Feeds:
Posts
Comments

An Open Letter to Brian McLaren

October 18, 2009 by Joel

Brian McLaren recently wrote an open letter to President Obama concerning Afghanistan. Here is what he wrote:

I am a loyal supporter of your presidency. I worked hard in the campaign and have never been as proud of my country as I was when we elected you.

I’m writing to ask you to find another way ahead in Afghanistan. I wrote a similar letter to President Bush when he was preparing for war in Iraq.

I believe now, as you and I both did then, that war is not the answer. Violence breeds violence, and as Dr. King said, you can murder a murderer, but you can’t murder murder. As the apostle Paul said, evil must be overcome with good, which means that violence and hate must be overcome with justice and love, not more of the same.

Obviously, you know things the rest of us don’t know. And you have pressures and responsibilities the rest of us don’t have. But we have based our lives on the moral principles that guided leaders like Dr. King, Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela. We share a profound faith in a loving, non-violent God. We share a commitment to live in the way of Jesus the peacemaker. That’s why escalation is not a change we can believe in.

I don’t argue for leaving Afghanistan high and dry as we’ve done too often in the past. Evil can’t be overcome by passivity or abdication, but only by positive good and creative action. In that spirit, I offer this humble proposal:

1. Take the 65 billion we would have spent there in the coming year and turn it into an aid and development fund. If you want to go farther, you could put a value on the cost of American lives that would be lost there (I have no idea how this inestimable cost could be calculated), and add that sum to the fund. 65 billion could build a lot of peace-oriented schools and hospitals in Afghanistan. It could serve as start-up capital for a lot of new businesses and it could pave a lot of roads. It could train a lot of police officers and it could enhance a lot of social infrastructure. It could give hope to a lot of women and girls who currently don’t have much hope, and it could provide a lot of constructive outlets for men and boys who right now don’t have many options besides picking up a machine gun and joining a warlord.

2. Other nations might contribute to this fund as well, and the fund could be extended into the future based on the number of years our military would have been engaged in Afghanistan. The fund could be administered by the US, or better (in the spirit of international cooperation), an IAEC-like agency could be created, subsidiary to the United Nations, to monitor progress in Afghanistan.

3. Then a set of benchmarks could be set, and the money could be released for development in Afghanistan as the nation reached appropriate benchmarks. This fund would be an enticement to mobilize public opinion in the direction of peace and justice, as people would know that their lives could be substantially improved if their factionalized leaders would start collaborating nonviolently for the common good.

4. With this kind of approach, the people of Afghanistan (and Pakistan) would have two clear choices. Al Queda and other extremists offer violence and unrest. But the international community would be offering support for order, rebuilding, collaboration, justice, and peace. This choice is a much clearer and better one than the choice between two groups of leaders who both depend on violence to achieve their aims.

5. Conservatives could support this kind of approach because it emphasizes personal choice and responsibility among the Afghan people. It would come alongside them in their own nation-building efforts at their own best pace, rather than trying to impose our own nation-building on them at a pace we determine. Progressives could support this approach because it changes the role of the US in the global neighborhood – from reactive bully or intentional dominator to responsible neighbor and partner for the common good.

Mr. President, you have my respect and my prayers at this important time. I believe you have the intelligence and insight to find a creative way to use a new kind of force in the world … something far more powerful than bombs, guns, and bullets: the generative force of creativity, of justice, of collaboration, and yes, of hope. Can we find a new and better way to help Afghanistan rise out of chaos and complicity with Al Queda? You know the answer many of us will shout and chant: yes, we can.

With respect and hope,
A citizen

Here, as a reply, is my open letter to McLaren (which he did receive):

Mr. McLaren,

The war in Afghanistan isn’t about a “global American empire.” Unless America plans to legalize the wholesale production and consumption of opium, Afghanistan really doesn’t have a lot to offer the “American Empire.” What worries me about your posts as of late is they have a hint of utopianism, which is generally a deadly philosophy (as it often leads to the exact opposite of Utopia). I agree that peace should be our first pursuit in all conflicts, but when dealing with people who hold to an evil ideology (Germany in WWII, the Taliban today), it is quite impossible to hold peace talks without giving concessions to certain liberties and rights.

Should we seek peace with the Taliban knowing full well they will kill women for showing the slightest bit of skin or place their people under tyranny? Though we should be promoting peace project in Afghanistan in order to win the people over and get them to see that liberty is beneficial, I think it’s a pipe dream to think that the Taliban will willingly go along with such changes. There is evil in this world. There are people dedicated to evil in this world. No matter what we do, those people will promote the cause of evil. Sad as it is, we must sometimes engage in violent acts against those people so as to turn the tide.

Ghandi, MLK, and others were able to succeed because they rose up against ethical people who realized the mass murder of citizens was immoral. MLK could rise up against an unjust system because he knew the system wouldn’t send him and others to a death camp. Ghandi had the same luxury. Bonhoffer didn’t; he rose up against Nazi Germany and was killed for it. No number of pacifist movements could have stopped Nazi Germany (in fact, none came close). What stopped the tyranny in Germany was justifiable war. This is sad, but that is the reality of our world.

Utopianism is what allows tyrannies to continue. Utopianism is allows evil men to rule over the good. Utopianism is what got six million of my people killed because no one would step up to the plate and fight. And if we continue to buy into this utopian effort, a disgusting leftover from modernity, our culture is likewise doomed.

I ask you, Mr. McLaren, to reconsider your philosophy on this matter and to heavily reconsider your theology. Realize the Biblical narrative about the world being fallen and that we have to act within the fallen world is a true narrative – not something to play fast and loose with. Realize that redemption for the world does not come through improving society or doing good things (though we are called to do these), but ultimately comes from the Cross. Realize that your idea of utopia will never occur until every knee has bowed and every tongue has confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Sincerely,

Joel Borofsky

Posted in Church Related, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Hitler, Darwin, and a Question – Oh my!

September 23, 2009 by Joel

I was asked the following question:

Did Darwin’s teachings on evolution necessarily cause Hitler’s view and actions of genocide?

I provided the following answer:

It’s a tricky connection. Naturalism does not necessarily lead to a belief in a superior race; but such a conclusion isn’t non-sequitur with naturalism either. That is to say, while one will not always conclude, “Genocide is okay” after reading Darwin, one can certainly use Darwin’s theory as a justification in his defense of genocide. (see: The Descent of Man by Darwin for Darwin’s view of the races).

Continue Reading »

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Not Everything is About “Rights”

September 21, 2009 by Joel

It seems the recent trend in American political debates is to point out that the status quo or the proposed policy will “ruin” someone or is currently creating multiple victims. For instance, Michelle Obama pointed out that under the current health care system, women suffer. There have been multiple people who have shown that the current system isn’t fair for the poor, doesn’t help the elderly (as there are already “death panels” in the status quo, under private insurance companies), or so on and so forth.

Certainly, some issues come down to someone or some people group being oppressed. Segregation is a good example of this. But not every issue facing America is an issue of oppression. An expensive health care system doesn’t necessarily oppress people (at least not by design); it may just be expensive. Certainly, even the poor can find ways to enjoy our health care system in some situations, showing that “oppression” is hardly the right view of the issue.

Or similarly, not all higher taxes oppress people. If someone makes seven figures a year and his taxes are raised, but they are raised to pay for a justifiable war or to help pay off the national debt (for a plan that works), that is hardly oppressive.

The problem is that people on both sides want to moralize every issue they support; if you don’t support me, then you are immoral and for oppression. It’s a way to vilify and demonize the opposition while pushing yourself toward sainthood. In some instances, this is justifiable. But in most cases, it’s not. In most cases, it’s simply two opposing points of view on how to fix an issue.

Posted in Secular Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

You Can’t Have Your Cake…

September 16, 2009 by Joel

Recently, there’s been quite a bit of outrage over the greed that corporations have shown, as well as over corrupt politicians (either selling senate seats or going on prolonged vacations to visit their mistresses in Argentina). This has led some to distrust the government. It has also led others to distrust corporations and capitalism in general. In order to solve these problems, many are turning to the government (which is ironic as it currently stands as the poster child for corruption). Insurance companies are greedy – at least in public opinion – thus we will turn to the government to fix these problems. Corporations are greedy, so we’ll have the government put regulations on them. Senators and representatives are greedy so we’ll just elect a president who says he’ll change it. The president’s administration has been shown to be greedy and corrupt, so we’ll just…grin and bear it?

But in all of this, there’s one simple truth that everyone is ignoring; it’s our own fault. What do I mean?

Since the 1960’s we’ve bred a culture that says, “Don’t you shove your morality/religion down my throat!” We’ve built a culture of tolerance, one in which moral values are cultural and personalized. Following in the words of Lyotard, we have lived lives of incredulity towards the metanarrative, the overall story. We’ve abandoned a belief in some overarching ethic that all people are accountable to. Much more, we’ve abandoned a belief in God, a God who will hold us accountable for the things we do, whether in this life or the next.

In place of absolute morality and God we have placed psychological morality (“be tolerant”) and Darwinian ethics (“survival of the fittest”). We tell people to do what makes them happy and advances them in life, so long as it doesn’t harm (or bring significant harm) to other people. The rule of tolerance (which is impossible to live by – one must be intolerant in order to enforce tolerance) contradicts survival of the fittest, leading to a very confused and backwards culture.

Continue Reading »

Posted in Philosophy, Secular Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Nietzschean Parable of sorts

September 14, 2009 by Joel

A long time ago in an ancient kingdom, the young peasant decided one day to go throw rocks at the king’s castle.

As the young peasant was walking along the street with an angry look on his face, an old fellow with a big bushy mustache and a thick German accent came up to the young lad with an inquisitive look upon his face.

“And where might you be going?” asked the old man.

“I am heading to the castle to throw rocks at the king’s windows.”

“And why might you want to do that?”

“What concern of yours is it old man?” the young peasant replied.

“Ah, have you not heard of me? I am the greatest spectacle this town has ever seen. My name is Zarathustra. Many find me crazy. Many others hate me. But I hold out hope that one day someone will grasp my teachings. Until then, it is my curse to be mocked – ever since I came down the mountain to enlighten this…this…herd I have had nothing but mockery!” Zarathustra let out a frustrated laugh that made the young peasant think that this man was truly mad. “Now, let us walk to the castle to throw stones at the windows and along the way tell me why you have such a desire.”

As they walked along the path, the young peasant opened up to Zarathustra and began to tell him why he desired to throw rocks at the king’s castle. The peasant said it all began when his farm was burned to the ground five years ago. He had just inherited it from his father and was beginning to make a profit on the land when raiders from the underworld burned his crop to the ground. The king did not send an army for vengeance; in fact, the peasant theorized there was no army at all. This had happened to other farmers as well – so if there was an army, why weren’t they fighting?

The second incident that raised the ire of the young peasant was that the local town – which was supposedly under the sovereignty of the king – was left lawless. People were left to fend for themselves or to form police forces. This, however, did not stop the constant fighting, brawling, rapes, and even murders. It seemed that if the king were sovereign over such a town, certainly he would intervene to stop such lawlessness.

The third and final incident was when the young peasant passed a group of starving orphans. These children had not eaten for days, but the king’s generosity was no where to be found. The young peasant decided that the king must be responsible for these evils.

Continue Reading »

Posted in Creative, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

On ACORN

September 14, 2009 by Joel

In reading this article about ACORN, I came across the following (emphasis mine):

ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis said the videos capturing her former workers were “doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist ‘filmmaker’ O’Keefe and his partner in crime.”

Lewis said ACORN will take legal action against FOX News and those involved in the making of the videos. She said ACORN offices were also targeted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Philadelphia, among other places.

“I am appalled and angry,” Lewis said. “I cannot and I will not defend the actions of the workers depicted in the video, who have since been terminated.”

Okay, so a simple question (that no one, to my knowledge, has asked):

If the videos are doctored, if the videos are faked, and the employees did nothing wrong, then why were they fired? If the videos were doctored, then why fire the employees? If they aren’t doctored, why say they are? Is it that ACORN would rather face a wrongful termination suit from four employees than a child prostitution investigation?

Posted in Secular Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s not a slippery slope

September 14, 2009 by Joel

Recently, Tony Jones said that he finds the “slippery slope” arguments against homosexuality as being fallacious. Just a short response on my part:

It’s not a slippery slope argument. It’s simply looking at the logic of the situation and taking the arguments used for homosexuality and applying them elsewhere. If we say that the Bible’s prohibition on homosexuality is a cultural matter of that time, then we must also say that polygamy, prostitution, pornography (lusting with the mind), bestiality, and other sexual sins are likewise products of that culture.

The few one exception would be that homosexuals consent with each other, thus bestiality, pedophilia, and rape do not quality. Even if we grant this premise, this still leaves open adultery, pornography, polygamy, and so on and so forth. This whole “monogamous relationship” that Tony elevates is irrelevant; who cares if it’s monogamous or not? Why do we reject some verses, but accept others?

So no, it’s not a slippery slope at all. It’s simply taking the arguments used for one context and applying those same arguments to other contexts.

Posted in Theology | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Interesting Billboard – not really helping their case though…

September 10, 2009 by Joel

As I was driving to Dallas today on I-30, a billboard caught my eye on the north side of 30:

I decided to look up the verse. When the verse was severely inconclusive, I went to the website. Here is the defense they offer for their interpretation of this passage:

The Greek word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner…

In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek word used in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers.

It is true that “pais” can refer to homosexual lovers, but this defense better suits NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) than it does advocates for homosexual marriage. See, the Greek word “pais” helps form the modern word “pederast,” or “pedophile.” The word pederast comes from “pais” (boy) and “erastes” (sexual love). Now it is true that “pais” could refer to a servant, but this generally meant one of two things: (1) a young male servant (a child or teenager) or (2) a sex-slave. Given Christ’s teachings on marriage and sexual immorality, it’s hard to fathom He would condone the act of slavery for the purpose of sex.

Luke 7 gives us a better idea of this servant’s role. The servant is listed as “valuable” or “precious” to the master. Now, the “Why Would We” website says this is evidence that the boy was actually the master’s lover. The problem is that most of the evidence supporting such an interpretation is via eisegesis (reading modern biases into an ancient text). It takes modern understandings of homosexuality and words such as “precious” and “important” and applies it to the ancient world. It refuses to take the ancient world as it was. It sees the concern of the Centurion as one of a lover, rather than what it was; a professional soldier who needed a male he trusted to see to his affairs at home while the soldier was gone. With such a slave incapacitated, the Centurion would have likewise been incapacitated.

On top of all that, it wasn’t uncommon in the ancient world for slaves to be treated as part of the family. Honored slaves were sometimes adopted as sons, so it’s not unfathomable to believe that the Centurion viewed this slave as a son.

Regardless, if “Why Would We” really wants to use “pais” as a defense of their interpretation, then they have to, by extension, allow for pedophilia since that’s what “pais” refers to when applied to a sexual context.

Posted in Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Separation of Church and State

September 4, 2009 by Joel

After reading a Washington Post article dripping in sarcasm, as well as other articles from ABC, MSNBC, and the New York Times, I decided to finally send in a response. No doubt, my response will never be read, but hey, why not?

The overall feeling I get is that if you hold to certain conservative morals, you shouldn’t let those morals affect your political choices. This led to the following email from me to the Washington Post:

It would appear that the media is quite ignorant of history. How quickly they forget that it was a conservative man who, through his religious convictions,  believed God had called him to reform the culture for God’s glory. If such a  politician made the claim today that he felt God had called him to reform  society, he would be laughed at and ridiculed. But who would laugh at and  ridicule William Wilberforce in the modern era, the man who almost single-handily defeated the slave trade and slavery itself in the British  empire?

In his journal, Wilberfoce stated he felt God calling him to, “…the abolition of slavery and the reformation of manners [society]…”. His arguments were dripping in his Christianity, so much so that Lord Melborne argued that Wilberforce’s arguments should be cast aside because, “Such a [tragedy] on our society when religion is mixed with politics.” Thus, it was the secularists, the agnostics, the atheists, and the Deists of Wilberforce’s day who were supporting slavery; it was the Christians who were opposing it. It was arguments based on Scripture and Christian principles that ultimately did the following (via Wilberforce):

Continue Reading »

Posted in Secular Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A short note on abortion

August 31, 2009 by Joel

Two recent arguments I’ve come up against in the abortion debate are as follows:

…you [male pro-life supporters] make me kind of want to puke… but that’s neither here nor there… we can discuss this when you get a uterus – oh, wait…

And

You cannot take emotion out of this because it is impossible to do – that is why I told you to talk to me when you are actually able to have children and carry one in you for 9 months… It is a valid point because you cannot 100% understand the emotional context of this issue because it does not directly affect you and your body AND no matter how much you want it to happen the emotions that surround this issue and all issues cannot be ignored they are too important, perhaps more than science.

Now of course we always hear these arguments at protests or as sound bites on the news, but I’ve never heard them as actual arguments.

What is so disturbing about both of them is that they’re inherently fallacious; my ability or inability to have a child is completely irrelevant to the science behind what constitutes a human life. I may not have the emotional investment that a mother has in bearing a child, but this emotional investment is not needed in determining whether or not a child is human.

Under this line of thinking, if I have an emotional reaction to a minority group, then under such reasoning I can treat people in that group how I please. After all, emotions are more important than reasoning. If I were beat up by a person in that minority group, then unless someone has undergone that same experience, that person cannot criticize my stance.

We hold the above mentality to be absurd in issues dealing with other humans, so why not with the unborn?

Posted in Philosophy, Secular Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »