Thoughts and Ruminations

I was driving up to Eastern Mennonite Seminary yesterday morning to participate in chapel when I heard on National Public Radio that April 7 is a national day of remembrance in Rwanda. For those not familiar with world events, in the year 1994 ethnic and tribal tensions in the central African country of Rwanda spilled over into a horrendous systematic genocide perpetrated by the majority tribe (the Hutus) mainly against another tribe (Tutsi), though other minority tribes (like the Twa) and Hutu moderates were killed as well. Over the span of approximately 100 days, about 1,000,000 (yes, six zeroes) people were killed, largely by the Hutu militias hacking them apart with machetes.

This was a sad, horrendous time in Rwanda, but it was also a sad, horrendous time in the world. The U.S. called Rwanda a “local conflict” and refused to use the word “genocide” because it may invoke moral responsibility on their part. President Bill Clinton later publicly expressed contrition for standing idly by during this time. In addition to U.S. non-action, significant charges have been made that the French government supported the Hutu perpetrators by both encouraging the Hutu death squads and turning a “blind eye” to the systematic killings when their troops were the only foreign forces in the country in June 1994. A damning report was released in August 2008 by a Rwandan commission of inquiry. According to journalist Linda Malvern,

The report – the fruit of two years’ work that includes the testimony of 638 witnesses, including survivors and perpetrators of genocide – is damning. It says that certain French politicians, diplomats and military leaders – including President FranÁois Mitterrand – were complicit in genocide. The French authorities knowingly aided and abetted what happened by training Hutu militia and devising strategy for Rwanda’s armed forces. Training and funding was also given to Rwandan intelligence services on how to establish a database later used to draw up a ìkill listî of Tutsi.

The most shocking allegations come from survivors who allege that French soldiers participated in the massacres of Tutsi. These soldiers were a part of Operation Turquoise, a French military intervention in June 1994, an ostensibly humanitarian mission that had the backing of the UN Security Council.

So from a world that uttered the phrase “never again” following the Holocaust in the 1940′s, passive ignoring and active assisting were the policy in the Rwandan “Holocaust.” This is one horrendous perspective of reflection on Genocide Remembrance Day. But I’d like to offer another that the typical journalist wouldn’t offer.

We Christians like to talk about “missions” a whole lot, and we like to talk about Matthew 28, Jesus’ “Great Commission,” where he said to “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Many Christians have left the comforts and relationships of home to go to foreign lands, spurred on by this call to proclaim the name and mission of Jesus to the world. And when they have done so, they’ve met mixed results. In Africa, specifically, Christians often lament the big obstacles that meet them there; extreme poverty, tribal religions that maintain holds on the people, and other religions (especially Islam).

But with all of the struggles of Western mission in Africa, Rwanda was considered one shining example of success. Of all the nations in Africa, Rwanda had the highest conversion rate, and eventually the country could claim about 80-90% of its citizens as confessing Christians. Yet in 1994, in the most “Christian” country of Africa, one tribe of Rwandans slaughtered one million of their own people. For persons who care about the gospel (which should be all Christians), that leads to a big question,

“What in the world happened here? How can such a success story become such a tragic story of hatred and murder?“

And what investigators have suggested is that the gospel that was preached to Rwandans by Western missions groups was one that focused salvation on life after death, essentially, “Jesus died for your sins so you could be forgiven and go to heaven and not go to hell when you die.” This gospel, because of its focus on the afterlife, didn’t address its hearers’ (and eventual converters) everyday existence. Specifically, it had very little to say about social class, tribal, ethnic, racial, and familial relationships other than sexual behavior and marital boundaries. As a result, when a powerful racial hatred story came along (Hutu power), there was no counter-story in the “Christian” people of Rwanda to nullify the Hutu power story. To make this message come a little closer to home, this Rwandan gospel is the gospel most American Christians proclaim, which makes this more than a Rwandan problem; it makes it a global-church-wide problem.

To state this situation differently, it raises another important question. Is what the Rwandans received “the gospel”? And if it is, does this gospel have anything substantial to say about distinctions between people that lead to bloodshed? And specifically for the readers of this post, Does what you believe is the gospel only focus on the death of Jesus and its forgiveness of sins for eternal life, which means only heaven and hell after natural death?

If that is your gospel (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is, because most of the Western world believes it is), I contend, Biblically, you’re missing the point of the gospel proclaimed by Jesus. And when you proclaim such a gospel in the world, it has disastrous results on the people hearing such a message.

I’m literally saying here that the Western church bears significant responsibility for the genocide in Rwanda. I’m not saying this to say the church is completely twisted and never has done anything good. I’m simply saying that when we miss the point of the gospel, and preach our missing-the-point as “the gospel,” it has consequences. Sometimes disastrous ones.

I saw the most recent example of the “gospel” we believe in when watching a video of a panel ostensibly put on to make Tony Jones look like a heretic (judging from the other panelmates) that ended up with statements from Tony, his “more orthodox” friend Scot McKnight, and his “definitely orthodox” (by American evangelical standards) panel-member Kevin DeYoung making statements about the gospel. I quote their three statements in full. In light of Rwanda, tell me which “gospel” wouldn’t significantly challenge the way of life of the Rwandan people and which ones would present to them a transformative message.

Jones: “The gospel is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. That none of us should be lost. He’s given us the ministry of reconciliation, therefore we are ambassadors for Christ. That’s the gospel. God is the protagonist. God does the work. We put our faith in God through Jesus Christ and that our job then is to take the message of reconciliation out to the world.”

DeYoung: “The most important thing is…to be absolutely solid on what the gospel is. The gospel is not first of all what we need to do for God, to go out and change the world or bring about shalom. The gospel is first of all about what God has done for us…The beginning point, the ending point, the thing that holds it all together is that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again on the third day and without that we are lost in our sins and we are facing eternal punishment.”

McKnight: “Here’s how I define the gospel… I think it’s the work of the Triune God (Father, Son, Spirit) through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit to restore cracked eikons (which is what I call human beings) to union with God, union with others, for the good of others and the world. And the same apostle Paul called the gospel “the gospel of peace.” Shalom is the word he would have used there.”

What do you think?  Regardless of the way you may respond to each statement, which one do you think most Western Christians would say is the gospel?  And how might the story of Rwanda change the way you think about the gospel?

When our “gospel” is primarily focused on life after death, something powerful will occupy that vacuum of how to find meaning in this life.  I saw another example of how that something powerful co-opts and changes Christian symbols on the back of a Ford Explorer today too.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the gospel that we preach must be Biblically-rooted, must never take away from God’s dream for the world, and must lead to transformed patterns of living in this world that extend out through eternity. the world must see a visibly distinct group of people in the world to have something either to hate or model their lives after.  A people pursuing God’s justice and God’s shalom.  Anything less than that and we are setting our sights far too low.  

Rwanda reminds us that lives hang in the balance.

In light of Tony Benn’s insight in the previous post, I was pleased to find an update from Congressman Dennis Kucinich on my Facebook profile this afternoon that showed both his courage and a call to the thinking, involved American public to hold our government accountable.

One of the most important needs for a democratic society to exist and thrive is transparency in the governmental process. Those who have been given the responsibility of leading must lead with integrity, wisdom, and accountability. When the lives of persons are at stake with possible military action, then leaders must especially be truthful.

I am sad to say that George W. Bush is not this type of leader. And I am even further saddened to suggest that in the buildup to the Iraq War, he used propaganda techniques, misdirection, and perception-spin to convince the American people that they should get behind a military invasion of the country. This has resulted in over 4,000 deaths of American personnel, tens of thousands of American personnel injured (physically and mentally), tens of thousands (if not more) Iraqi deaths (most civilians, including women and children), Iraqi society in deeper turmoil; and worst, a growth in numbers of al-Qaeda as hatreds have been inflamed by deaths in families.

In Bill Clinton’s presidency, he was impeached by the House of Representatives because he lied about sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. They called this “high crimes and misdemeanors.” George W. Bush and his administration lied about Iraq, al-Qaeda, and their motives for invading, resulting in untold human devastation. If lying about a sexual relationship is a “high crime” (highly debatable), and the costs of Bush’s action have made Clinton’s look like a geriatric bridge club, then certainly Bush is guilty, and must be held accountable.

Not only am I disgusted at Bush’s leadership, but even further disgusted at my fellow Christians who give this man a blank check because he’s “born-again.” By my estimation, he’s one of the most corrupt, big-business-bought-off, immoral presidents in recent memory.

Thankfully, there’s at least one Representative that has had the guts to be a leader in this area; Dennis Kucinich. And he’s gaining a wider hearing with his colleagues on Capital Hill. The following is a message I got from Kucinich a bit ago. I signed the petition. I would suggest you join me as well. Make our government accountable.

Last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich delivered a petition bearing more than 100,000 names to the Speaker of the House urging that impeachment proceedings begin into the conduct of President Bush. 

With new disclosures that the Administration tried to “cook the books at the CIA” by creating a phony, forged link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, “We cannot step back and let this President escape accountability.”

If you have already signed the impeachment petition at http://kucinich.us, thank you. If you haven’t, please do. And, in the next few weeks, please ask just one more person to sign so we can let the members of Congress hear our collective demand that they meet their obligation to uphold the Constitution.”

Have you heard about Cedric Benson’s arrest on Saturday?  From the first reports I heard on ESPN Radio the other day, Cedric was “pulled over” while boating on Lake Travis in Austin, TX for a “safety check” where the police were suspicious enough of his sobriety that they put him on their boat for a test, where Benson became disorderly and violently resisted arrest enough that pepper spray was administered and he had to be dragged to his car.

My first impression? “Typical Cedric Benson. Displays no work ethic on the field to get better. Thinks he’s entitled to everything because he was a first-round draft pick and is a pro athlete. Plus, he’s probably a thug, if his actions around the police reveal anything.”

That was my first reaction. Casting stereotypes. And stereotypes sometimes work, I guess. However, my viewing of the excellent, excellent movie The Great Debaters earlier this year told me a little something about racism that I’m much more sensitized to, especially when it comes to police and minorities. In the setting of The Great Debaters (1930s Texas), it was still kosher in the wider society to treat blacks like subhuman-beings; scene after scene in the movie displayed that in shocking detail. Why this is relevant today is the simple truth that racism, while it may not be quite as immediately obvious in our society today (it’s less kosher on a society-wide level), is still deeply embedded; just harder to see. And it’s no coincidence that the most deeply-South sections of American society typically have the most embedded racism. It is this simple understanding that makes this Cedric Benson story more complex than at first blush. Especially when the experience of his friend and Benson’s mother (two passengers on the boat) is told. The quotes all come from this story.

A female passenger on Cedric Benson’s boat Saturday night in Austin, Texas, was concerned enough about his safety after police took him into custody to phone her parents and urge them to call 911, the Tribune has learned.

‘I called my dad and told him, ‘Call 911, my black friend is getting beaten up by police on Lake Travis,’ ” said Elizabeth Cartwright, 22, a friend of Benson’s from the University of Texas. “It’s more what I heard than what I saw. I have never heard or seen Cedric that scared.’

And this little tidbit matters too.

Cartwright, an English major at the University of Texas who is to graduate later this month, estimated she and her fiance had been boating with Benson six times this spring and each time a Lower Colorado River Authority boat pulled them over for a safety check.

Now, call me oversensitive, but when the three elements of the story (Texas police, a black man, and six “safety checks” in six boating expeditions) come together, I start to get a little suspicious, thanks to listening to experiences of my black brothers and sisters. The affidavit filed by the Lower Colorado River Authority described Benson as cocky, combative, and smelling of alcohol. Multiple witnesses of the event describe things differently (there were 15 other folks on the boat). According to Benson, police pepper-sprayed him in the eyes without provocation and dragged him along the ground to the point he cried out for his mother, Jackie.

Cartwright commented again,

The arrival of LCRA police perturbed Benson because of the frequency of the checks on his 30-foot boat, Cartwright said. When Benson’s boat passed the safety inspection, Cartwright said she and her fiance were surprised the officer then required a sobriety test for Benson. “We were all like, ‘Why?’ ” she said.

After an officer led Benson to the LCRA boat for the test, the second officer left behind on Benson’s boat assured a nervous Jackie Benson that her son would be fine, Cartwright recalled.

A few minutes later, Cartwright said she heard Benson begin to scream after the officer pepper-sprayed him in the eye. By the time Benson was in handcuffs, he was screaming, “Please stop, Mom, make them please stop.” Cartwright disputed that Benson was resisting arrest.

And finally,

Benson claimed police kicked his feet out from under him, causing him to fall awkwardly. When Benson got up, Cartwright remembers him sitting in a squad car surrounded by six officers.

“In the weakest voice, Cedric said to me and my fiance, ‘Help me get out of here,’ ” Cartwright said. “He was so scared.”

The reason this story sticks out to me is the radical difference in accounts between the police and witnesses. Fifty years ago, the witnesses may have been muzzled (because of some being black) and the police report would have been the only one given to the press, which would have led to more whites saying, “Typical black man (insert racial epithet here).” I still have the extended scene from The Great Debaters burned into my memory of Denzel Washington being arrested under pretenses of disorderly conduct and “communism” for having the audacity to organize the poor white and black sharecroppers to act together. The way the police handled that situation, the brutal disregard for his humanity, and the racism that bled through everything disturbed me.

I’m not saying this situation was racially charged, but I am suggesting it as a possibility. Not sayin’, just sayin’.

Jeremiah Wright and Cornel West have awakened me from my middle-class white slumber in the last three months.  Lost amidst all the hullabaloo from 10-second sound-bites yanked from the greater context of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons which news organizations then talked hours on is the greater message Jeremiah is seeking to convey to the American nation. Jeremiah Wright is not Obama’s lapdog, and Obama is not his. Barack Obama is a politician, and Jeremiah Wright is an eloquent, shockingly-honest, sometimes-divisive pastor of God’s church.  The two are very different things. In order for us to understand the experience of the black church and the foundation from which Wright speaks, we need to move beyond the sound-bites and into a good, full listen to him in the videos below; even if, or especially if, we disagree with him.

If you are a person who is sick and tired of news organizations telling us what we should believe and showing us what we should see, please give this man a full listen in the videos below.

And if you want to know, REALLY know, this man that Barack Obama is separating himself from because of mushy political centrism in seeking to get elected, please give this man a full listen in the videos below. Barack Obama is being more and more exposed as a man who used Trinity UCC as a leg up, as a prestige card to play with the black community, rather than a fully participating member invested in attacking the problem of racism head-on. Calling for racial unity is nice and all, but when significant embedded racism still exists in our society, it’s time for troublemakers, rabble-rousers to stand up and speak truth to power, their political careers be damned.

And let this be stated clearly, if you can watch Survivor or American Idol or Dancing with the Stars (“reality” shows) or Lost or 24 or The Office (hour-long escapes from reality into suspended disbelief) or Hannity and Colmes (a show of barking partisan hacks) for hours on end every week, I’m fairly certain you can watch an embattled man (and a fine one at that) talk about something of vital importance for our world today in the videos below.

I’m sitting on some thoughts, but I will write them in the next couple days after wrapping up some loose ends for school. So keep attuned here if you’re interested in catching some of my thoughts on this; I want to contribute to this conversation that is simply not taking place in our society right now. It is DESPERATELY needed, and I want to be a part of it. Even in a little tiny way.

Video #2 of the same speech

Video #3 of the same speech

Video #4 of the same speech

Video #5 of the same speech

Video #6 of the same speech

I don’t know if you had caught this developing story today or not, but Jimmy Carter (a man I look up to very very much) is working hard for progress in the Palestinian/Israeli peace process.  Today, he met with senior Hamas officials in Cairo in the hopes that some common bond could be built.  What made me say, “Attaboy Jimmy!” was the first couple lines from the article,

Former President Carter met with senior Hamas officials in the Egyptian capital today, rankling the Israeli and US governments, which say it runs counter to their policies of not negotiating with terrorists.

Later in the article, the same thing stuck out to me.

During his stop in Israel, most officials- including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert- refused to meet with Carter, angry over his insistence that Israel should talk to Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union.

I hope you don’t misinterpret my “Attaboy!” for a blank check endorsement of Hamas as a legitimate governing authority, because that’s not my intent at all. In fact, Hamas has done a tremendous amount of violence and evil on its part over the years that have burned bridges with Israeli people and deeply set back the Israel/Palestine peace process.

My attaboy really has two main dimensions;
1) Jimmy Carter’s got some serious stones to do what he’s doing now

Bigger ones than Ehud Olmert, Khalid Meshaal, or George Bush, at least. Either these “leaders” are so completely blinded to the complex issues that surround seeking peace in this area or are continuing to willfully play off others’ fears, because there’s been plenty of black/white simplistic answers coming from these parties.Jimmy’s in pursuit of solutions and healing, and he’s willing to ask hard questions and meet with the unmeetable because he knows peoples’ lives (both Palestinian and Israeli) hang in the balance. And peoples’ lives are always, ALWAYS more important than the wounded pride and ego of choosing to embrace those you have hated so long you almost don’t remember why.

2) Jimmy Carter’s smart enough to know “terrorist” is just a label that all kinds of organizations throw around, usually to demonize the opposing party in the hopes that your folks will come off smelling like roses, all righteous and stuff. Terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder.

I wrote a few posts awhile back highlighting this fact.

1) One post focused on the reports early in March of a Tomahawk cruise missile attack on an al-Qaeda operative in Somalia.

The Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. military struck a target against a known al-Qaeda terrorist, and I’m sure this was the point at which your average story-reader (especially American) stopped reading. But buried at the bottom of the article, we’re told that the strike destroyed two houses, killed three women, three children, and wounded another twenty people. Now in the bigger scheme of things (beyond the Pentagon thinking they rode in on their white horse, accomplished justice, and rode back out again), how much do you think that missile strike affected that town of Dhoobley? The families of the killed? The injured? The memories that will remain for generations in that small town? The (justified) hatred that Tomahawk will inspire in them? Who comes off as a terrorist organization for the people in Dhoobley? I’ll let you handle that one yourself.

2) Another post focused on a story that emerged April 1 also related to the American government. The story, reporting on a Justice Department memo to Bush, stated

The president’s wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture. Legal counsel John Yoo wrote, “Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion.”

What would be the definition of a terrorist organization? Maybe one that openly flaunts international law and does what it decides is right, with the good of all over-ridden by their own interests? The U.S. fits the description in this case.

3) And the third post had to do with the very Israeli/Palestinian relationship Carter is addressing right now.

It seems Hamas got a sweet whiff of what might bring lasting positive change in the shattered relationship by choosing not to suicide bomb a marketplace, but instead mobilize the people of Palestine in non-violent protest against the unjust security wall Israel has been building. Israel caught a whiff of this plan, and here was their response;

The army intends to prevent the marchers from advancing on the fence when they are still inside the Strip, using various means for crowd dispersal according to a ring system: The closer the marchers get to the fence, the harsher the response.The army plans to fire at open areas near the demonstrators with artillery that the Artillery Corps has been moving to the area over the past couple of days. If the marchers continue and cross into the next ring, they will face tear gas. If they persist, snipers could be ordered to aim for the marchers’ legs as they approach the fence.

It’s not an un-related point that Israel has been building the security walls inside the borders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while acquiring land for settlements by driving Palestinian farmers off the land, refusing to let them back on, and squatting on the land until they declare it “unoccupied” and thus free for illegal settlers to move on.

It is Israel’s handling of this situation that led to Desmond Tutu calling the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians “apartheid.” I think Desmond Tutu would know. It also led to Jimmy Carter writing a book entitled “Peace not Apartheid.” Both men have been charged with anti-Semitism, a challenge that carries baggage since the Holocaust happened only 70 years ago. In this situation though (with both men being followers of Jesus) Jimmy and Desmond weren’t spitting hatred but speaking truth to power, and thinking of the long-term good of both Israelis and Palestinians.

A good example of what not to do, of simplistic and close-minded thinking came from Condolezza Rice (who could’ve been working on this relationship for three and a half years already), who said she found it “hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is in fact the impediment to peace.” Well, Condi, Hamas plays a role in the problem, yes. But so does Israel in their state terror on the Palestinian people. And so does the United States in giving a blank check to Israel of support. You’re the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and that’s all you can come up with?

*UPDATE TO ADD* Carter made a speech today (4/21/08 ) as a result of his talks in the region that (surprise surprise) includes concessions Hamas would be willing to make as a result of direct talks. Here’s a quote

Carter urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with Hamas, saying failure to do so was hampering peace efforts.

“We do not believe that peace is likely and certainly that peace is not sustainable unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way,” he said. “The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working.”

Photo from cpt.org in 2005

Israel plans violent IDF response to a non-violent Palestinian protest against Israel turning Gaza into a ghetto

Because encouraging Hamas to keep firing rockets into Israeli settlements so that you can respond with overwhelming force is working out well for both parties. I mean, really, the Israeli and Palestinian civilian lives are a small price to pay for Hamas and Israeli governmental “leaders” to play with their fun toys and continue the generational ethnic violence.

It seems that Hamas (who, like it or not [I certainly don't] is the “legitimate” Palestinian leadership right now) has chosen a different, more just way forward here in the short-term than rocket attacks of responding to Israel’s sealing off of the Gaza Strip. What Israel’s action has done is prohibit the import or export of many goods and services, including the shutting off of water and electricity into Gaza. The practical effect of this action is a splitting of many Palestinians’ land so that they can’t get from one side of their property to the other.

The fun news here is that Israelis have taken advantage of a generational land ownership system (fellahin communal ownership) that they do not recognize to seize Palestinian lands for the Israeli state.  As this website very practically describes, a law dating from the Ottoman rule of the area, I believe, declares that if a land is “unoccupied” by an owner for a certain period of time, the land then can be “owned” by the party that squats on it for a certain period of time.  It dates back to most inhabitants being Bedouin nomads, who roved the land.  What Israel has done is to seal off a certain area that is owned by Palestinians and declare it a “closed military zone,” or “security zone,” splitting farms right down the middle; thus forbidding farmers from accessing their fields.

Photo from cpt.org

When the farmers try, they are often turned back or consistently beaten by soldiers and Israeli settlers.   After a period of time, the Ministry of Agriculture issues confiscation orders regarding these fields due to “neglect” by owners, thus freeing Israeli settlers to purchase the land.  Recently, some Palestinian farmers have undertaken what I would call a heroic effort to stay on their land despite beatings, blatant ethnic hatred, warning shots, harassment, and flock abuse. Here’s a link to their efforts.

The security wall, however, makes concrete (pun fully intended) the reality that farmers WILL NOT access that part of their land, thus making the land “neglected” immediately since it’s a little tough to get a herd of sheep over a 25 ft security wall.

All of that is the necessary context for the present situation, where a nonviolent protest was planned for massive numbers of Palestinian citizens to somehow scale the fence and climb over to protest the injustice of the wall and break the economic blockade of Gaza from Israel as well.  But Israel found out about this plan. Take a gander at their response (from this story by Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz)

Israel is already enforcing sterile buffer zones near the fence, especially in areas near Israeli settlements. Which is to say the IDF shoots anyone who attempts to approach the fence in those areas…the IDF has also carved up the area inside the Gaza Strip, at least on the army’s maps.

The army intends to prevent the marchers from advancing on the fence when they are still inside the Strip, using various means for crows dispersal according to a ring system: The closer the marchers get to the fence, the harsher the response.The army plans to fire at open areas near the demonstrators with artillery that the Artillery Corps has been moving to the area over the past couple of days. If the marchers continue and cross into the next ring, they will face tear gas. If they persist, snipers could be ordered to aim for the marchers’ legs as they approach the fence.

Am I going too far to suggest that an IDF soldier could *oops* shoot a little higher than the knees ever, you know, “in error?”

In a later comment, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said,

“We don’t plan to fool around in this regard,” he told Israel Radio. “We will use measures in the way we deem necessary to prevent people breaking into the state of Israel’s territory.” Asked if this could include using live fire against Palestinians, Vilnai said: “Anything that must be done, will be done.”

This quote came from the same man who in late February said, “The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger ‘shoah’ because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” Link to story here. In case you’re not familiar with the terminology, “shoah” is a word rarely used in Israel beyond being a name for the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. Yeah, the guy was threatening genocide; as if it hasn’t already taken place before in recent history.

It seems this threat and military buildup dampened some of the Palestinian spirits and plans for the protest, though 20,000 people showed up on February 25th and formed a human chain 25 miles long in (relatively) peaceful protest. Leader Rami Abdu of the Popular Committee Against the Siege said, “Our message to the world is that we will not be silent until the siege is lifted.” Protestors carried signs that read, “The siege will only make us stronger,” “The world has sentenced Gaza to death,” and “Save Gaza.”

In case you didn’t know about Israel has been doing recently in Gaza, you may want to look up what the Nazis did to Jews in Germany and Poland and surrounding territories in the mid-twentieth century, herding them into ghettos where they limited or shut off the inflow of supplies and prohibited commerce. I’m assuming you’ve heard of the Nazis? Now this disgusting practice is being carried out by the Israelis.

This is putrid.

But, hey, who am I to judge? Keep that cycle of violence going, Israel! Forget this change in approach by Hamas, because who wants an end to ethnic strife anyways, especially when any significant peace agreement will involve concessions on both sides that limit “sovereignty”?

Maybe the children can inject some sense into this disgusting situation. Please watch this video and pay attention to the little girl’s story and wisdom midway through.

 Just a couple thoughts to offer today.  I’ve had a chance to think in the last year or so about this “freedom” Americans often claim our army is fighting for.  I hear it everywhere in our society as a phrase to clobber both naive pacifists and traitorous liberals with different ideas about how Iraq should have been handled.  As I’ve wrestled with what this is all about, I’ve done my best to keep my ears peeled eyes open for others working through this same issue.  I happened to come upon an interview online of one of my mentors-through-proxy (Internet and books substituting for face to face interaction) Stanley Hauerwas that shocked me. I didn’t know what to make of it at first, but as time has passed, it’s making more sense to me.  Check it out;

“In his reflections on Sept. 11, Hauerwas uses the term ‘American imperialism’ matter-of-factly. He’s not afraid to humanize those who flew jets into buildings on Sept. 11, and to point out what he calls ‘the loneliness of the American people,’ a loneliness he says is tied to their pursuit of happiness.’On Sept. 11, Americans were confronted by people ready to die as an expression of their profound moral commitments,  Hauerwas said in his Silk Hope talk earlier this year. ‘Their willingness to die stands in stark contrast to a politics that asks of its members in response to Sept. 11 to shop.’  

‘Americans are, for the most part, good, decent and hardworking people, but so were the people that supported the Nazis.’  Hauerwas said he worries about ‘how goodness can become deeply corrupted by its innocence….most of the time innocence is deeply immoral because it is such a lie not to acknowledge that we live in a very complex world that we benefit from, and we don’t have to acknowledge the havoc our benefits depend upon.’  

While those who loathe the United States are willing to die as an expression of their hatred, Hauerwas said U.S. citizens have no comparable moral conviction on which to base their lives.  ”A people who have been bred to shop then can quickly become some of the most violent people in the world,” Hauerwas said, “exactly because they’re dying to have something worth dying for.”  

 

Before you get too upset (like I initially did), read the quote five or six times, then take a couple hours (or months) the chew on it from time to time.  I’ve come to see it as deeply insightful over time.  The question he raises is relevant; what does “freedom” represent in America, and at what cost is that American freedom perpetuated?  

Example after example in the last few months has proven to me Stanley’s suggestion that “freedom” in our society directly translates to “shopping.”  If it does not, what is the comparable conviction Americans have to bring that they’re willing to fight for?  The right to vote?  Maybe so, but check out the percentages of folks that exercise that right when the time rolls around.  Right to freedom of religious expression?  How many American folks are really, I mean really, deeply invested with the whole of their lives in the religion (often Christian) they claim? Precious few.

So what IS the mark of American (and by extension, Western) society that takes up most of our attention, time, energy, thoughts and dreams?

I’d suggest it’s cash money, the jobs it takes to get more, the marketing that competes for us to exercise our right to buy their stuff, and the sheer amount of stuff we can buy with that cash.    

Our “holidays” of Christmas and Easter are perfect examples of this.  If those who claimed to be Christian truly deeply valued and respected the two most holy celebrations of their year, they would be up in arms about the mockery our secular society has turned them into. Heck, witches and black-magic practicioners should be pissed at how secularism has changed the height of their year (Halloween) into an avalanche of candy and cute little costumes.  In short, consumerism has taken every day holy and sacred to competing traditions, subverted them, and marketed them under completely different pretenses and seeking different ends.  So now we have Santa Claus (the original Saint Nicholas has to be rolling over in his grave), The Easter Bunny, Thanksgiving football and excess amounts of turkey and stuffing, and Valentine’s Day (a boon for the diamond and Hallmark card industries) as examples.  More examples exist, and they all reveal the central value our society upholds; money, what it takes to get it, and (for marketers) more and more innovative ways to convince consumers they need to spend it on YOUR product. 

Which brings us to Black Friday, the official holiday of the hallowed First Day of Christmas Shopping, the most profitable day of the year for businesses and the height of capitalism.  The day where we consumers camp out at our Best Buys and Kohls and JCPenneys and shopping malls so that at midnight or 4 am or 6 am (whoever opens first) we may spend our money on things we don’t need.  But we have the right to!  

Nobody tells me where I can or can’t spend my money, not no A-rabs or dem Chi-nese or nobody!  

And THIS, my friends, is why Stanley Hauerwas is so spot-on in his diagnosis of our society.  We have nothing to fight for in our society but a vague notion of freedom in need of definition.  And the definition has come to mean the right to shop.  We claim freedom of choice, yet our naivete about our individual capability to make good choices as if we weren’t slaves to marketers reveals not only that we aren’t free, but that we’re overconsumed and cynical and bored.  The system keeps us entertained but unfulfilled, and we are shocked by the possibility that someone would give up that right and fight to recover another vision of what life is to be about.  It’s a clashing of civilizations, the dominant one secular (NOT Christian) and competing visions daring to suggest their commitment is more life-giving and worthy of sacrifice. 

This is a series of unfinished and slightly incoherent thoughts, I’m sure, but Black Friday in all its glory shoved me back to the place inside me Hauerwas twisted into a mess with his comment.  I’d encourage you to wrestle with it.

 In closing, I’ll leave you with one of the most prophetic bands I know of around these days, “The Cobalt Season”, and some of the lyrics from their deeply honest lament/hopeful song “Like Jesus“;   

 

And friends, Romans, countrymen

Won’t you lend me your ears?

This Holy American Empire

Gotta tell you it’s crumblin’ down

To the ground

 

’Cause everything’s for granted

And nothing is for sure

So let’s grab a Starbucks baby

And let’s spend a little more

 

Forget about the dreams we had

Just work and sleep until we’re dead

Are we blind to what’s ahead?

 

Oh Lord, how long?

 

When memory’s for granted

Nothing is for sure

And history goes round and round

As we long for something more

 

We lie and wait for better days

With hope and fear and joy and dread

Or just ambivalence to what’s ahead?