We are currently four years into the war in Iraq, as of today, and oh, how things have changed in that time. I’ve previously posted here how my worldview has shifted over the four years that have witnessed this war, but I would like to share a few more thoughts here concerning my reaction, as a whole, to the Bush Administration and its policies abroad. The intention is twofold: first, to express my own personal response to Bush and his Presidency, and second, to get some serious discussion going. I do not ask that you necessarily use your time to respond to my own thoughts, though if you do, that is great as well. I’m mostly interested in how you yourself respond to him. Let me know what you think. If you have posted something already about the war or the Bush Administration, and do not think that you could say it better in a response box, put a link in there so we can check it out. Let’s start talking about this. Here we go.
Empire. The very word, for me, conjures up very anti-Christian claims on truth. Implicit in these words are the ideas of unquestionable power, persecution, unchecked absolutism of rightness, and unrestrained monopolization of truth. I see an empire as that very thing which requires so much obedience and allegiance that it will silence truth claims that offer completeness and happiness outside of it. When such an empire exists, those who finds the answers to the questions of ultimate meaning outside of the answers provided by the empire risk their very lives. The early Christians experienced this, when they claimed that life’s meaning was found in Christ, and that Christ alone was worthy of their allegiance. These Christians awaited the here-but-not-yet-here Kingdom of God, and said that it alone received their worship. The Roman Empire, being a superpower dedicated to the idea that all within it see it as the answer to the world’s problems, could not assimilate these Christians, and so persecution and death were the results. Empires claim ultimate truth and demand ultimate obedience, and the Christians believed neither of these claims.
An empire is convinced of the purity of its intentions. It believes that it stands for all that is right in the world, and against all that is evil. In a recent interview on The Daily Show with John Stewart, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described President Bush’s perspective on foreign policy as what he called “Manichean Paranoia.” Manichean paranoia is the notion that we comprise the forces of good, we face off against the forces of evil, and that we own moral superiority over and against the other forces which will give us the necessary justification when we commit immoral acts. We are currently the solitary superpower in the world, and our president’s paranoia has the effect, Brzezinski says, of “dividing our allies and uniting our enemies.” He believes that continuing in this posturing could risk the United States, which on the whole has not used its superpower status with a sense of social responsibility and humility, falling from its heightened status in the world scene.
One need to look no further for evidence for this fact than the “Coalition of the Willing” which assisted our invasion of Iraq: what our President’s defense secretary called the “Mother of all Coalitions” was composed of 35 Estonians, 40 Macedonians, 136 Latvians, 150 Azerbaijanians, and 24 Moldovians, among others. It is even said that Morrocco offered to send hundreds of monkeys to sniff out the bombs for us, a fact which will add to the sense of absurdity surrounding this event when it is told in future history books. Suffice it to say, we went it alone. Today, we are paying the price; tomorrow, the price could be even higher.
Certainly one of the most frustrating aspects of this war for me is the way in which I’ve felt, as an evangelical, that my voicing these concerns were akin to blasphemy at times. Why is it so wrong for an evangelical to express his opinions that such a state of affairs is absurd? If I had to guess, it would be that the larger evangelical voice has been caught up in partisan American politics, and lost its ability to speak Christianly rather than in a patriotic American voice. For me, the Kingdom of God needs to come before the Kingdom of America. The nonviolent revolution of Jesus should be where we place our faith, not in the military might of America.
These are just a few thoughts, and I look forward to your own comments. Thanks for reading.
3 Comments
March 20, 2007 at 8:31 am
“He believes that continuing in this posturing could risk the United States, which on the whole has not used its superpower status with a sense of social responsibility and humility, falling from its heightened status in the world scene.”
I was thinking. While I would applaud any attempt at using our “heightened status” “with a sense of social responsibility and humility”, I wonder if it is not a bit of a catch-22.
It’s the lenten season so i was thinking about jesus dealing with temptation in the desert for 40 days. One of the sneaky temptations was for jesus to rise up and become a “superpower” over everyone else, that way he could fix problems quicker and enact the change he wishes to see more quickly. But jesus rejects this. He comes back from the desert, and a few chapters later we see him washing his friends feet, telling them that whoever wants to be FIRST must become the servant of all. I was thinking that this statement works in at least two ways. The first is that jesus is showing us that, in order to be more faithful, we must live in this new way because it is the only true way that we can begin to patricipate in helping enact the Kingdom on earth. But the second way to read it, in my mind, is that we must live this way because all other ways are a cop-out and simply won’t work, no matter who does them. It doesn’t matter if it’s Rome or jesus himself…trying to be a superpower and also enact a deep humanitarian change won’t work because we are human. In the desert, its almost like jesus didn’t trust himself in his humanness to hold so much power and enact his change on everyone. He recognized that God alone is capable of this. Constantly we jesus literally forcing himself into a lower position, much to the derision of those around him. His friends want him to become more and more powerful, and jesus keeps trying to become less and less powerful and just more faithful.
I also think about Bob Dylan in the mid/late 60’s, or the band Pearl Jam in the mid 90’s. Both of them, at the peak of their “heightened status” made a conscious effort to force themselves into a less popular position…less exalted. Bob Dylan lied to reporters about details of his life just to confuse them until they stopped asking questions, Pearl Jam refused to do interviews all together and stopped working with Ticketmaster. Bob Dylan was living in Woodstock, New York a year before the famous festival. They wanted to have it at Woodstock specifically so Dylan would play at it, and what did Dylan do? He moved to California…as far away from Woodstock as possible. Then he went “electric” and played so loud you couldn’t really here his lyrics anymore, which pissed evryone off. Then I think about the early 90’s band Nirvana and especially Kurt Kobain. He didn’t make any attempt to step down from his “heightened status” and although he was seemingly on top of the world, he was eventually crushed underneath it to the point of death.
I’m rambling at this point, but I just wanted to say that I think the guy whose name is so crazy that i don’t even want to copy and paste it into the comment box needs to understand that what he wishes can never happen, not because we don’t want it to happen, but because we are human. If the U.S. hopes to enact any really deep seeded humanitarian change that will last…it has to step down from its superpower status, and give up a lot of the luxuries that go with it.
March 26, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I totally agree with you on this. Although the man with a crazy name gives a brilliant (I think) analysis of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, I believe he is wrong to assume that America’s supoerpower status can allow for it to become a force for good in the world. Or perhaps, I should rephrase that: we as Christians should be heavily skeptical of any power structure that claims it can relieve the world’s ills in any way that ignore Christ and has God at its center. You mention how Jesus possibly did not trust his own humanity with the powers Satan offered him. I agree that he saw no possibilities for a benevolent rule of the world without God being the head of it. Thus, how can we look at the U.S. emerging from the Cold War as an unquestioned leader of the world and say, “THAT is where I place my faith,” and not rather say, “No, thanks, I’m holding out for the Kingdom of God.”
April 5, 2007 at 9:55 am
Carlo, I think your point about Jesus purposefully not pursuing greater power is really central to what we need to understand about the world. This is the great irony of Jesus teachings: by not pursuing that power he became even more powerful. We are still talking about him over 2000 years later!
I believe it was Gandhi who said that we must be the change we wish to see in the world. If you want to see more kindness, be kind. If you wish to see more generosity, be generous. Jesus understood this. That is why he was able to resist temptation in the desert. Contrary to popular belief true power is not the ability to bend others to your will. It is the ability to live up to your highest concept of yourself; being the best person you can be.
Jesus knew that he would not be able to change people by force. He understood that to affect change, he must serve as an example of that change and inspire others to be like him. He was a truly enlightened spirit.