Definitions and arguments

My fellow academics will understand the joy of considering a question, picking a position, and arguing to defend it, with little concern for consistency, integrity, or what we truly believe.  I invite you to consider the following question through that lens.

What political philosophy is most consistent with Brethren values?

Libertarianism?  Liberalism?  Neo-liberalism?  Classical Republicanism?

Democracy?  Post-scarcity anarchy?

Pick your definitions, pick your stance, and pick your argument.

Love your enemies: an activist's stance

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” - Matthew 5:43-48

Often only a small snippet of that is quoted, which is fine, because it makes the same point as the whole passage. I’m just really partial to the whole thing.

In March of 2007, I attended a protest against the Iraq war organized by Valpo students in Indianapolis. Frankly, I found the whole thing appalling. I find that I often do not identify with the more vocal components of the anti-war movement, because sometimes it feels they’ve taken the issue of the war and turned it into a war right here at home. Those who oppose the war are our allies, and those who support it - and those who perpetrate it - are our enemies.

At this particular protest, a representative of the womens’ advocacy group Code Pink stood up and told what I can only call lies about our president. Maybe she believed them, but I didn’t - if George Bush were stumbling through the White House in drunken fits and and calling his wife “the C-word” in front of the White House Press Corps, we’d know about it. The media certainly has no bias against sensationalism.

But what really got to me was a war veteran and current professor (of communications, I think) who was sort of MC’ing the event. At one point, he started off on a rant about how he’s against the idea of impeaching President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, because it lets them off the hook. “I don’t want them impeached,” he bellowed, “I want them prosecuted! I want them to spend the rest of their natural lives in a jail cell!” The fact that impeachment does, in fact, mean prosecution (and not removal from office, as he seemed to believe) aside, I was struck by the tone of anger and vengeance that was seeping into this protest.

I did not act; I watched myself act. I saw myself turn from where I’d been standing, with my back to the protest, holding a sign with the name of an Indiana native who’d been killed so that it was visible to traffic passing through the circle. I saw myself walk to an open area in front of the angry man, drop to my knees, and pray.

Your peace, your love, your forgiveness, your mercy….

I posted this reflection on the Young Anabaptist Radicals blog some time ago about my arrest at an anti-war demonstration last year. Recently, the blog administrator e-mailed me to alert me to a comment he’d deleted, due to name-calling and profanity. It essentially lauded me for my actions and had some harsh things to say about the arresting officers, and about police in general.

First, I want to say that the police officers who collected us from the federal building and drove us to central booking were the absolute epitome of civility. The one who drove James and me even expressed some support for our position, though coupled with doubts about our chosen method of expression, and they removed our handcuffs before procedure really permitted it because they could see that we were not a threat. I have no complaint whatsoever against these officers, and would object to any harsh words spoken against them.

I cannot provide the same level of praise for the U.S. Marshals or the Sheriff’s deputy in the court house, but I will say this: All of them did their jobs. They may not have been warm and fuzzy towards us, but I feel that, had they been, it would be the exception. As a former Resident Assistant, I understand a little of the need for detached formality and established dominance when dealing with a “deviant,” and that’s what we were. Nobody can be expected to walk that line perfectly, and while that might leave us some complaint against the power differentials set up by the law enforcement system, I don’t feel that we should cast officers of the law as our enemies or slur them with personal attacks for what, most of the time, really just amounted to being professional.

But the officers’ actions here aren’t really relevant to my point. If this story is made to be about the injustice, perceived or real, of my arrest, then the true point of my action is lost. If the punchline becomes a jumble of harsh feelings towards the police, then the real crime goes uncorrected. My battle is not against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, or against Richard Lugar and the United States Marshals. My battle is against the evil of violence that can take hold in every human heart, including my own. If I cast people as my enemies, then I have allowed that evil to take hold of me, warping my cause into a point of division and hate.

“Love your enemies” wasn’t just aimed at the masterminds behind the Iraq war: it applies to those of us who oppose it, too. “End the war” isn’t the ethic, it’s the realization of it - and that ethic is love. Our actions must be rooted in love or we will lose sight of our goals and be dragged down into the same quagmire of opposition and retribution that we profess to oppose, and even a total political victory will come at the cost of a moral defeat. I do not believe that the end justifies the means: our actions must reflect the spirit of the world we wish to see, or that world will dance forever outside of our grasp.

If You Believe...

You know how sometimes we learn new songs at Annual Conferences and other large denominational and regional events? And how sometimes we love them so much we can't keep ourselves from singing them?

Once upon a time, like 2001 Annual Conference in Baltimore perhaps, the Church of the Brethren learned the song "If You Believe and I Believe" from Zimbabwe. The song served as the country's national anthem during it's struggle for independence, declared in 1965 but not formally recognized until 1980.

It is a simple, beautiful song, with a fantastic message:

If you believe and I believe and we together pray
The Holy Spirit must come down and set God's people free,
And set God's people free,
And set God's people free;
The Holy Spirit must come down and set God's people free.

Although the song made it into the 2008 conference booklet, I don't know if we sang it. Strange though this seems to some of my friends, I didn't sit in on every business session.

As many of you may know from recent news reports, Zimbabwe had been an Africa success story (it still has the highest literacy rate on the continent) and Harare, the capitol, was site of the WCC's 8th General Assembly in 1998. Now the country is in the midst of a drought, weighted down by inflation, subject to an embargo, projecting the world's lowest life expectancy, and living through a time where its elections look more like a selection.

If we did indeed sing "If You Believe and I Believe" at Annual Conference, I hope we sang it as a prayer for Zimbabwe. If we didn't, I hope you and your congregation will do so in the future and keep the country's people in your prayers for the foreseeable future.

What is idolatry?

Image from www.myconfinedspace.com

It won't come as much surprise to those who know me that I've essentially read everything written about the current U.S. presidential election since before all the candidates had even declared their intentions to run. And I knew Barack Obama - he won a special place in my heart with his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Yet due to my bias (25 points if you guess my original candidate), it wasn't until the night of the Iowa caucuses that I really got a taste of the Democratic nominee-to-be.

That night will be a memory that sticks vividly with me throughout my life. I remember clear as day watching Barack Obama give his victory speech and feeling my stomach flip like it does when I'm about to ask someone out, or am on the verge of beating the next level in a videogame. I turned to Elizabeth, my election-viewing companion, and said out loud, "That's our next president."

Barack Obama isn't just running a campaign for president: he's leading a movement. If you don't believe me, ask an analyst.

I'm a peace studies major at Manchester College, as well as a student of anthropology at la Universidad Veracruzana. We are no stranger to heroes. I can't go to campus without seeing someone wearing a shirt depicting Che Guevarra, whose face can strike courage and purpose into the heart of any hippie. And now, finally, my generation has its hero. I've worked in politics for sixteen years, starting with helping in yard sign making efforts at the age of four, and I've gotten pretty into it - that tends to happen when your dad's job is on the line. But Obama is my generation's Bobby Kennedy. He is inspiring, with a populist message of hope and change that leaves our eyes tearing just like when Shadow limped home at the end of Homeward Bound (well, I cried). His image appears on T-shirts and phone poles. Obama is our hero.

But wait a second... are we maybe getting carried away? Is Che such a hero? He was an armed revolutionary, which certainly seems out of keeping with my Brethren pacifism. He accomplished some admirable things, and there's nothing wrong with recognizing that. Likewise, Barack Obama is not my beliefs embodied in a U.S. politician. I disagree with him on issues of great moral consequence, like the use of military force as a foreign policy tool and the legality of gay marriage. And while his overarching message is one I can definitely get on board with - a call to unity among people who do disagree about morality and policy, to work together towards solutions - maybe people are taking this hero thing just a little too far. Could it be bordering on idolatry?

When I think of the word "idolatry," I usually think of someone worshipping a golden calf thousands of years ago. A "false" god, represented by a physical object, and essentially not something to be concerned with in the Christian church today.

But I think, intellectually, we have to accept a broader idea of idolatry. I remember many years ago in Sunday School we talked about how some people worship money instead of God - and that's a very real concern that is very relevant to probably almost everyone that reads this. Yet do we have to stop with the inanimate? Perhaps idolatry should be understood as putting our faith and hope into the earthly instead of in God.

Barack Obama is a man. He is fallible. He is as capable of leading us into a disastrous war, robbing us of our civil liberties and alienating the rest of the world as our current president (if not as likely). And the more power you have, the easier it is to make bad decisions. So should we really be putting him up on this pedestal, trumpeting him as some sort of prophet? In fact, isn’t it dangerous for us to put so much faith in one man?

Hope doesn't belong to one campaign or party, and our faith should be put in God rather than in a human being. We are all flawed, and while it is necessary for us to trust one another and work together, we should be careful about idolizing someone. Biblical implications aside, such hero-worship can blind us to the downside of a candidate - or, indeed, any leader.

As for voting... well, that's a whole different mess.

Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to explore this (I still love the man). Any comments?