplistic, judgmental, thoughtless' Christianity whenever possible as part of 'becoming all things to all men.'  We are called to become 'as postmodern' to the postmoderns.

Yet Paul's veneers had limits, as must ours... and thus comes about the second brokenness.  Our postmodern culture tells us that all perspectives are equally valid, and if we believe differently, we will face ridicule, rejection, and persecution by our peers.   We must be willing to accept this rejection... we must be willing to be broken a second time.  To be villified on the one side by the moralists for our empathy and hospitality, and be villified on the other side by the emergents for our unswerving stand upon God's Word and for the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ.   To be villified by our supposedly Christian brethren on both sides, for the sake of Christ.  As Jesus so poignantly asked the Pharisees, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"

We must be compassionate and loving, while simultaneously 'setting our faces like flint'.  We must be shrewd as serpents, but innocent as doves.

This is the call...   It is a call to love.  Not tolerance, which is cheap... but real love... tough love... which is excruciating.

We live in extremely challenging times...  God has placed us specifically here 'for such a time as this'.

The question was asked above: "What Bible verse would you read to Ray?"  I suggest that for us who truly follow Christ, this question cannot be a rhetorical one.

A nice concise article, covering most of the talking points on both sides of the Iraq War.

Interesting thoughts from Richard Fernandez:

The Jihadi movement is the proper heir of Marxism-Leninism. A very large part of its appeal consists in that it offers the poor a vision of earthly justice against the corrupt and wordly rulers of their nations -- corrupt men, who very often were yesterday's Marxist firebrands. Thus the almost saintly appeal of "learned" and rich men like Zawahiri and Bin Laden who represent denial, commitment and a complete surrender to the faith.

The hold of Bin Laden over the poor, yearning not only for Paradise but worldly justice as falsely but romantically embodied in sharia law, the law of Allah is as strong or stronger than the hold Lenin had on his disciples. Today's strongman-presidents may have gold and thugs, but they don't have romance. And looking at our Western intelligensia, neither do they. Even we are revolted by the sight of them. To the man in the desert or the Northwest Frontier, the multiculti transgendered spokesman of today's liberal society must appear as more ridiculous than Bozo the Clown. And perhaps he is. It might be argued that any honest man forced to choose between today's Left and the al-Qaeda might find himself attracted, despite everything, to the purer killer.

But I am not one to step back and long admire an advancing executioner. Bin Laden, whatever he may be, is determined to kill me, my family and friends. He aims to extinguish my culture; bury my beliefs; enslave my survivors. This he will not do so long as I can help it. And it's this basic, elemental resistance that really stands in the way of the Jihad as it once barred the Commissars. Not armies nor clever diplomats. It is sanity that ultimately defies the seductive whisperings of power. In Tolkien's story it is not the Wise or the Great Captains but the simpleton that collapses the dark tower. He preferred his garden to cold and adamantine stone.

Also notice this phrase from the article:

Eventually I take advantage of a lull in the fighting to slip out the back of the complex to the street. Adeem leaves me at the gate. Eyes still blazing, she bids me farewell. "Tell them how angry we are," she says. "Write in your story how willing we are to die for our cause."

Are you and I willing to die for our cause?  Not only 'America', 'freedom', or 'democracy', important as those may be.   Are you and I willing to die for being a follower of Jesus Christ?   Our willingness comes not from anger as Adeem's does, but from hope.