Blog

Oy Vey! Thomas Friedman Gives Palestinians More Unsolicited Advice #zionism #palestinians #gazaprotests

Liz Rose has a fine article at Mondoweiss.net about Thomas Friedman’s latest bit of unsolicited advice for the Palestinian refugees held prisoner in Gaza.  Here is an excerpt from her piece:

“One of the advantages of being a liberal Zionist is that you never have to take responsibility for what Zionism does.  You can blame Palestinians for their own demise, maintain a sense of righteousness while people die, and defend Israel no matter what it does.  And you can state emphatically that you know what Palestinians need to do, though you’ve never considered their experience.  They exist, for you, only in a theoretical sense.

“’Just what are we going to do about the Palestinians,’ you and your liberal Zionist friends can ask over lattes and chai teas at coffee shops.  And when you write about them, you can consider the Palestinian people only as a theory–something abstract to be grappled with–rather than human beings who deserve the dignity and freedom that you have.  You don’t ever have to acknowledge Palestinian history or experience.

“Take, for example, Thomas Friedman’s May 23, 2018, opinion piece in The New York Times, ‘Hamas, Netanyahu and Mother Nature.’  Friedman’s critique–which shakes its finger at the Palestinians who have screwed up again–is yet another liberal Zionist apology for Israel’s recent massacre of 62 people at the Gaza border.  ‘If Hamas had chosen to recognize Israel and build a Palestinian state in Gaza modeled on Singapore,’ Friedman writes, ‘the world would have showered it with aid and it would have served as a positive test case for the West Bank.’  Using an ‘If-X-then-Y’ equation, Friedman knows what’s best for what ails Palestinians.  If they just behaved better, he declares, Israel’s treatment of them would improve.”

You can read the entire Mondoweiss article here.

If you follow my blog, you will remember the piece I wrote several months ago entitled “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?”.  I referred to a similar Friedman suggestion offered in 2002, urging the Palestinian people to send their women, especially grandmothers, unarmed to the front lines to confront Israeli forces with massive, Gandhi-like non-violent protests.

We all saw how Israel responded to that strategy in April and May during the Gaza Land Day Marches.  More than 100 unarmed men, women – including grandmothers – and children were shot and killed by Israeli snipers.  Over 13,000 were seriously injured.

Zionist apologists like Friedman have employed all their tricks of mental, ethical gymnastics in justifying the slaughter.  No matter what the Palestinians do, their deaths are always their own fault.  Unsurprisingly, Mr. Friedman remains stunningly unaware of how brazenly immoral his unsolicited advice continues to be.

For not only does he fail to make the connection between his heartfelt 2002 recommendation of Palestinian self-immolation, he essentially repeats it in a recent New York Times Opinion Piece he calls “Hamas, Netanyahu and Mother Nature.”

“What if all two million Palestinians of Gaza marched to the Israeli border fence with an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other, saying, ‘Two states for two peoples: We, the Palestinian people of Gaza, want to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish people — a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed adjustments.’”

Except, we have all seen that movie, Mr. Friedman.  We already know how it ends: 100+ innocent civilians dead and over 13,000 injured, many crippled for life.

For his own safety, the New York Times should take away Friedman’s pen.  People exhibiting such evidence of advanced dementia, amnesia and/or psychosis should not be allowed to play with sharp objects.

Besides, it just plain hurts to see such deep-seated, pathological moral blindness on display in the opinion pages of one of the world’s leading  newspapers.

Perhaps Mr. Friedman needs a reminder:

  1. NO ONE could walk to the “border fence,” Mr. Friedman, because Israel has never declared its officially recognized borders. (Hard to believe but true). Israel simply grasps more land while the world impotently watches.  The fence you refer to is a Gulag barrier where Israel forcibly contains 1.8 million Palestinian refugees. It does not mark a border.
  2. Almost 30,000 residents of Gaza have already tried your Gandhi tactic, Mr. Friedman. But you know that.  You also remember, as I do, the words of General Amos Gilad (Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs at the Israel Ministry of Defense) when he told American government officials, “we don’t do Gandhi very well.”  This was his tongue-in-cheek explanation for Israel’s 2011 decision “to increase violent pressure on the demonstrations ‘even [if the] demonstrations appear peaceful.’”  You know as well as I do that Israel shoots Gandhi whenever and wherever they see him, Mr. Friedman.
  3. Please, Mr. Friedman, save your protestations about the lack of Palestinian olive branches and peace signs written in Hebrew and Arabic. What will your excuse be next time: “If only 2 million Palestinians approached the fence and shot themselves in the head, saving Israeli ammunition, THEN…”?
  4. Mr. Friedman, you know as well as I do that Yasir Arafat, the leader of the PLO, acknowledged Israel’s right to exist in 1988. And even though Hamas still does not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist (see point 5 below), according to its new 2017 charter, they no longer demand Israel’s destruction and have welcomed the creation of a separate Palestinian state in the lands occupied in the six-day war of 1967 (here, here, and here).
  5. Finally, Mr. Friedman, your political Zionist bona fides are fully displayed when you direct the people of Gaza to confess that they “want to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish people” (emphasis mine).  Notice that the object of the sentence is not the state of Israel but the Jewish people.  Here, finally, is the racist bone that will forever stick in the Palestinian throat, as it does in mine. This outrageous demand ought to stir the entire world to reject “the legitimacy” of the current state of Israel. For here Mr. Friedman and his Zionist compatriots openly confess that Israel is a state for the Jewish people and no one else. All non-Jews are second-class citizens under the rule of political Zionism. No one with a conscience can defend Israel’s “right to exist” as long as it remains a racist state of, for and by Jews alone.

As Archie Bunker used to say, Mr. Friedman, stifle yourself.  Your so-called advice is stale, rehashed Zionist propaganda.

You and yours are morally bankrupt.

You take the vitriol of a racist, apartheid state, siphon it through your effete blender of “reasoned discourse” and offer your readers a sensible justification for mass murder.

You and Joseph Goebbels could be kissin’ cousins.

Growing Up Black in America, A Conversation with my Son-in-Law #blacklivesmatter #policeshootings

Some months ago, I asked my son-in-law what it was like to grow up black in America.

I had recently watched the following video about this question, and I wanted to know more about his own experience growing up in the mid-west.  Did his parents have similar talks with him?  Please watch:

“Yes,” he said. “They did.”

“My mother would never let me go out in anything but my best cloths.  She told me that I was always representing my people, and I had to be careful that I made a good impression.  I couldn’t let others get the wrong idea about me, to think that I was a trouble-maker because of the way I dressed.

“As I became older, she would remind me to always be polite and cooperative when the police stopped me while driving.  I had to be careful not to give them a reason to feel threatened or make them nervous.”

I now know that his mother waited nervously for him to return home every time he went out, praying that her son was safe, that he had not been pulled over or arrested, detained or questioned for the crime of being a black youth  in a white neighborhood.

When I was a growing up, my mother never once warned me about behaving myself because I was a representative of my people.

She never made me wear my nice clothes when I went out to play for fear that someone might see me as a trouble-maker or criminal-wanna-be simply because of the way I dressed.

I never gave a second thought to “being friendly and polite” to the police when I was driving, no matter the neighborhood I was passing through.

But then, I am white.

And that, my friends, whether you are willing to believe it or not, makes all the difference in this country of ours.  There ain’t no such thing as a post-racial America.

When I first posted the above video on my Facebook page, an old acquaintance angrily commented that she found it highly offensive!  Why?  Because these black folks were complaining about the way police officers treated them…

Of course, my friend was a church-going, white woman.

Yes, folks. Black lives do not count for much in white America.  Discrimination is alive and well. Racism lives, to some degree or another, in all our hearts.  Simply recall the very abbreviated list of recent incidents listed below:

Starbucks closed 8,000 of its stores earlier this week as it provided racial sensitivity training seminars for all its employees.  This after employees in a Philadelphia store called the police on two black men sitting at a table waiting for a friend.

The two young men were taken away in handcuffs for the crime of waiting at a table without first buying a cup of coffee.  Honestly, would that ever have happened to a white customer — who wasn’t filthy, drug-addled and brandishing a weapon?

We all know the answer.

MSNBC recently hosted a televised forum called “Everyday Racism in America” where average black Americans told their stories of coping with everyday racism as a matter of survival.

Black men, women and children continue to be needlessly assaulted, shot, wounded and killed by police officers across this country.  31% of the people killed by police in America are black, even though they only compose 13% of the population.

According to the national data base Fatal Encounters, “black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.”

Perhaps you were as shocked as I was to learn about Gregory Hill, the father of 3 now-orphaned children.  Mr. Hill was killed by Florida police when they shot at him through his garage door. Someone passing through the neighborhood, picking up their child from school, called the police to complain that his music was too loud.

If Mr. Hill had been white would he be dead today, shot and killed for drinking a beer and listening to loud music inside his own garage? We all know the answer to that question.

In 2014, the Bundy family staged an armed standoff after commandeering a public lands facility.  Brandish high-powered rifles, they threatened to shoot any law enforcement officers called to the scene. Not only were none of the Bundys or their armed supporters ever shot, but early this year their case was dismissed from court.

Compare that to what happened in a Florida court’s treatment of Mr. Hill’s family.

When Mr. Hill’s widow filed a civil suit against the police, not only were the police officers who killed her husband found not guilty, but she was awarded a whopping settlement of $4.  1 dollar per life (counting the 3 children), which was later reduced to 4 cents because 99% of the blame, according to the court, belonged to Mr. Hill.

For those who have the eyes to see, the brutal evidence is self-evident every single day. Black lives do not matter in this country.  Well, in Florida, they are worth something.  About 1 cent each.

Every Christian in this country, but especially every white Christian in this country, must make it our duty to stand with our brothers and sisters of color and do whatever we can to speak out and oppose this ingrained, systematic, unreflective wickedness that sees the other as less than themselves.

The multi-ethnic, inter-racial church of Jesus Christ ought to be in the front lines of this struggle.

Dispelling a Memorial Day Myth

I wrote this article in 2006. It was originally published in Perspectives Journal  (August 1 issue).  It is as relevant today as it was then.

The only difference for me is that my father died several weeks ago of war related health problems.

“I’m an Army brat, the proud son of a proud veteran who completed four tours of duty in two separate conflicts. I am immensely grateful that my father always returned home, at least physically. My mother was never forced to grieve at her husband’s graveside, but there is more than one way for a soldier to die. Often the man who comes home is not the same man who left for war.

“I remember my mother’s stories of how his hands would encircle her throat at night as she crept into his nightmares, the sleeping wife lying next to him fused with the Chinese enemy crawling under his tent flap. I vividly recall the continual depression, the emotional detachment, the explosions of anger. Our family eroded (internally, if not externally) and gradually fell apart like a sand castle trying to withstand an oncoming tide.

“There is more than one way for a soldier to die. Sometimes the family that waits behind gets back only a shell of the man they once knew. Somewhere overseas the soldier’s insides are emptied onto a battlefield, scooped out by bombs and artillery, sleepless nights and ‘collateral damage.’ The father I once knew had been replaced by someone new, a stranger haunted by guilt and riddled with sickness.

“What do my mother and siblings have to celebrate on Memorial Day?

“Please, don’t urge me to remember the veterans who gave their lives so that we could be free. It’s cold comfort because it’s not true. Aside from the clearly religious overtones of those words, something my Christianity finds deeply offensive, my father’s life was not ruined while defending American freedom. Were that the case, I might be able to celebrate. But with the possible exception of World War II, what modern war has this nation fought for such noble purposes? None. My father’s life was hollowed out for a discredited domino theory that preserved American freedom by only the most strained exercise in mental gymnastics. (If Southeast Asia falls, we’re next!) In the end, half the Korean peninsula and the whole of Vietnam were ‘lost.’ Yet, our freedoms were not diminished one iota.

“Let’s be honest in our celebrations. My father’s comrades-in-arms died believing that they were defending American freedom. They died because this nation’s political leaders had convinced themselves that the borders of American national interests extended into Southeast Asia. But the verdict is now inescapable. American freedom was never at risk in any of those conflicts.

“Soldiers gladly give their lives defending the buddies huddled beside them.

Wounded U.S. paratroopers are helped by fellow soldiers to a medical evacuation helicopter on Oct. 5, 1965 during the Vietnam War. Paratroopers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade’s First Battalion suffered many casualties in the clash with Viet Cong guerrillas in the jungle of South Vietnam’s “D” Zone, 25 miles Northeast of Saigon. (AP Photo)

Soldiers die because they obey their orders, no matter how dangerous. Many die because they are patriots. Sometimes they die in the conviction that they are defending someone else’s freedom. More die because they didn’t know what else to do after high school graduation. Soldiers die because they trust their leaders and believe the rallying cries of the commander-in-chief. But none of this necessarily has anything to do with the defense of American freedom. History demonstrates that our soldiers most often die as instruments of the ambition, naivete, stubbornness, ignorance, arrogance, and miscalculations of our nation’s leaders.

Washington DC, USA – June 18, 2016: The Memorial Wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC at dawn.

“It is far more accurate to say that Memorial Day commemorates those men and women who unwittingly gave their lives for the extension of America foreign, political, and economic interests. But that’s neither catchy nor comfortable to repeat.

“In 1775 Samuel Johnson characterized patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is also the first refuge of the masses unwilling to face hard political realities. I’ll stand to memorialize the patriot soldiers who gave their lives protecting a buddy while carrying out dangerous commands. But don’t ask me to memorialize a lie. My family has suffered enough for patriotic delusions.”

Noura Erakat Explains Gaza Protests & Palestinian Grievances on CBSN #gazakillings #zionism #nouraerakat

Professor Noura Erakat

Last week I came across an excellent CBSN interview with Noura Erakat talking about the recent protests in Gaza and the massacre of unarmed Palestinians there.

Ms. Erakat is a Palestinian-American human rights attorney and an Assistant Professor at George Mason University.  You can check out her impressive professional biography at her webpage here.

Two things about this interview were unusual:

First, the newswoman asking the questions was respectful and allowed Professor Erakat to give her responses fully without interruption, both rather unusual behaviors during those rare occasions when Palestinians appear on US corporate media.

Second, Ms. Erakat’s answers offered one of the most articulate, detailed and knowledgeable presentations of Palestinian suffering and their right to self-determination that I have ever seen on American television.

Your time will be well rewarded by taking the 8 minutes needed to watch. Just click below:

“PROPAGANDA 101: HOW TO DEFEND A MASSACRE,” A Superb Deconstruction of a Zionist Attempt to Justify Israel’s Slaughter of Palestinians

Current Affairs online magazine has an excellent article by Nathan J. Robinson entitled “PROPAGANDA 101: HOW TO DEFEND A MASSACRE.”

Recently, the New York Times — a staunchly pro-Zionist newspaper —  published an op-ed from Jewish Journal editor Shmuel Rosner entitled “Israel Needs to Protect Its Borders. By Whatever Means Necessary.”

Rosner is a typical apologist for political Zionism, evincing all the heartlessness and ideological blindness we have come to expect from such defenders of the indefenseless.

Mr. Robinson provides a text-book lesson in how to read as a critical thinker.  He does a marvelous job of deconstructing Rosner’s propaganda line-by-line.

I encourage  to read the entire piece. It will reward your effort many times over. Just click on the title above.  Thanks.

Learn to See Through Israeli & Christian Zionist Propaganda #christianzionism #memri #gaza

I looked in on the CBN website today just out of curiosity.  There I found an article on the many Palestinian people killed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza under this headline:   ‘Hamas Sacrificing Children’: Why Gaza Clashes Aren’t Peaceful Protests but a Hamas-Inspired Death Cycle (dated 5/17/18).

Knowing that CBN is a major provider of “Christian news” in the US, and that an article like this will (mis)inform many, many more people than will ever read even-handed reports on what has happened in Gaza, I decided to use this article as an exercise in how to deconstruct propaganda.

This article is  pure propaganda for a Christian Zionist readership, intended (a) to tell people what they want to hear and thereby (b) reinforce what they already believe.  There is nothing informative about it.

  1. First, notice the headline.  The Hamas organization is mentioned 3 times.  In Zionist parlance, Hamas is nothing more than a deranged terrorist organization intent on destroying Israel by any means possible.  Thus, the headline immediately paints the past 7 weeks of protests as an exclusively Hamas-controlled, “terrorist” event designed somehow to destroy Israel.

Note the phrases “cult of death” and “sacrificing children,” both implicit references to the repeated Israeli refrain that all Palestinians — especially Hamas — raise their children to hate Jews; that they have no appreciation for life but only yearn to die as suicide bombers attacking Israelis.

So, the stage is set. This is a story about the irrational hatred of people whose only goal is to “drive Israel into the sea,” as Zionists love to repeat.

2. Second, notice that all the embedded videos, ostensibly providing evidence for the many inflammatory claims made throughout the article, come from MEMRI TV.

So, let’s check out MEMRI.  What is this organization? Where does it come from?  Who is behind it? A little investigation (take some time to read this investigative article from The Guardian newspaper by Brian Whitaker) will quickly reveal that MEMRI is a “non-profit institute” located in Washington, D.C. (subsidized by US tax dollars) established by former members of the Israeli intelligence services, i.e. it is a strongly Zionist outfit that exists in order to promote political Zionism in the English-speaking world.

It seems that MEMRI’s “research” method is to watch and read Arabic and Farsi (otherwise known as Persian; the language of Iran) TV, magazines and newspapers.  They find the most outlandish public statements possible — without providing any context, so the reader/viewer has no way of judging how representative the statements may be — and then disseminate those statements as if they represent the widespread views of the average Palestinian, Arab or Iranian.

THAT is a dishonest, misrepresentation of the facts, and it makes me angry to know that my tax dollars (and yours) are subsidizing this stuff!  It is not hard to find a convenient wacko saying something stupid wherever you look. (I am tempted to say, “Just turn on Christian TV.”) But using those kinds of words to depict an entire group of people as equally wacko is not only dishonest; it is also slanderous and racist, things that every Christian ought to stand against, call out and reject whenever possible.

3. Once we get into the body of the article, its first major point is that:

“…one Hamas official admitted that 50 of the 62 people killed were Hamas members, a group labeled a terrorist organization by the US State Department.”

Let’s ask a few questions about this statement:

(a) 62 people were killed on Monday, May 14 alone.  The total number of dead over the entire period of the protests was 112 – 120, while the wounded were 12,000 – 20,000.  The article deliberately fudges the death toll and fails to mention the injured in order to downplay the vast numbers of people shot by Israeli soldiers.

(b) Is the so-called “Hamas official” a genuine Hamas spokesman? I don’t know. That needs investigation.

(c) If he is, does he know what he is talking about? Is he telling the truth? Or is this another example of an organization taking credit for something it didn’t really do? That happens often. This also needs investigation.

(d) Reminding us that Hamas is “labeled a terrorist organization by the US State Department” is intended to give the claim special authority, legitimizing it.  However, our State Department works in lockstep with the Israeli government and its own views on its “enemies.” So, this assertion is nothing more than a tautology, i.e. the US government is repeating Israeli assertions. It has no independent value.

4. Yes, indeed, Hamas has committed past acts of violence against Israelis, though nothing of significance since Gaza was cordoned off in 2011. (We don’t have time or space here to address the claims of “rockets fired” from Gaza into Israel or the horrific genocide committed by the Israeli military against civilians in Gaza.  I urge you to watch the new documentary, “Killing Gaza”, by the journalists Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen).

But, within Gaza, Hamas functions largely as a political organization which many people join because they need connections to get a job, or they are involved in Hamas-sponsored community/youth activities. Also, not every member of Hamas is involved in their military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.  In fact, the majority of Hamas members are not part of its military wing. They are two different things.

5. But even if all of the people shot and killed by Israeli snipers in Gaza were members of Hamas, since when does membership in an organization frowned upon by the government give the military permission to kill unarmed people — unarmed men, women and children often standing hundreds of yards away?  Is it permissible to shoot anyone simply because they are/may be members of Hamas?

6. The article continues to misrepresent what actually happened in Gaza, as all major US media outlets have also done.  So we read that these deaths resulted from“confrontations with Israeli troops as they [the Palestinians] tried to breach the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel.”

Yes, even this man was shot and killed by an Israeli sniper while sitting in his wheelchair.

(a) Go scan the net. Watch the many videos now available about the Gazan Land Day Marches.  I have.  I have not seen a single one that merits the label “confrontation.” That word implies close contact between two groups, which would require Palestinians to be on the opposite side of their fence, able to make physical contact with Israeli soldiers.  I have not seen or heard of any place where this happened.  In fact, even Israel admits that not one single soldier along the fence was injured in any way. There was no “breach” of the “border” anywhere.  Period.  There were no “confrontations.”  There were only unarmed people being shot dead by army snipers positioned many, many, many yards away.

Neither have I see anyone throw a bomb or Molotov cocktail or shoot a missile.  Though these charges are often repeated, I have yet to see a scrap of evidence to substantiate them.  Have you?

Norman Finkelstein is an historian with a special focus on the history of Israel-Palestine. He is the son of Holocaust survivors.

(b) As Norman Finkelstein has ably explained (here, here, and here ) the huge fence surrounding Gaza is not a border. The fence is not delineating two countries.  It is a prison boundary, unilaterally and arbitrarily constructed by Israel to confine the Palestinians living there.  It is ghetto fence; something that should haunt every Jew who aims a rifle into it. Palestinians hate this fence because it keeps them confined like animals in a cage.

Followers of Jesus Christ are supposed to be supremely devoted to telling the truth and eschewing lies.  That includes a refusal to spread misinformation.  Furthermore, everyone, but especially those who claim to be God’s people, need to exercise the common sense of reading responsibly, evaluating our sources of information, and testing the veracity of claims made by so-called “authorities.”

Shame on CBN for spreading lies and misinformation about the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Shame on all Christian Zionists for holding their Zionist ideology as more sacred than Jesus’ own convictions about truth, honesty and justice.

America’s Gun Idolatry and Fake Christianity #gunsinchurch #schoolshootings

Last week’s school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas brings the count to 22.  That’s right.  Five months into 2018 and there have already been 22 school shootings (slightly more than 1 mass shooting per week) in America.

Widen the circle beyond our schools and there have been 101 mass shootings in this country so far this year, leaving 202 dead and 473 injured (see MassShootingTracker).  And these figures do not include the many additional causes of gun injuries and deaths such as suicide, police shootings and accidents. According to the research organization Gun Violence Archive, there have been 22,257 gun related incidents in 2018, including 5,511 deaths and 10,071 injuries.  Those numbers include 1,000 teenagers, 238 preteen children and 646 accidental shootings.

Yet, many public officials continue to insist that guns have nothing to do with this problem.  In fact, as  they feed themselves at the NRA corruption-trough of gun manufacturer campaign contributions, discounts, pay-offs and lobbying efforts, these folks want us to believe that the solution to mass shootings and other gun deaths is to sell MORE guns to more people.

But this is not surprising.  It is exactly what I expect lobbyists for the arms industry to say. (See me earlier post on guns, shootings and the NRA here).

American politicians and makers of public policy love guns, and all the cash that comes with it, more than they care about Americans.  It is a pop culture form of idolatry.

In the March 14, 2018 edition of the Christian Century, Peter W. Marty penned an article entitled “Guns are Americans’ Golden Calf.”  Below is an excerpt:

President Trump and his son being introduced at this year’s NRA convention, 2018.

“We’re in golden calf country here, elevating a loyalty to the gun over a fidelity to God’s desire for abundant life. More than a hunting or safety device, the gun has become an object of reverence. We bow in devotion at its altar. ‘Sacred stuff resides in that wooden stock and blued steel,’ onetime NRA president Charlton Heston said. And when a gun becomes an idol, it demands loyalty even if it regularly disappoints. Like other small g gods that offer false consolation, a gun’s guarantee of ultimate safety and security is a myth.”

Unfortunately, people calling themselves Christians are no more immune to idolatry than anyone else.  If anything, church-goers have even more ways to express this human penchant for worshiping false gods than do atheists and other non-religious folk.  Believers have to navigate the many run-of-the-mill secular temptations to idolatry as well as the many corrupting excesses of religious practice and aberrations of faith.

Vice-President Mike Pence speaking at the recent NRA convention, 2018.

When those two streams of temptation flow together and succeed in sweeping the church away in its turbulent currents (always with a heavy undertow), well, the resulting idolatry is especially repugnant.

Idolatrous, Fake Christianity, Exhibit A – Recently a friend of mine showed me the notes of a church council meeting approving its newly minted plan for well-armed, congregational security guards at its corporate gatherings.  Church members were selected for the necessary training in order to become body guards for the Body of Christ.  Can there be such a thing as a body guard of Christ?  I don’t think so.

In how many different ways can you say apostasy?

Asking for church elders and deacons to arrive packing heat whenever the congregation gathers for corporate worship is one of the grossest expressions of anti-faith I can imagine.

Unless you are part of a church with an extremely high public profile for its incredibly effective, vocal, activist agitation uprooting America’s military-industrial-intelligence-surveillance-corporate media-war mongering empire, then arming your church members reflects an astonishing level of paranoia.

We are all more likely to be struck by lightning than we are to be shot in

This flier promises a free AR-15 giveway to people who attend the March 23 service at Grace Baptist on Fourth Avenue in Troy.

church by an anti-religious misanthrope – unless you are shot accidentally by one of the armed elders during an over wrought hymn-sing.

I know that the church’s leadership team will undoubtedly defend itself by

pleading marriage and parenthood.  That is, as leaders of their households, these men must remain vigilant in protecting their families against surprise attack in an increasingly violent America.

There is so much wrong with this picture that it would take a small book to address the overflow of theological, Biblical, pastoral and practical disasters revealed by any plan to arm the local church.  I will touch on 3 issues but focus on only the last one.

First, the ancient, Christian justification for using violence in self-defense  finds its roots in the Just War Tradition that arose after Christianity’s embrace by the Roman Empire.  I discuss the many Biblical mistakes committed by that tradition in chapter 9 (“Does Kingdom Service Permit Military Service?”) of my new book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America.  Please take a look.  You will find it as helpful as it is interesting.

I also encourage anyone interested in this topic to read John Howard Yoder’s classic little book, What Would You Do? If a Violent Person Threatened to Harm a Loved One….  A violent reaction to violent threats is the default position for fallen human nature.  Yoder will help you to think more clearly, more practically and more Christ-like about non-violent ways (and thus more Christ-like ways) of responding.

Second, one of my seminary professors, who was also the pastor of a large city church, would regularly complain about Christianity’s “idolatry of the nuclear family.”  Aided and abetted by popular ministries such as James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” and similar programs, many people in the church have replaced obedience to Jesus with obligations to one’s family.

We excel at finding seemingly unimpeachable, family-friendly ways of abandoning Jesus.  So we can conveniently ignore our Lord’s words when he says things like this:

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37-38)

 “If any man come to me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever does not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27)

Regardless of the details, Jesus’ central point is clear: disciples must have greater devotion to Jesus than to the dearest members of their families, including spouses and children.

The third and final point is intimately connected to the last one above. Faithfulness to Jesus requires every disciple to follow in his footsteps, including his submissive acceptance of suffering and death, for him/herself as well as others, including parents, spouses and children.

“Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:37)

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.” (Mark 8:34-35)

Hear it again.  Whoever wants to save his/her life will lose it, but whoever loses his/her life for me and for the gospel will save it.  Affluent Christianity’s obsession with self-preservation and the avoidance of suffering arises from a false gospel.  A ‘gospel’ that can never save anyone.

Carrying a gun into the body of Christ, for whatever reason, is a grotesque act of unbelief and idolatry. In fact, carrying a gun anywhere and thinking that you are ready, willing and able to use it against another human being, is the quintessential act of an anti-disciple.

Fortunately, Jesus still loves and can save even anti-disciples, just as he can save all of us faithless believers.  But relying on firearms to protect members of the body of Christ remains a consummate act of faithless unbelief, all the same.

Jesus models faithful kingdom living when he goes to the cross without attempting to defend himself.  He explicitly tells every would-be follower that we all must be as non-violent and ready to die as he was.

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.” (Mark 8:34-35)

Not only did Jesus not try to defend himself, neither did he defend his disciples, knowing full well that they too might be subject to arrest and execution as his co-conspirators. In fact, Jesus quickly put a stop to Peter’s misguided efforts at defending both the Lord and himself, insisting that he wanted nothing to do with violence for any reason at all (reflect on Matthew 26:51-56).

Jesus praises his followers when/if they are ever killed or injured as a result of belonging to him. He promises that they will be blessed many times over in eternity. What sort of Christian is hell-bent-for-leather on making sure that Jesus’ promises can never be fulfilled, not for them, not for others, and especially not for a spouse or child?

The Answer: a fake Christian. An idolatrous Christian. An anti-disciple who has bowed the knee to America’s Golden Calf of guns.

Scot McKnight’s Post About Israel, Christians and Palestinians #Gaza #Christianzionism #courtevangelicals

Scot McKnight has a good blog post today criticizing Israel’s brutality in Gaza this past month.  He also takes the opportunity to respond to his “hate mail” (why don’t I ever receive hate mail?) from fellow Christians (why is anyone claiming to be a Christian sending hate mail?) condemning him for failing to support Israel as he should.

Scot’s response is spot on.  Here is an excerpt, but I do recommend reading it all at his blog, Jesus Creed:

“It was a shameful thing for evangelical pastors to be celebrating the opening of the embassy in Jerusalem while just a few miles away the Israeli army was killing dozens of Palestinian protesters against Israeli policies. (The death toll stood at 60 as of Tuesday, Palestinian officials said, and more than 1,700 people had been hospitalized.) It’s shameful, not only because they use their theology to make the moving of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem a matter of “eternal” significance, but also because they refuse to hold the Netanyahu government accountable for Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, some of whom are themselves evangelical Christians.

“Do I fear being cursed by God for saying that it was a shameful thing for these two pastors to join in the celebration at the opening of the Jerusalem embassy? No, because those who so easily invoke that ancient promise fail to think about what it covers. I do want God to “bless” Israel, as did the ancient prophets who regularly delivered divine messages to their compatriots.

“But those prophets never called for an uncritical acceptance of whatever happened to be the current policies and practices of Israel’s leaders. Here, for example, is a typical one of those ancient messages from the Lord: “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice” (Malachi 3:5)…”

Being an Individual Rather Than a Member of “The Herd,” with Sǿren #Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard is often criticized for being too individualistic and not having sufficient appreciation for the importance of community.  I disagree.

Kierkegaard’s book, A Literary Review, discusses a contemporary novel, Two Ages.  Without getting into the details of the book’s historical background, Kierkegaard uses his book review as an opportunity to unmask what he sees as the social dangers of mass movements.  Kierkegaard refers to such movements as “the herd.”

The herd finds its power in a “leveling” process; that is, in its insistence on uniformity, keeping everyone scripted, on message, thinking, saying and doing only that which is approved by the herd.

The herd’s efforts at leveling always work to destroy individualism.  And, I would agree with Kierkegaard in saying that an especially powerful place for leveling is the Christian Church.

In contrast, Kierkegaard defends the vital importance of courageous individuals who will stand up for what they believe is right and act accordingly, especially when driven by Christian conviction.

The principled individual is more important than the largest, unprincipled herd, for herds are controlled by the whims and fancies of “abstractions” like the press and popular opinion.

Therefore, the principled individual does not hesitate to act, to do what is right, all alone, if necessary.

The principled individual’s greatest enemy arises from within, appearing in the form of “reflection.”

Reflection, in this context, involves overthinking a situation so that “due consideration” stalls the impetus to action.  Instead of standing up for what it right, the “reflective” person remains seated because taking a stand might prove irrational before knowing all the facts, all the possible consequences, exploring all the alternatives, etc., etc., etc.

Kierkegaard’s social critique is as relevant today as in his own day. I believe that it is especially urgent advice for anyone in the American church, particularly in so-called evangelical churches, who wants to follow Jesus faithfully:

“The idolized positive principle of sociality in our time is the consuming, demoralizing principle, which in the thralldom of reflection transforms even virtues into vitia splendida [i.e. glittering vices].  And to what can this be due other than to a disregard for the singling out of the religious individual before God in the responsibility of eternity?  When terror begins here, one seeks comfort in company, and reflection then captures the individual for life…

 “Stopping it [i.e. the leveling process] is possible only if, individually singled out, the individual achieves the fearlessness of religiousness…

 “…only he [sic] becomes an essential human being in the full-bodied sense of equality…for if the individual is unwilling to learn to be satisfied with himself in the essentiality of religiousness, before God rather than ruling over the world; unwilling to be satisfied with ruling over himself…if he is unwilling to learn to be inspired by this as the noblest he should achieve because it expresses equality before God and equality with all men, then he will not escape reflection…”

The Meaning of Holiness, Part 3 #religion #theology

In part 1 of this series covering the Biblical concept of holiness, I (hopefully) explained how understanding holiness begins by understanding the unique nature and character of God.  Holiness is fundamentally a theological category.  God is essentially holy as the One who is Wholly Other, incomparable, the one and only God.

Part 2 then explained the resulting relational dimension of holiness. People and places may become holy when God comes into contact with them. Ancient Israel is called a holy nation because God enters into a covenant relationship with them and only them.

Now, in part 3, the stage is set for understanding the ethical dimension of holiness.  Behavioral holiness, being set apart, being different, is the most common, popular definition of holiness.  And behavior is certainly an important component of holiness, but notice how much Biblical groundwork has been required for us to construct the necessary framework for understanding this ethical dimension properly.

We are finally in a position to grasp the apparent strangeness of a text like Leviticus 20:7:

“Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Yahweh your God.  Keep my decrees and follow them. I am Yahweh, who makes you holy.”

What’s the deal?  If the Israelites became holy when God brought them into the covenant (i.e. I am Yahweh who makes you holy), then why do they need a warning about making themselves holy (i.e. consecrate yourselves and be holy)?  Are they already holy or not?

How can these two seemingly contradictory statements stand side-by-side in the same sentence?

“You are holy, so you must become holy.”  “Make yourselves holy because you are holy.”

It sounds contradictory…UNLESS you understand the multiple levels of meaning connoted by this word – holy/holiness.

Because our holy God is distinctive and unique (part 1), when he brings others into relationship with himself (part 2), he requires that they, too, become distinctive and unique like him (part 3).  So, Yahweh commands the Israelites:

 “Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am Yahweh your God.  Keep my decrees and follow them.”

This is a repeated refrain throughout the Old Testament, especially in the book of Leviticus, sometimes called the book of holiness.  Here is a short list of further examples:

“I am Yahweh your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:44)

“I am Yahweh who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore, be holy because I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:45)

“Be holy because I, Yahweh your God, am holy.” (Leviticus 19:2)

God emphatically presents himself as the model of holiness.  For the Old Testament, the process of making oneself holy, of consecrating oneself, entailed obedience to the Torah, that is, the code of behavior given to Moses for members of the Sinai Covenant.

The Torah included a wide variety of elements that we would see as both cultic/ritual (e.g. what kinds of clothes to wear) and ethical (e.g. do not steal), although no self-respecting Israelite would have considered making a division between ritual and ethics.  As far as Moses, Aaron and every other Israelite were concerned, it was all ethics.

God’s people were expected to live unique, distinctive lives because their God was/is a unique, distinctive Person.  They were to be set apart just as the eternal Creator is set apart from his temporal creation.  And a central component of God’s holiness is his unique, divine character distinguished by personality traits like justice, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, compassion, patience and love, etc.

Yes, God emphatically presents himself as the model of holiness, but God’s people cannot make themselves Wholly Other. (Please, don’t try.  It gets really creepy.)  But we can obey God’s call to emulate his character, to live among others in the same way that he chooses to live with us.

Thus, for God’s people to display his character, to make ourselves holy as God is holy, means that we too must live lives of justice, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, compassion, patience and love – “being perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

So, holiness does eventually become a matter of ethics.

In a world characterized by injustice, unrighteousness, faithlessness, lack of mercy, absence of compassion, impatience and hatred, reflecting the holiness of God’s character will set God’s people apart as a unique community; a stark contrast to the status quo around us.  At least, that is the goal.

I believe that understanding this 3-step unfolding of holiness is crucial to a proper, Biblical Christian ethics.  By rooting our view of holiness positively in God and who God is, we are better able to cultivate a positive, rather than a negative, approach to godly behavior.

Typically, when conversations about holiness begin (rather than conclude, as I do here) with ethics we end up thinking negatively.  Becoming holy is a matter of what we don’t do.  “I don’t drink, and I don’t chew, and I don’t go with girls who do!” as the old saying goes.  Being different from the world around us becomes a primarily negative concern focused on prohibitions; a matter of not associating, not doing, not participating, not sharing in the concerns or behaviors of those around us.

Certainly, abstaining from evil is important if holiness is to mean anything.  But making these sorts of prohibitions the entry point into holiness is wrong Biblically and theologically.  It, therefore, leads to any number of wrong-headed, practical mistakes.  (Perhaps, most significantly, it has a horrible tendency to blind God’s people to the continued reality of God’s Image in every human being, no matter their misbehavior.  But this is an important issue for another day.)

For our purposes in this post, I will only mention one practical mistake:  a prohibitive view of holiness invariably teaches us to view life principally in terms of what we don’t do, who we aren’t.  That is, we are not like them.

That is grossly backwards and upside-down.  Holiness is intended positively to express who we are.  We are God’s people!  And so, we are like our God in the sorts of things we do, in how we love others, show mercy, remain faithful, always being compassionate and patient.

Thus, holy behavior is rooted in our identity as sinners saved by God’s grace.  Only in a derivative sense is holiness concerned with not being like others.  Holiness is first and foremost concerned with being like Jesus, our Lord and Savior in the flesh.

Naturally, anyone who truly wants to live like Jesus will find any number of abhorrent thoughts, feelings and actions to avoid, but that is only the shadow-side of holy living.  The substance of a holy life is not determined by the shadows but by the beautiful light of God’s own presence and by heeding the Spirit’s call to “fix our eyes on Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2; see 3:1).

With our lives fixed on following Jesus, we avoid the shadows without even trying because we will be too busy living out the grace, mercy, righteousness, faithfulness, love and compassion of our crucified Lord.

See the difference?

OK, there has to be a 5th installment.  Next time: The Meaning of Holiness, Part 3B, “Sinners in the Hands of a Forgiving God”