If I wasn't going to Florida tomorrow, I would definitely attend the talk described below which is hosted by the Center for the Study of Complex Systems this Friday, January 28, from 1:30 - 3 pm at 140 Lorch Hall. If anyone I know actually reads this and can go, I think it will be quite interesting....
David Bornstein, Author, of How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas (Oxford, 2004)
"How Social Entrepreneurs Make Change Happen: Stories about people whose ideas are reshaping our world"
David Bornstein will discuss the emergence of the field of social entrepreneurship and its impact on societies, institutions and individuals around the world. Over the past 25 years, there has been a dramatic transformation in the global social arena -- with the growth of millions of new citizen-led organizations that are redefining how societies are addressing problems from environmental threats to health crises to educational needs to poverty. The emergence of this vibrant and dynamic "citizen sector" -- in which independent change-makers and their organizations are the leading proponents of new ideas and innovations -- represents a historical turning point in the way societies initiate, support and systematically orchestrate social change. These changes -- still under-appreciated -- present new opportunities for spirited individuals of all ages from all fields who seek to apply their talents to improve society. The discussion will explore these changes with references to several examples from different countries. It will show what social entrepreneurs do and how their actions affect us. It will look at their role in history and the changing socio-political context that has allowed them to flourish in recent decades. And it will describe the personal qualities that allow individuals to become effective change agents, while outlining some of the challenges societies face in fostering this kind of leadership. Because social entrepreneurs around the world are engaging similar problems -- for example, improving the interactions between people and the environment, helping children to develop the skills of empathetic ethics, creating opportunities for excluded minorities and people with disabilities, helping to make democratic processes more effective -- it is possible today to find cross-cultural patterns in the strategic insights that make them effective. "Education," wrote Vaclav Havel, "is the ability to perceive the hidden connections between phenomenon." The discussion will look at some of the hidden connections in the "citizen sector" and the field of social entrepreneurship -- connections that can offer understanding about the evolution of global society as well as practical insights about how to build a better world
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Another World is Here
One of my favorite blogs now has a good article on the recent report from the Millenium Development group with practical ways to reduce severe poverty, WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: "A Practical Plan Money as a Tool – Finance, Venture Philanthropy, Trade and Economy" which was also discussed in The New York Times > International > U.N. Panel Urges Doubling of Aid to Cut Poverty.
I've realized that my postings here tend toward the pessimistic. I lose patience with what I perceive as humanistic attempts to solve the worlds problems rather than turning to God for the solution.
But I'm beginning to realize how I've got it wrong. Is it right to wait for God to provide a solution? Hasn't he already provided the answer? Isn't part of our role as image bearers for his kingdom the delivery of the solution on His behalf, using His princplies.
I've often wondered what we'll be doing in during the millenial reign. Perhaps we'll be implementing some of the Millenium Projects recommendations. After all, planting "fertilizer trees" that "could replenish Africa's soil nutrients and lead to a doubling or tripling of food crop yields in just a few years" sounds like a loving thing to do. But why wait until then? So the question is: What obstacles keep us from bringing his Kingdom of light to world right now? Are there any that we can't overcome through his power?
I've realized that my postings here tend toward the pessimistic. I lose patience with what I perceive as humanistic attempts to solve the worlds problems rather than turning to God for the solution.
But I'm beginning to realize how I've got it wrong. Is it right to wait for God to provide a solution? Hasn't he already provided the answer? Isn't part of our role as image bearers for his kingdom the delivery of the solution on His behalf, using His princplies.
I've often wondered what we'll be doing in during the millenial reign. Perhaps we'll be implementing some of the Millenium Projects recommendations. After all, planting "fertilizer trees" that "could replenish Africa's soil nutrients and lead to a doubling or tripling of food crop yields in just a few years" sounds like a loving thing to do. But why wait until then? So the question is: What obstacles keep us from bringing his Kingdom of light to world right now? Are there any that we can't overcome through his power?
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Receiving the Gospel as a Community
I had a discussion with my pastor Ken today about the challenge of being a disciple of Jesus and working in the world of business. One of the issues I grapple with revolves around the difference between hearing Christ's message as a call to an individual versus a call to a nation or community. I've come to believe that since Jesus was a prophet, and prophets by and large, address nations (and sometimes individual leaders of nations), then our tendency to hear His message as focused on the individual misses much of the point. I'm still wrestling with the implications of this. Clearly we live as individuals within a community and the fact that He spoke to us as community does not minimize the call to us individually. I tend to think the opposite. The call is broader, more inclusive and comprehensive when we hear it as addressed to the community, the town, the nation, even the world.
In any case, this led me to confirm my recollection of how NT Wright wrote about the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) in Jesus and the Victory of God ... "It cannot be generalized into a set of suggestions, or even commands, on how to be 'good'. Nor can it be turned into a guide map for how to go to 'heaven' after death. It is rather, as it stands, a challenge to Israel to be Israel...I suggest that the beatitudes can be read, in some such way, as an appeal to Jesus' hearers to discover their true vocation as the eschatological people of YHWH, and to do so by following the praxis he was marking out for them, rather that the way of other would-be leaders of this time...By following him, by putting his agenda into practice, they can at last be true Israel." (pp 288-289)
Wright then goes on to discuss how "The command 'do not resist evil' (5.39) is not to be taken simply to refer to personal hostilities or village-level animosity...The way forward for Israel is no the way of violent resistance, not the way of zeal that the Shammaite Pharisees would encourage, but the different, oblique way of creative non-violent resistance. A blow on the right cheek is given with the back of the hand, implying insult as well as injury; to offer the left is not mere passivity, but the affirmation of one's own equality with the aggressor." (p 291)
This last point about the meaning of “turn the other cheek” is one I’ve heard before but never quite understood the historical antecedent, so I checked out Wright’s reference. It’s to Walter Wink’s essay “Neither Passivity nor Violence: Jesus' Third Way", in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley. I wasn’t able to find a direct quote but James McGrath, Assistant Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis appears to draw from Wink in explaining it thus:
“You will probably find that you most naturally go for the left cheek, and yet Matthew specifically mentions the right cheek here. To strike the right cheek, you either had to use the back of your right hand, or hit with your left hand. Both of these actions would be inappropriate in any kind of ‘fisticuffs’ between people of equal status in an ancient Greco-Roman setting. The left hand was ‘unclean’, as it still is in the Middle East today, and a backhanded slap then as now was an expression of insult and superiority. And so we may take this to refer to a blow delivered by a superior to an inferior. It is a slap given by someone who has power to someone who does not, to humiliate that person. The aim is not to injure the person physically, but to humiliate him. But if this is the case, then what happens if the powerless person turns the left cheek? He is not simply saying ‘Please, please, hit me again’. He is saying ‘Hit me again, but hit me as an equal: I’m a human being, just like you’. And so while not resorting to violence, he is taking control of the situation and challenging his oppressor. “
Along the way I also came across a provocative posting by Joe Jones, Professor Emeritus of Theology and Ethics at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, Indiana who writes in an essay Jesus and War:
"If it were the case that our tradition understood in common language that Jesus is Savior of the world and the Lord who truly reigns over all creation and the destiny of the world, then you would think that the character of Jesus’ life, his pattern of acting and teaching concerning the kingdom of God, his crucifixion, and his resurrection would affect how Christians would construe discipleship to Jesus, construe war and violence, and how they would act in time of war.
"Yet here we confront one of the strangest reversals of meaning taking place among Christians in the United States and among Christians in many of the nation-states that have sprung into existence in the last two centuries. All of these nation-states are founded in and sustained by violence. Their borders drip with wars of conquest and wars of self-defense. The reversal is that the Christians in these states regularly go to war as though they are in utter denial or ignorance of how Jesus is relevant to their war-making. Jesus may be a comfort to the soldier and those left at home, but that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection have some bearing on how Christians should construe the justification of going to war seems utterly denied. When we want to justify our wars, Christians here and abroad repeatedly appeal to some other lord or principle or necessity that justifies fighting war."
...
"Why is it that our citizenship in the church and the Kingdom are not the decisive determinants of how we live our lives? Is it not true, then, that when we make the state the formative power in how we understand ourselves and our enemies we also thereby make the state into an idol—a surrogate god that we revere, adore, and obey and in which we trust to protect us and give us meaning?"
In any case, this led me to confirm my recollection of how NT Wright wrote about the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) in Jesus and the Victory of God ... "It cannot be generalized into a set of suggestions, or even commands, on how to be 'good'. Nor can it be turned into a guide map for how to go to 'heaven' after death. It is rather, as it stands, a challenge to Israel to be Israel...I suggest that the beatitudes can be read, in some such way, as an appeal to Jesus' hearers to discover their true vocation as the eschatological people of YHWH, and to do so by following the praxis he was marking out for them, rather that the way of other would-be leaders of this time...By following him, by putting his agenda into practice, they can at last be true Israel." (pp 288-289)
Wright then goes on to discuss how "The command 'do not resist evil' (5.39) is not to be taken simply to refer to personal hostilities or village-level animosity...The way forward for Israel is no the way of violent resistance, not the way of zeal that the Shammaite Pharisees would encourage, but the different, oblique way of creative non-violent resistance. A blow on the right cheek is given with the back of the hand, implying insult as well as injury; to offer the left is not mere passivity, but the affirmation of one's own equality with the aggressor." (p 291)
This last point about the meaning of “turn the other cheek” is one I’ve heard before but never quite understood the historical antecedent, so I checked out Wright’s reference. It’s to Walter Wink’s essay “Neither Passivity nor Violence: Jesus' Third Way", in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley. I wasn’t able to find a direct quote but James McGrath, Assistant Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis appears to draw from Wink in explaining it thus:
“You will probably find that you most naturally go for the left cheek, and yet Matthew specifically mentions the right cheek here. To strike the right cheek, you either had to use the back of your right hand, or hit with your left hand. Both of these actions would be inappropriate in any kind of ‘fisticuffs’ between people of equal status in an ancient Greco-Roman setting. The left hand was ‘unclean’, as it still is in the Middle East today, and a backhanded slap then as now was an expression of insult and superiority. And so we may take this to refer to a blow delivered by a superior to an inferior. It is a slap given by someone who has power to someone who does not, to humiliate that person. The aim is not to injure the person physically, but to humiliate him. But if this is the case, then what happens if the powerless person turns the left cheek? He is not simply saying ‘Please, please, hit me again’. He is saying ‘Hit me again, but hit me as an equal: I’m a human being, just like you’. And so while not resorting to violence, he is taking control of the situation and challenging his oppressor. “
Along the way I also came across a provocative posting by Joe Jones, Professor Emeritus of Theology and Ethics at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, Indiana who writes in an essay Jesus and War:
"If it were the case that our tradition understood in common language that Jesus is Savior of the world and the Lord who truly reigns over all creation and the destiny of the world, then you would think that the character of Jesus’ life, his pattern of acting and teaching concerning the kingdom of God, his crucifixion, and his resurrection would affect how Christians would construe discipleship to Jesus, construe war and violence, and how they would act in time of war.
"Yet here we confront one of the strangest reversals of meaning taking place among Christians in the United States and among Christians in many of the nation-states that have sprung into existence in the last two centuries. All of these nation-states are founded in and sustained by violence. Their borders drip with wars of conquest and wars of self-defense. The reversal is that the Christians in these states regularly go to war as though they are in utter denial or ignorance of how Jesus is relevant to their war-making. Jesus may be a comfort to the soldier and those left at home, but that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection have some bearing on how Christians should construe the justification of going to war seems utterly denied. When we want to justify our wars, Christians here and abroad repeatedly appeal to some other lord or principle or necessity that justifies fighting war."
...
"Why is it that our citizenship in the church and the Kingdom are not the decisive determinants of how we live our lives? Is it not true, then, that when we make the state the formative power in how we understand ourselves and our enemies we also thereby make the state into an idol—a surrogate god that we revere, adore, and obey and in which we trust to protect us and give us meaning?"
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Saturday, January 15, 2005
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Birth cry' of the cosmos heard
Today at lunch, Adrienne, my wife, mentioned reading about how the sound of the universe changed from a major 3rd to a minor 3rd...interesting...
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Birth cry' of the cosmos heard
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Birth cry' of the cosmos heard
Friday, January 14, 2005
Organic Polymer Electronics...IC Chips for less than a penny
From one of my new favorite blogs, WorldChanging, comes this article on Organic Polymer Electronics organic polymer technology from a Siemens spin-off. Its touted as the "world's fastest (600 kilohertz) integrated circuit made of organic material." RFID is seen as a likely first application but it clearly has other applications, perhaps in conjunction with printable photovoltaics.
New Orleans Anyone? NT Wright to dialog w/John Dominic Crossan on the Resurrection
The Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum: Exploring the tensions of Faith and Culture is March 11-12, 2005 and will showcase N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan dialoguing on "The Resurrection - Historical Event or Theological Interpretation?" Responses will be made by Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and others in conjunction with the 2005 Southwest Regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, on the NOBTS campus March 11-12, 2005.
Looks like airfare is going to cost about $310, though.
Looks like airfare is going to cost about $310, though.
Global Dimming, Global Warming, and Bad Reporting
You may have read about the recently discovered phenomenon of global dimming. Indeed, it appears that the earth is receiving considerably less sunlight than it used to. Apparently the reduction is as high as 22% globally (though that seems amazing to me). Now comes reports of a double whammy--WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: Global Dimming, Global Warming, and Bad Reporting reports: "Cutting back on the use of fossil fuels will reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere faster than it will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide. This will increase the amount of solar radiation getting through and trapped, initially accelerating global warming."
Follow the link above to read why this only increases our need to make the switch from oil and other particulate emitting energy technologies.
Follow the link above to read why this only increases our need to make the switch from oil and other particulate emitting energy technologies.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Simply Evil
Last week I wrote about the circumstances, fairly well understood now, which some humans have learned to use to manipulate others, even young adults and well trained soldiers. Were the wardens of Abu Ghraib intentionally manipulated to do evil? If so, by who or what? Was it their commanding officers or the system of power we've established for controlling evil that warped upon itself to cause evil itself?
Sadly, there's nothing complicated about another form of manipulation which appears to be rampant in our country—somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 young girls are trafficked through our country as sexual slaves.
The New York Times > Magazine > The Girls Next Door: "'There's a vast misunderstanding of what coercion is, of how little it takes to make someone a slave,'' Gary Haugen of International Justice Mission said. ''The destruction of dignity and sense of self, these girls' sense of resignation. . . . '' He didn't finish the sentence."
Sadly, there's nothing complicated about another form of manipulation which appears to be rampant in our country—somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 young girls are trafficked through our country as sexual slaves.
The New York Times > Magazine > The Girls Next Door: "'There's a vast misunderstanding of what coercion is, of how little it takes to make someone a slave,'' Gary Haugen of International Justice Mission said. ''The destruction of dignity and sense of self, these girls' sense of resignation. . . . '' He didn't finish the sentence."
NT (Tom) Wright Weighs in on the Tsunami
Here's a few excerpts from NT's comment's on the Tsunami and the challenge of squaring it with our theology...Comment: Meanings of Christmas: In the new world there will be no more sea...Does God have a responsibility to stop earthquakes and tidal waves? The story of Jesus raises much subtler questions:
"[the Lisbon earthquake of 1755] caused a sea-change in the Enlightenment itself: before it, Bishop Butler could gaze at the natural world and infer Christian theology, but Lisbon drove a wedge between God and the world, giving fresh impetus to the idea of God as an absentee landlord and then, not long after, a mere absentee. Since then, it has been assumed that "God" has a responsibility to stop things like earthquakes and tidal waves; if He doesn't, they constitute a standing disproof. What's the point in saying "The heavens declare the glory of God", if tidal waves declare His incompetence?
...
"The general view is that the Bible offers an escape from the world into a personal religion. But that view is itself the result of the Enlightenment's reductionism
The Bible itself resists such treatment. It constantly acknowledges evil - "human" and "natural" alike - as a terrible reality. It doesn't try to minimise it, to explain that good will come of it, or to blame someone (reactions which correspond uncomfortably closely to the excuses offered by immoral or warmongering politicians).
....it tells a story about Jesus's own sense of abandonment, and thereby encourages us to embrace the same sense of helpless involvement in the sorrow of the world, as the means by which the world is to be healed. Those who work for justice, reconciliation and peace will know that sense, and perhaps, occasionally, that healing.
This isn't the kind of answer that the Enlightenment wanted. But maybe, as we launch into the deep waters of another new year, it is the kind of vocation we ought to embrace in place of shallow analysis and shrill reaction.
"[the Lisbon earthquake of 1755] caused a sea-change in the Enlightenment itself: before it, Bishop Butler could gaze at the natural world and infer Christian theology, but Lisbon drove a wedge between God and the world, giving fresh impetus to the idea of God as an absentee landlord and then, not long after, a mere absentee. Since then, it has been assumed that "God" has a responsibility to stop things like earthquakes and tidal waves; if He doesn't, they constitute a standing disproof. What's the point in saying "The heavens declare the glory of God", if tidal waves declare His incompetence?
...
"The general view is that the Bible offers an escape from the world into a personal religion. But that view is itself the result of the Enlightenment's reductionism
The Bible itself resists such treatment. It constantly acknowledges evil - "human" and "natural" alike - as a terrible reality. It doesn't try to minimise it, to explain that good will come of it, or to blame someone (reactions which correspond uncomfortably closely to the excuses offered by immoral or warmongering politicians).
....it tells a story about Jesus's own sense of abandonment, and thereby encourages us to embrace the same sense of helpless involvement in the sorrow of the world, as the means by which the world is to be healed. Those who work for justice, reconciliation and peace will know that sense, and perhaps, occasionally, that healing.
This isn't the kind of answer that the Enlightenment wanted. But maybe, as we launch into the deep waters of another new year, it is the kind of vocation we ought to embrace in place of shallow analysis and shrill reaction.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Power vs Sacrifice: Is Torture (or Anything Like It) Ever Justified?
There has been much to contemplate lately regarding the role of torture in our “war on terror.”
On the one hand there are those like Mark Danner, author of ‘Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror,’ who are troubled by the way our government is redefining the meaning of torture. In an Op-Ed piece We Are All Torturers Now in today’s NYT, he questions whether, by acquiescing to our government’s actions on the matter, “we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us,” and concludes “for America, torture is self-defeating; for a strong country it is in the end a strategy of weakness. After Mr. Gonzales is confirmed, the road back - to justice, order and propriety - will be very long. Torture will belong to us all.”
On the other, there are those, such as Mr. Gonzales, who I believe genuinely think they are doing the right thing, even in light of our Judeo-Christian ethic. According to this line of reasoning, we are being threatened by “an enemy that does not wear a uniform, owes no allegiance to any country, is not a party to any treaties and - most importantly - does not fight according to the laws of war,' (The New York Times > Washington > Bush Nominee Plans to Stand Firm on War-Captive Memo). Mr. Gonzales goes on “asserting that the president was committed to defending the country 'always in a manner consistent with our nation's values and applicable law, including our treaty obligations,' the statement continued, 'I pledge that if I am confirmed as attorney general, I will abide by those commitments.'"
As I’ve struggled to comprehend how my views on this should be informed by my commitment to ways of Jesus, I continually find myself trying to balance two seemingly incongruent positions. On the one hand, Paul seems to indicate in Romans 13 that government has a God given role to “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong doer.” Hence the fact that, to my knowledge, even the most ardent pacifist is not opposed to prison or the use of lethal force to protect innocent who are in imminent danger.
Juxtaposed against this, though, are many, many passages speaking of our response to evil. Just prior the passage cited above, in Romans 12, Paul reminds his readers “do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath… ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ [citing Proverbs 25: 21,22] ”Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Indeed, throughout the New Testament, the message is clear… “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12). Again and again Christ warns the disciples against the path of military resistance to the pagan Roman occupiers of their land. Their, and ours, is to the way of the cross. The ultimate source authority in the universe is not raw power, but sacrificial love. This is the message we are to take to the world.
One easy solution would be to declare a separation between the “government” and we “people.” The “government uses force/power to restrain evil while we people proclaim the good news of God’s rule and reign over eternity. But here, in America, our government is “for the people and by the people.” We are the government!
I’m still working this out, but one passage did come to mind today as I contemplated the real battle we face. How did Jesus deal with the “enemy” when He confronted? In Mark 5 we read about Jesus encounter with the Gerasene demoniac, who was possessed by so many demons that he referred to himself as “Legion, for we are many.” When Jesus first commanded the evil spirits to free him, he shouted out “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!” and went on to beg Jesus to not to send out of the area, but rather into a herd of pigs. Jesus didn’t give the reply we might expect. He didn’t say “Die! You slimy bastards!” and zap them into oblivion. No, he gave them permission to do as they asked. In other words, he didn’t torture them.
If the Son of the Most High God, the only one with true authority over the entire universe did not resort to torturing the one true enemy He had, it seems to me that neither we, nor our government should either.
Whether or not the current policies of our government do amount to torture is another question. If they don’t, they’re awfully close and certainly heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, I suspect they do.
For those interested in doing more extensive research on what the US government’s view is on the matter of torture, the New York Times has what appears to be a fairly comprehensive list of sites and documents in The New York Times > International > Complete Coverage: A Guide to the Memos on Torture.
On the one hand there are those like Mark Danner, author of ‘Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror,’ who are troubled by the way our government is redefining the meaning of torture. In an Op-Ed piece We Are All Torturers Now in today’s NYT, he questions whether, by acquiescing to our government’s actions on the matter, “we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us,” and concludes “for America, torture is self-defeating; for a strong country it is in the end a strategy of weakness. After Mr. Gonzales is confirmed, the road back - to justice, order and propriety - will be very long. Torture will belong to us all.”
On the other, there are those, such as Mr. Gonzales, who I believe genuinely think they are doing the right thing, even in light of our Judeo-Christian ethic. According to this line of reasoning, we are being threatened by “an enemy that does not wear a uniform, owes no allegiance to any country, is not a party to any treaties and - most importantly - does not fight according to the laws of war,' (The New York Times > Washington > Bush Nominee Plans to Stand Firm on War-Captive Memo). Mr. Gonzales goes on “asserting that the president was committed to defending the country 'always in a manner consistent with our nation's values and applicable law, including our treaty obligations,' the statement continued, 'I pledge that if I am confirmed as attorney general, I will abide by those commitments.'"
As I’ve struggled to comprehend how my views on this should be informed by my commitment to ways of Jesus, I continually find myself trying to balance two seemingly incongruent positions. On the one hand, Paul seems to indicate in Romans 13 that government has a God given role to “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong doer.” Hence the fact that, to my knowledge, even the most ardent pacifist is not opposed to prison or the use of lethal force to protect innocent who are in imminent danger.
Juxtaposed against this, though, are many, many passages speaking of our response to evil. Just prior the passage cited above, in Romans 12, Paul reminds his readers “do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath… ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ [citing Proverbs 25: 21,22] ”Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Indeed, throughout the New Testament, the message is clear… “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12). Again and again Christ warns the disciples against the path of military resistance to the pagan Roman occupiers of their land. Their, and ours, is to the way of the cross. The ultimate source authority in the universe is not raw power, but sacrificial love. This is the message we are to take to the world.
One easy solution would be to declare a separation between the “government” and we “people.” The “government uses force/power to restrain evil while we people proclaim the good news of God’s rule and reign over eternity. But here, in America, our government is “for the people and by the people.” We are the government!
I’m still working this out, but one passage did come to mind today as I contemplated the real battle we face. How did Jesus deal with the “enemy” when He confronted? In Mark 5 we read about Jesus encounter with the Gerasene demoniac, who was possessed by so many demons that he referred to himself as “Legion, for we are many.” When Jesus first commanded the evil spirits to free him, he shouted out “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!” and went on to beg Jesus to not to send out of the area, but rather into a herd of pigs. Jesus didn’t give the reply we might expect. He didn’t say “Die! You slimy bastards!” and zap them into oblivion. No, he gave them permission to do as they asked. In other words, he didn’t torture them.
If the Son of the Most High God, the only one with true authority over the entire universe did not resort to torturing the one true enemy He had, it seems to me that neither we, nor our government should either.
Whether or not the current policies of our government do amount to torture is another question. If they don’t, they’re awfully close and certainly heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, I suspect they do.
For those interested in doing more extensive research on what the US government’s view is on the matter of torture, the New York Times has what appears to be a fairly comprehensive list of sites and documents in The New York Times > International > Complete Coverage: A Guide to the Memos on Torture.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Playing Mind Games
Today's meandering started when I came across this tidbit from the Washington Post--
Is Every Memory Worth Keeping? (washingtonpost.com)(free registration may be required)--about the use of propranolol to treat post-traumatic-stress-disorder. Apparently taking this drug after a stressful event, minimizes the impact of the memory and makes it easier to forget. It sounds like a laudable pursuit when you read about the nightmares and flashbacks suffered by people with PTSD, but can we trust ourselves to pursue this only for "good and pure" purposes?
Then I came across an article, 'We Can Implant Entirely False Memories', which discusses how easily and repeatably scientists can manipulate situations to plan false memories.
So on the one hand, we have science able to erase strong memories and the other to replace them with false memories...hmm. Add to this the comments of Philip Zimbardo, emeritus professor, Stanford, in
The New York Times > Science > God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap and you have a really disturbing picture. If you studied psychology in the late 70's you might recall Zimbardo's famous Stanford Prison Experiment which he had to cut short because in the midst of it the students role-playing the guards were turning into animals and those playing prisoners were completely freaked out. Here's what he had to say about the guards at Abu Ghraib:
I believe that the prison guards at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, who worked the night shift in Tier 1A, where prisoners were physically and psychologically abused, had surrendered their free will and personal responsibility during these episodes of mayhem.
But I could not prove it in a court of law. These eight Army reservists were trapped in a unique situation in which the behavioral context came to dominate individual dispositions, values and morality to such an extent that they were transformed into mindless actors alienated from their normal sense of personal accountability for their actions - at that time and place.
The "group mind" that developed among these soldiers was created by a set of known social psychological conditions, some of which are nicely featured in Golding's "Lord of the Flies." The same processes that I witnessed in my Stanford Prison Experiment were clearly operating in that remote place: deindividuation, dehumanization, boredom, groupthink, role-playing, rule control and more.
So eventually, we'll be able to get someone to torture someone else, erase that memory and replace with another.
Lord help us!
Is Every Memory Worth Keeping? (washingtonpost.com)(free registration may be required)--about the use of propranolol to treat post-traumatic-stress-disorder. Apparently taking this drug after a stressful event, minimizes the impact of the memory and makes it easier to forget. It sounds like a laudable pursuit when you read about the nightmares and flashbacks suffered by people with PTSD, but can we trust ourselves to pursue this only for "good and pure" purposes?
Then I came across an article, 'We Can Implant Entirely False Memories', which discusses how easily and repeatably scientists can manipulate situations to plan false memories.
So on the one hand, we have science able to erase strong memories and the other to replace them with false memories...hmm. Add to this the comments of Philip Zimbardo, emeritus professor, Stanford, in
The New York Times > Science > God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap and you have a really disturbing picture. If you studied psychology in the late 70's you might recall Zimbardo's famous Stanford Prison Experiment which he had to cut short because in the midst of it the students role-playing the guards were turning into animals and those playing prisoners were completely freaked out. Here's what he had to say about the guards at Abu Ghraib:
I believe that the prison guards at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, who worked the night shift in Tier 1A, where prisoners were physically and psychologically abused, had surrendered their free will and personal responsibility during these episodes of mayhem.
But I could not prove it in a court of law. These eight Army reservists were trapped in a unique situation in which the behavioral context came to dominate individual dispositions, values and morality to such an extent that they were transformed into mindless actors alienated from their normal sense of personal accountability for their actions - at that time and place.
The "group mind" that developed among these soldiers was created by a set of known social psychological conditions, some of which are nicely featured in Golding's "Lord of the Flies." The same processes that I witnessed in my Stanford Prison Experiment were clearly operating in that remote place: deindividuation, dehumanization, boredom, groupthink, role-playing, rule control and more.
So eventually, we'll be able to get someone to torture someone else, erase that memory and replace with another.
Lord help us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)