A good, not-very-long article on the continued madness in Afghanistan.
I just want our kids home, and the people of Afghanistan left alone.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Why I am a pacifist
I took a shortcut. Rather than spell it all out in my own words, I'm taking someone else's words. I'm not a Mennonite, but the church that formed my faith (Brethren) is an offshoot of the Mennonite church.
Wonderful article that sums up why I am a pacifist here.
Wonderful article that sums up why I am a pacifist here.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Book review
Title: Gilead by Marilynne Robinson
Grade: B+/A-
This book takes the form of a letter written by an aging pastor to his young son, born after a marriage late in life. It's set in the 1950s and at the start the father says this letter is all the things he wants his son to know about him and about life, as he is sure his time here on earth is short and he won't be around to see his son age.
It's beautiful and sensitive, and mixes history, theology, and family ties. The narrator's father was an ardent pacifist, and his grandfather was an ardent abolitionist who was under John Brown's command during the events of 'Bleeding Kansas', then later fought in the Civil War. Part of the narrative deals with the conflict between the narrator's pacifist father and his not-so-pacifist grandfather - a struggle I can very much relate to.
In between all this is the narrator's own struggle to come to terms with his failing health, as well as his own mixed feelings toward his godson (the son of his best friend), who has been a bit of a prodigal as an adult. I found it to be a great show of grace, and on a personal level can relate it to how I need to be dealing with people in my own life whose life choices I may not agree with. It's a sweet book, and the only reason I'm giving it a B is that the ending is a bit - shall I say - vague? I'm not normally a fiction reader, but this was worth the read.
In my opinion, the best passage: (he is talking about the Spanish influenza pandemic and WWI)
It killed the soldiers by the thousands, healthy men in the prime of life, and then it spread into the rest of the population. It was like a war, it really was...there was talk that the Germans had caused it with some sort of secret weapon, and I think people wanted to believe that, because it saved them from reflecting on what other meaning it might have.
The parents of these young soldiers would come to me and ask me how the Lord could allow such a thing. I felt like asking them what the Lord would have to do to tell us He didn't allow something. But instead I would comfort them by saying we would never know what their young men had been spared. Most of them took me to mean they were spared the trenches and the mustard gas, but what I really meant was that they were spared the act of killing...
It was a strange sickness...Those boys were drowning in their own blood. They couldn't even speak for the blood in their throats, in their mouths. So many of them died so fast there was no place to put them...Now, if these things were not signs, I don't know what a sign would look like. . So I wrote a sermon about it. I said, or I meant to say, that these deaths were rescuing foolish young men from the consequences of their own ignorance and courage, that the Lord was gathering them in before they could go off and commit murder against their brothers. And I said that their deaths were a sign and a warning to the rest of us that the desire for war would bring the consequences of war, because there is no ocean big enough to protect us from the Lord's judgement when we decide to hammer our plowshares into swords and our pruning hooks into spears, in contempt of the will and the grace of God."
Grade: B+/A-
This book takes the form of a letter written by an aging pastor to his young son, born after a marriage late in life. It's set in the 1950s and at the start the father says this letter is all the things he wants his son to know about him and about life, as he is sure his time here on earth is short and he won't be around to see his son age.
It's beautiful and sensitive, and mixes history, theology, and family ties. The narrator's father was an ardent pacifist, and his grandfather was an ardent abolitionist who was under John Brown's command during the events of 'Bleeding Kansas', then later fought in the Civil War. Part of the narrative deals with the conflict between the narrator's pacifist father and his not-so-pacifist grandfather - a struggle I can very much relate to.
In between all this is the narrator's own struggle to come to terms with his failing health, as well as his own mixed feelings toward his godson (the son of his best friend), who has been a bit of a prodigal as an adult. I found it to be a great show of grace, and on a personal level can relate it to how I need to be dealing with people in my own life whose life choices I may not agree with. It's a sweet book, and the only reason I'm giving it a B is that the ending is a bit - shall I say - vague? I'm not normally a fiction reader, but this was worth the read.
In my opinion, the best passage: (he is talking about the Spanish influenza pandemic and WWI)
It killed the soldiers by the thousands, healthy men in the prime of life, and then it spread into the rest of the population. It was like a war, it really was...there was talk that the Germans had caused it with some sort of secret weapon, and I think people wanted to believe that, because it saved them from reflecting on what other meaning it might have.
The parents of these young soldiers would come to me and ask me how the Lord could allow such a thing. I felt like asking them what the Lord would have to do to tell us He didn't allow something. But instead I would comfort them by saying we would never know what their young men had been spared. Most of them took me to mean they were spared the trenches and the mustard gas, but what I really meant was that they were spared the act of killing...
It was a strange sickness...Those boys were drowning in their own blood. They couldn't even speak for the blood in their throats, in their mouths. So many of them died so fast there was no place to put them...Now, if these things were not signs, I don't know what a sign would look like. . So I wrote a sermon about it. I said, or I meant to say, that these deaths were rescuing foolish young men from the consequences of their own ignorance and courage, that the Lord was gathering them in before they could go off and commit murder against their brothers. And I said that their deaths were a sign and a warning to the rest of us that the desire for war would bring the consequences of war, because there is no ocean big enough to protect us from the Lord's judgement when we decide to hammer our plowshares into swords and our pruning hooks into spears, in contempt of the will and the grace of God."
Friday, February 12, 2010
Monday, February 08, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
"May God bless you with discomfort at easy answers, half truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may live deep within your heart. May God bless you with anger at injustice, oppression and exploitation of people, so that you may work for justice, freedom and peace. May God bless you with tears to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation and war, so that you may reach out your hands to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy. And may God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you can make a difference in this world, so that you can do what others claim cannot be done."
- Franciscan benediction
- Franciscan benediction
Friday, February 05, 2010
Book review
Forever Peace by Joe Haldeman
I give the book overall a C.
The plot is a good one, and the moral/ethical questions raised - about war, the way we fight, and if it's possible to 'go back again' after experiencing combat - are surprisingly valid. Almost eerily so considering our current wars and weapon systems (the book was published in 1997). The concept that wars are fought by 'soldierboys' (robots controlled by 'mechanics' working the robot's movements and weapons from thousands of miles away) bears an eerie resemblance to our use of predator drones. And the concept of the 'mechanics' (robot operators) being 'jacked in' to other mechanics in their platoon via an apparatus installed in their brain and being able to feel exactly what the other members of the platoon feel draws a pretty exact parallel to what I've read regarding troops in combat - that you work and function just as a family and no one but other members knows exactly what it is like for you.
The idea that scientists are working on a machine with the capability to 'undo' the mental damage done by combat is rather interesting, and of course brings up lots of questions.
However, the sci-fi element to the story was one I had an extremely hard time seeing past, and I feel that the story would have been almost as good (and a lot easier to follow) without it. I realize, of course, that asking Joe Haldeman not to write sci-fi is like asking the Pope to become Lutheran. My brain just does not wrap around ideas like particle accelerators and such very well. (This is probably why I don't 'get' movies like 'Star Wars' as well as others do.)
So the plot is one worthy of discussion. Were I grading solely plot and concepts, I'd probably give it an A, but considering the sci-fi gets a D- from me, I'm sticking with a C, possibly C+. If anyone has read this and wants to disagree with my grading, feel free to comment.
I give the book overall a C.
The plot is a good one, and the moral/ethical questions raised - about war, the way we fight, and if it's possible to 'go back again' after experiencing combat - are surprisingly valid. Almost eerily so considering our current wars and weapon systems (the book was published in 1997). The concept that wars are fought by 'soldierboys' (robots controlled by 'mechanics' working the robot's movements and weapons from thousands of miles away) bears an eerie resemblance to our use of predator drones. And the concept of the 'mechanics' (robot operators) being 'jacked in' to other mechanics in their platoon via an apparatus installed in their brain and being able to feel exactly what the other members of the platoon feel draws a pretty exact parallel to what I've read regarding troops in combat - that you work and function just as a family and no one but other members knows exactly what it is like for you.
The idea that scientists are working on a machine with the capability to 'undo' the mental damage done by combat is rather interesting, and of course brings up lots of questions.
However, the sci-fi element to the story was one I had an extremely hard time seeing past, and I feel that the story would have been almost as good (and a lot easier to follow) without it. I realize, of course, that asking Joe Haldeman not to write sci-fi is like asking the Pope to become Lutheran. My brain just does not wrap around ideas like particle accelerators and such very well. (This is probably why I don't 'get' movies like 'Star Wars' as well as others do.)
So the plot is one worthy of discussion. Were I grading solely plot and concepts, I'd probably give it an A, but considering the sci-fi gets a D- from me, I'm sticking with a C, possibly C+. If anyone has read this and wants to disagree with my grading, feel free to comment.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Nonviolence
This is something I've been thinking about for a long time and in the last few months I think I've become okay with calling myself a pacifist. The struggle and thought process getting there was a long one, and there continue to be issues that challenge my assumptions.
My basic belief is that Jesus preached and lived a life of nonviolence, and that it is something that I should strive to emulate.
Since all human beings are created in God's image and all are people for whom Christ died, I don't think it's within my rights to inflict violence on anyone, not for any reason.
Burly made a point in a comment on one of my previous posts that there is (or was, or will be) a time for war. While I don't disagree with that, I think for various reasons that Christians should not use that as an excuse to practice violence in their everyday lives (killing in revenge or in self-defense, for example), and I don't believe that Christians should be participants in military exercises designed by the State to take others' lives.
There is a lot more that I'd like to address but current environs (a 5-year-old demanding my attention) don't allow....more later.
My basic belief is that Jesus preached and lived a life of nonviolence, and that it is something that I should strive to emulate.
Since all human beings are created in God's image and all are people for whom Christ died, I don't think it's within my rights to inflict violence on anyone, not for any reason.
Burly made a point in a comment on one of my previous posts that there is (or was, or will be) a time for war. While I don't disagree with that, I think for various reasons that Christians should not use that as an excuse to practice violence in their everyday lives (killing in revenge or in self-defense, for example), and I don't believe that Christians should be participants in military exercises designed by the State to take others' lives.
There is a lot more that I'd like to address but current environs (a 5-year-old demanding my attention) don't allow....more later.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Currently reading....
1) Forever Peace by Joe Haldeman. I really want to finish this book just so it can be done, not because I'm particularly enjoying it at the moment. The plot is not a bad one, but the sci-fi element is just not doing it for me. Spook promises the end is good.
2) Nonviolence in Peace & War Vol. I by M. K. Gandhi. Yep, the Gandhi. Interesting book, if a bit political. Gandhi fascinates me, and I think we as Christians have a lot to learn from someone who did indeed stand nonviolently against the injustices of an empire, not once but multiple times and prevailed. I'm also interested in reading more about Christian pacifists, and if there is any good reading out there on said subject, I'm all ears.
2) Nonviolence in Peace & War Vol. I by M. K. Gandhi. Yep, the Gandhi. Interesting book, if a bit political. Gandhi fascinates me, and I think we as Christians have a lot to learn from someone who did indeed stand nonviolently against the injustices of an empire, not once but multiple times and prevailed. I'm also interested in reading more about Christian pacifists, and if there is any good reading out there on said subject, I'm all ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)