Well, I guess we’re all taking turns at evaluating the circumstances of the sad death of Tom Fox in Iraq (see here and here).
So here’s my take on it. My beef is with the Christian Peacemaker Teams. Not in that they sent people into a dangerous area resulting in a death. But in that for their insistence on using the label of “Christian”, they seem to be behaving in a distinctly un-Christian manner.
They seem to have confused “turn the other cheeck” with “turning a blind eye”. They can call themselves teams, or even peacemaking teams. But Christian? That’s a tough sell for me.
BREAKING:
Al Qaeda Issuing “Final” Warning Against Free World?
Threat: two attacks worse than 9/11. More and the link available on:
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2006/03/breaking-al-qaeda-issuing-final.html
I am a Christian in word and deed, but I would have to agree with you on this. Turning the other cheek has been wrongly interpreted by many Christians. Many Christians believe it is wrong to pick up a gun to protect their own loved ones. This is unbiblical.
no thats not right.
the bible talks a lot about defending your loved ones, but more about defending what really matters, your property. and about subjugating women. and murdering your enemies. and incest. and tribal warfare. and hating homosexuals.
but it doesnt once mention picking up guns to protect oneself. thats just ridiculous.
As everyone debates the nuances and interaction of the christian and muslim faiths I have just 1 simple question.
In the history of mankind,which of these religions is responsible for more deaths in their name….just wondering.
Observer: stupid question and irrelevant but Islam by a mile.
Well Colin,that’s a very easy claim to make.Prove it,let’s see some #’s.
BTW,thanks for answering my “stupid” question.
See Ezekiel 37.
ol hoss
In the interest of learning and being open-minded I have looked up your suggestion.
Sorry,BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT it’s just more biblical gibberish to me.
The death of Tom Fox is being used by the group that he served. Pure and simple. I have not heard them express any anger against the murderers and cutthroats that killed Mr. Fox. All the anger is focussed on the US government. I question the wisdom of “Christian” groups that send their true believers out in the traffic to play. The hostages, when murdered, become Christian martyrs, just as the suicide bombers become Moslem martyrs. What a waste. A pox on both their houses. When will they ever learn?
Saddam Hussein and the Christian Peacemaker Teams got along quite well, probably because of Saddam’s fascist and anti-American credentials. The fascists using Islam seem to have the same platform as these Christian Peacemaker Teams, they’re properly anti-American too.
It just doesn’t seem very christian to make peace with a dictator who feeds living humans into woodchippers, or with terrorists who annihilate restaurant patrons.
Ohmigosh, if you people can’t see the difference between Tom Fox and the people who killed him, then you are stone blind. Tom killed no one. His murderers killed him. Whether or not you agree with him, you should at least recognize this basic truth. Furthermore, he didn’t go to Iraq to make peace with a dictator or with terrorists, he went to stand with ordinary Iraqi civilians. A person has been killed and all you can do is mock. You are all heartless!
CPT unchristian because they won’t practice a Just War Theory or shoot someone who is going to shoot them? Because they “got along with Saddam”? Are you people ignorant or what.
St.John, I’d love to hear you’re interpretation on turning the other cheek. When Jesus preached such a move, it was ment to shame and humiliate the one who is hitting you. Today, “turning the other cheek” can be done in other ways, such as going and setting up camp at a Water Treatement plant, or near a school in Baghdad and when the United States bombs one of these non-military sites they can be shamed by the witness of such needless destruction.
Furthermore, Jesus had the opportunity to come down off the cross and crush the Roman Empire but He never. (MATTHEW 26: 51-56) When Peter cut the ear off a Roman guard, who did Jesus rebuke? The Romans for attacking him, or his own disciples for trying to defend him with a sword? His disciples! Christ did not use violence against his enemies, even knowing they were going to take him away and crucify him. That is the Jesus Christ that CPT and I follow in our call to non-violence (although, not necessarily non-resistance).
Calling the CPT’s lack of “anger” or “outrage” at the Swords of Righteousness Brigade un-christian may just as well be directed to Jesus’ actions the night he was taken from Gethsemane.
But for a staunch literalist, such as yourself St.John (don’t forget you too Steve), I’m sure you don’t eat pork (Leviticus 11), offer grain as a sacrifice (Leviticus 2), would gladly give your daughter (if you have one) to her rapist if she was raped (Deuteronomy 22:28) and of course, purify your children after birth according go God’s word (Leviticus 12).
The old testament is filled with pro-war theology that says that God calls these wars and justifies them, but if you’re going to take THAT at face value then you’re going to have to take everything else from that text in the same light.
Email me your theological credentials and perhaps we can continue this debate.
Lastly, for the other pro-war advocates: CPT is not “turning a blind eye” to what is happening in Iraq, the West Bank, Grassy Narrows, or New Mexico. They see and record the attrocities on BOTH SIDES of the fence. If you don’t think they’re holding palestinians just as accountable as the Israeli’s, or the Iraqi insurgents just as much as the midnight US raids – then you’re only listening to only one side of the story.
Nora, you’ve hit the nail right on the head!
During the commie rule, Christian organizations got together and smuggled in bibles to the former USSR. When the authorities found out what houses the bibles were at, they promptly took away the inhabitants of the house and shipped them away.
Same idea.
Not all that say unto me “Lord Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven.
So yes, not all that call themselves “Christians” are really that.
cheers
tom
Consider that there are a lot of dumb shit christains in the world.
The smart ones dont’ take chances with dangerous snakes. A lot of them go over there to shoot Muslims.
The rest are here fighing the culture war against the looney left.
It all balances out.
Just so people don’t jump all over me on my last comment, I wasn’t saying Tom Fox wasn’t a Christian, just I think it was foolish in what he and the others did.
Be ye as wise a serpants, but as harmless as doves comes to mind. Going into a war zone, protesting wasn’t a wise thing to do, Christian or not.
Many will say “have we not done great things in your name” comes to mind.
Two paths
Excerpt:
…
Both Fox and Sultan employed nonviolent methods to achieve their ends. Given the death threats leveled on Hirsi Ali, the Danish caricaturists of Mohammed, Salman Rusdie and others it is arguable that Dr. Sultan by her open opposition to Islamism is showing as much personal courage as anyone in the CPT. Since Dr. Sultan probably has relatives and friends in Syria or the Muslim community in America, she is likely in a more vulnerable situation than a Western Peace Activist who is only in the Middle East temporarily.
To Tom Fox’s question “How do you stand firm against a car-bomber or a kidnapper?” — a question to which he never provided an answer except to say it was not fighting — Wafa Sultan’s answer is that you start by denouncing it. You begin by intellectually opposing the ideology that drives it; that legitimizes it; that portrays it as attractive to children from their cradle. The CPT website, on the other hand, says that denunciation is part of the problem, because it dehumanizes the denounced; hides our Western guilt; and shows a lack of tolerance and respect for Islam. On the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, the CPT says:
We, the members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq, are disturbed by anti-Muslim cartoons from twelve different artists published in September by Denmark’s daily paper the Jyllands-Posten. The publisher claims the freedom of speech to publish the cartoons, but we believe they are only spreading hate and bigotry. To those who believe and act as if terrorism is an essential part of the Islamic faith, we say No! Stop! We cannot stand by and remain silent when our gracious Muslim brothers and sisters are being defamed.
Which of these, the Arab woman or American man, do you think was a neighbor to those threatened by terrorism? Go and do likewise. +
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
Wafa Sultan:
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050#
ol hoss
In the interest of learning and being open-minded I have looked up your suggestion.
Sorry,BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT it’s just more biblical gibberish to me.
The point was that all who do not accept Christ are already dead.
When Peter cut the ear off a Roman guard, who did Jesus rebuke? The Romans for attacking him, or his own disciples for trying to defend him with a sword?
Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you that this was at the end of Christ’s ministry and Peter still wore a sword. Do you think it was for show?
The reason He rebuked Peter is because Peter was interfering in God’s Plan.
Christ did not use violence against his enemies…
John 2:15, “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;”
Sorry ol hoss…it’s all superstition to me.
But if you can die with more piece of mind than me,well,I’m happy for you.
Sorry,meant “peace of mind” of course.LOL
Anyways I’m still happy for you and my christian friends who are sincere.
That’s what you are here for, to make a choice.
Can you not be an absolute pacifist and still be a member of the faith? Tom Fox was a Quaker, but for Catholics, the membership of the Church is divided into three groups:
The Church Triumphant: Those in heaven.
The Church Suffering: Those in purgatory.
THe Church Militant: Those alive on earth fighting for good against evil.
You can’t fight what you ignore. You can’t resist that which you do not even acknowledge to exist.
Seems obvious to me that absolute pacifism is against the teaching of the Church.
Yes, I agree: these people highlight the “Christian” label when it’s convenient, but many of them otherwise give no evidence of believing fundamental Christian doctrine as embodied in, e.g., the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Going into such a war zone accomplishes nothing and is in fact likely a sinful act: a deliberate sin against the capital virtue of prudence by placing oneself knowingly in harm’s way for no clear, commensurate, or realistic goal or good. These people, sad to say, put me in mind of Niebuhr’s famous dictum that “it makes all the difference in the world if one is a fool for Christ or simply a fool.”
St.John, I’d love to hear you’re interpretation on turning the other cheek. When Jesus preached such a move, it was ment to shame and humiliate the one who is hitting you.
The context is in teaching the Word of God. It has nothing to do with shame or humiliation. It does have to do with not striking back if the person being taught becomes angry at being taught God’s Word as written and strikes the teacher.
Self-defense, in other situations, is perfectly Christian.
1 Timothy 5:8, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
Hoss–honestly, thats the same thing thats firing up these people. They unconditionally believe what they are saying–much the same as you. They, however, havent been on the winning end of a ‘Crusades’ and learned to take the literal translations of their holy text with a grain of salt.
If either the Quran, New, or Old testament are to be taken literally–then no one can claim to be a religion of peace.
But thats old news, (or at least it should be)…what gets me is that these missionaries, (or whatever), arent deserving of any protection beyond their own means. They chose to place themselves in harms way. I knew that perfectly well when I came over. Unlike them, I chose not to be out in the open.
Plain and simple, they knew the risks–they lost. We had a guy 2 years ago that took off over the 14th July bridge looking for a good time, (which can be had over there pretty cheap), we told him not to, went anyway, unprotected, got snatched up, killed, found a few days later.
No one cried for him except his family—the dumbass did it to himself.
My favourite biblical line is…”the meek shall inherit the earth”. That’s me, and I am ready.
ol hoss:
It did occur to me that my text from Matthew was at the end of Jesus’ ministry. And it also occurs to me that the fact still remains that when given the opportunity to use violence, he did not allow it to happen.
1. Jesus did not need to heal the ear of the soldier either. He could have simply rebuked Peter and walked away. Peter may have interfered with God’s divine plan, but that does not change the fact that Christ would not allow violence to defend him.
2. If Christ new that he was going to die for the sins of all generations, why would it matter if Peter killed that guard, or killed all the guards?! Surely God’s divine plan could not be thrown off by one disciple? It was going to happen whether that guard lived or died. The point being, Christ would not allow that kind of death to happen, even on his personal behalf.
3. “and Peter still wore a sword. Do you think it was for show?” Check out Luke 22:36. It explains why Peter had a sword. You’re right, it was not for show, but rather to fulfill prophecy.
4. oooh, John 2:15! Did he strike his enemies? He overturned their tables and drove out their livestock, but he didn’t hit anyone with his scourge. That is the difference between non-violence, and non-resistance. Christ practiced non-violence in the sense that he did not strike another human being because he was offended by them, or because they attacked him. Animals don’t count. Non-resistance is the form where NO force (be it striking animals, or overturning tables) is to be used.
Bottom-line: Jesus did not use violence against his enemies to physically harm them. And even in the face of certain death, he would not allow his own disciples to defend him with the sword. Should Peter have been carrying the sword? No.
“The context is in teaching the Word of God. It has nothing to do with shame or humiliation.”
Ah-ha! Now that would be an interesting point to bring up in a class on First-Century Palestinian Society and Culture. You should try your theory out and see what scholars and theologians think about it.
…learned to take the literal translations of their holy text with a grain of salt.
It’s always funny when someone says that. Being that scripture is full of Hebraisms and metaphors unknown to the Biblically illiterate, so they throw them all out and make something up out of their own imaginations.
The Red Cross, in helping people regardless of fault, religion, race, ect… have earned their place in our recent history.
The Christian Peacemaker Team, has taken a stand on who is at fault, which religion is “correct” for the region, and I don’t recall them seeing any problem with the Kurds being gassed…
Now of course, another captive’s death is unfortunate… but these people all had a choice.
Darwin awards are in order for all dead members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams.
I’m Catholic and proud of it. The Church has never condoned unmitigated stupidity
oooh, John 2:15! Did he strike his enemies? He overturned their tables and drove out their livestock, but he didn’t hit anyone with his scourge.
John 2:14-15, “And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;”
drove = 1544 ekballo {ek-bal’-lo} – to eject.
Shameless self-promo here;
This month, the people of Iraq came out in droves to give voice to their hard won democratic aspirations. Sure, it�s not all coming up roses, but millions of Iraqis are openly thankful to the thousands of American and British soldiers who have made tremendous sacrifices to help plant the seed of civil society in that part of the middle east.
One of my favorite sites on the internet is called �The Darwin Awards�. It takes its name from the notion that many forms of death by misadventure are Darwinian in nature. The basic premise is that any person who successfully removes his or her self from the human gene pool by dint of some tragicomic act of stupidity is a candidate for a �Darwin Award�. One of the rules is that the person in question cannot have any offspring at the time of the incident. Death is not a prerequisite. Simply eliminating any possibility of procreation qualifies. Darwin candidates who have demonstrated a regular lack of judgment score higher than those who are victims of momentary lapses.
The name of the site obviously stems from Charles Darwins� still controversial postulation that species evolve and adapt to their surroundings over time, and that those who are less able to cope in their environs are less likely to survive to adulthood and contribute to the next generation. The gene pool of their species is favored by, and in turn favors, those who pass on the most desirable attributes of the species in any given time and environment. Not surprisingly, most of the Darwin website candidates are young males. That�s just a fact of life. Fact is, virtually every one of the guys I grew up with has experienced a near-Darwin moment, including myself.
One of my favorite Darwin stories involves a couple of young males from India. It seems that the two young men got maybe a little too big of a snootful of the preachings of one of the local gurus. Said guru had been teaching that it was important to reach out to all of God�s creatures and help them find their inner peace. If they did that, it would be assured that no harm could come to them. Well, good up to a point.
So, the two young men set out to help some of God�s creatures find inner peace. At some point, it became apparent to them that the reason that the tigers liked to kill and eat the deer in the forest was because the poor tigers hadn�t found inner peace. So, they took it upon themselves to break into the tiger enclosure at a nearby wildlife refuge and help the tigers find the path to resolving their innate confliction and embrace vegetarianism.
Well, at least their intentions were good. But, sadly, the tigers� response was fairly straightforward. They killed and ate the two young messengers of peace. The tigers probably had a few guilt pangs, mind you. What with the absence if hooves and antlers, it had to be just a little too easy.
The point is an easy one. They were tigers. Of course they ate them. That�s what tigers do.
Iraq is officially a post-war zone. Along with the British and American armies (and others), the vast majority of Iraqis are engaged in trying to rebuild their country from what Saddam Hussein has wrought. There are also about ten thousand armed insurgents.
The aim of the insurgents is simple. They want to kill people and create fear, disorder, and chaos for no other reason than they hate Western ideals. They are a combination of fanatic, barbarian, and idiot. This we know because only a fanatical, idiotic, barbarian would walk into a public market or a wedding with several pounds of Semtex strapped to his chest and kill men, women, and children trying to go about their lives with some sense of normalcy.
I�m not so simplistic as to think that the situation in Iraq can be easily painted in black and white. A post-war zone is often described as largely surreal, but the fact is that the occupying armies are pretty much the good guys. Most Iraqis view the insurgents as they actually are: bad guys.
It is a tragedy, but for untrained civilians to enter this region, and largely harass the young men and women of the coalition armies in the hopes that fanatical barbarians might find inner peace with them, is to dance with Darwin.
I wrote this just after the kidnapping. I think it still holds true.
“I have just 1 simple question.
In the history of mankind,which of these religions is responsible for more deaths in their name….just wondering.”
The religion of the left – communism – is responsible for the most deaths. Organized religion has nothing on Uncle Joe and old Mao.
If the meek ever manage to inherit the earth they won’t be able to hang onto if for long.
Why not?
Because they are meek.
Ever heard this before “Only the strong survive”
What is scary right now is that pound for pound the Muslims are strong and we are … well pretty meek these days.
Christian or Quaker or not within a Catholic view of being a Christian…whatever he was of faith, he was a man who went to help others. I think like all people on earth, he knew the danger..but he was doing all he could.
It is just plain wrong to suggest that Tom Fox and members of the CPT were unaware of the risks of kidnapping and death, or that they were being deliberately stupid or naive in taking on such a dangerous mission in Iraq. As for a certain person’s analogy … it’s ridiculous. The Iraqi people are not “tigers” any more than all Muslims are Terrorists. They are, for the most part, people who unfortunately live in the way of inescapable danger and harm that we in the West are lucky not to have to face.
The CPT members did not go into a war zone lightly or with the intention of putting others in harm’s way. I think it is disingenuous for people sitting safely at their computers to suggest that they did so. Are you willing to put your lives on the line for your beliefs as they have done?
Here is part of the “CPT in Iraq Statement of Conviction” which Tom Fox and the other members of CPT in Iraq signed (you can read the full statement on their website). I think it speaks for itself.
March 2005
We, members of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) in Iraq, are aware of the many risks both Iraqis and internationals currently face. However, we are convinced at this time that the risks, while significant, do not outweigh our purpose in remaining.
[snip]
Many Iraqi friends and human rights workers have welcomed us as a non-violent, independent presence. During the previous year they asked us to tell their stories, since they could not easily be heard, nor could most flee to a safer country.
[snip]
We reject the use of violent force to save our lives should we be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a violent conflict situation. We also reject violence to punish anyone who harms us. We ask for equal justice in the arrest and trial of anyone, soldier or civilian, who commits an act of violence, and we ask that there be no retaliation on their relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. Therefore, any penalty should be in the spirit of restorative justice, rather than in the form of violent retribution.
We hope that in loving both friends and enemies and by intervening non-violently to aid those who are systematically oppressed, we can contribute in some small way to transforming this volatile situation.
(Signed)
Tom Fox, Springfield, VA
(plus other members of the CPT Iraq team)
I feel it important to post this statement to refute the false assertions that many are making here about the aims, goals, opinions etc of the Christian Peacemaker Teams.
I think we should all celebrate the life and death of Tom Fox because he lived out his faith according to his understanding of Christianity. If more of us who consider ourselves Christian were to behave with similar conviction the world would be a very different and much better place for mankind. Although I am not a pacifist Christian and thoroughly disagree with the political stance of the Christian Peace Makers organization I admire men and women like Tom who are willing to risk everything including their lives to follow their Christian convictions. I am reminded of a Christian monk from Asia Minor who acted on the conviction he had that the Lord wanted him to go to Rome. He set off for Rome with only the clothes on his back. After weeks of travel he arrived in Rome and fell in with a crowd walking down the street. The crowd filed into the Coliseum and the monk went with them. suddenly, before his eyes, the monk saw men ruthlessly killing each other and the crowd cheering them on. In horror and disgust at the evil he saw he jumped into the ring and began interfering with the fights. The crowd booed him but he would not stop. The crowd yelled for his death and with one swift stab a gladiator sent the monk on to meet the Lord. The crowd fell silent then slowly left the Coliseum never to return to those bloody games. One man, led of the Lord acted according to his faith and ended the games forever. I salute Tom Fox and pray that his death may end the bloodshed in the middle east like that monks death ended the games in Rome. A wise man once observed That the blood of the martyred saints is the seeds of the Christian Church. Let us put away our silly squabbling and thank God for men like Tom Fox
Joe;
Do you admire as well the Muslum individuals who strap munitions to themselves and stand by their convictions with the help of a little c-4? Or, how about the dumbass who used a match as a light while he visually confirmed the contents of a fuel can? He had the courage of his convictions didn’t he? Simply standing by one’s convictions does not make an honorable man and for you to profess as much laughable…
I’m with jlc “Darwin awards are in order for all dead members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams.”
I don’t recall anywhere in the bible that anyone ever said that being stupid was an acceptable behaviour.
We may be asked to pity fools but not to respect foolish behaviour.
In fact as I recall there are many cautionary tales in the book that warn against complacency, self satisfaction, self righteousness and so on.
I believe ( although I cannot quote or site the text ) that there is also a prohibition/warning against tempting fate!
Fools rush in where angles fear to tread or something like that.
How many cases in the bible tell us not to take the lords protection for granted?
Nope…these people are just a particular type of self righteous glory hound. Wrapped up in a cloak christian goodness and caring for their fellow man what they are really doing is attempting to make political statments by meddling where they should not be meddling!
I pity them sure! BUT I do not respect them in any way.
Steve Janke wrote: “Seems obvious to me that absolute pacifism is against the teaching of the Church.”
Obvious as it may seem to you, many Catholics would strongly disagree, including members of the Catholic Worker and Pax Christi organizations, who believe a commitment to non-violence grows directly out of the gospel. The same can be said for many Franciscans. (Not to mention many other Christians in other churches as well, such as Quakers, Mennonites, etc.–the list is long).
Moreover, while it’s true that some form of ‘Just War’ theory is currently the majority position within the Catholic Church, Catholic Bishops in the US have recognized the legitimacy of conscientious objection based on pacifist principles, as well as taken stands against specific military actions as unjust (e.g. the Vietnam War in 1971). Indeed, some Catholics who approach war from a ‘just war’ standpoint would argue that, in the present WMD age and in the present dysfunctional world system, many recent military engagements fail the just war tests of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Plus, church teaching changes over time. Pius XII rejected conscientious objection in 1956; Vatican II articulated a different position.
Steve Janke also wrote:”You can’t fight what you ignore. You can’t resist that which you do not even acknowledge to exist.”
As other posters have shown, it’s wrong to say that the CPTers ‘ignore’ or fail to ‘acknowledge’ evil: exactly the opposite is true, in fact, as an inspection of the record will show.
The general point, however, is correct: acknowledging evil is the first step in resisting it. That’s why so many people within the Catholic, broader Christian, and still-broader peace movement as a whole spend so much time drawing our attention to structural violence, militarism, and other “social sins” against solidarity and justice that we frequently fail to notice, particularly if we are their short-term beneficiaries.
Richard
A long time ago I learned that not every Christian must believe exactly as I believe. Not every Christian must live out his faith as I live out my faith. Why? Because the Lord who created you and me saw fit to save us in spite of ourselves. If He can save me and all my misconceptions and He can save you with all your misconceptions then He can also save Tom Fox and all his misconceptions. If Tom went to Iraq based on the conviction that God had planted in his heart then who am I to argue against God. It is entirely too easy to become small minded and say nasty things about people are persecuted and killed because they act in faith. People like Saint Paul who not only continued to go into hostile environments with the message he had been given but on one memorable occasion was stoned until presumed dead out side the city revived and went right back into the city to continue his sermon! Once while I preached a sermon recounting the suffering of Christ the Spirit moved and touched every member of the church. The entire church except one man rushed forward at the sermon’s end and spent a good deal of time in prayer and supplication. As people began to regain their composure with handshakes hugs and kisses I went over to the man who did not come forward. I wanted to greet him as a brother and like a brother he punched me in the face and called me a hypocrite. It’s too easy to see evil in other christian’s actions what we need is unity amongst the brethren. Wasn’t it Jesus who said, ” a house divided can not stand”? God Bless all who are called by His Name and are moved by His Spirit.
Commenters here and elsewhere who only see Christ as a “pacifist” are just seeing what they want to see. When peace was called for, He was a man of peace. And as mentioned many post above, here, when strong measures were called for, He took them. God has never seemed to have a problem with killing off wicked people. To posit otherwise is to ignore too much scripture.
That’s not saying “pacifism” is wrong. It is only saying it is not the ONLY way. Those that deny this do so for mostly political reasons. To read CPT’s description of their role in Iraq – as posted on their own website – is to immediately recognize their disconnect with reality. They state a reason they are “getting in the way” in Iraq is because of the abuse suffered by Iraqi’s at the hands of U.S. Forces. No mention of abuse from other forces. Apparently there is acceptable AND unacceptable abuse.
Is this a disconnect from reality, or are they merely making a political decision in an attempt to safeguard local team members? You be the judge, but in my view they weren’t very “brave”, and they sure turned out to be stupid to think the forces of Islam would understand those delicate nuances.
That’s why this is so much a tragedy. Mushy-headed thinking and theology have gone dreadfully awry. I’m personally sorry for the loss, but it was certainly not to be unexpected. You play on the freeway, the trucks will eventually run you down.
Joe;
That was nicely said but it didn’t answer the question at hand. I’ll ask again:
Do you admire as well the Muslum individuals who strap munitions to themselves and stand by their convictions with the help of a little c-4? Or, how about the dumbass who used a match as a light while he visually confirmed the contents of a fuel can? He had the courage of his convictions didn’t he?
A simple yes or no answer will do.
“Commenters here and elsewhere who only see Christ as a “pacifist” are just seeing what they want to see. When peace was called for, He was a man of peace. And as mentioned many post above, here, when strong measures were called for, He took them. God has never seemed to have a problem with killing off wicked people. To posit otherwise is to ignore too much scripture.”
Show me where in the Bible Christ advocated killing, murder or physical violence, or suggested that we should act like we think we’re God in visiting judgement on our enemies by ending their lives.
The opposite is true: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, �if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:19-21).
Christ says many similar things himself such as “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God…” (Luke 6:30). (Please note that he did not say that those who fight or kill are ‘blessed’). He made even more radical, challenging statements such as “Do not resist the evil man but whoever slaps you on the right cheek turn to him the other also” (Matt 5:39) and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44). These are hard statements to live by, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Of course, if we are to follow Christ’s injunctions in favor of peace, this does not mean being silent in the face of injustice and evil, or ‘leaving it all to God’; on the contrary, it means speaking out, and if necessary, acting forcefully to stop violence, injustice and evil in all their forms. Christ used physical force to eject the moneylenders from the Temple because they were abusing a sacred space and preying on people. He did not however kill or injure them as he did so.
Pacifism is Biblical. One can be a Christian and not be a pacificist; one can be a soldier and still be saved; this is because Christ’s salvation is for everyone and available to everyone. However, Christ always calls us to a better way, and, in fact, even a pacificist Christian’s understanding of Christ’s radical call to peace is probably incomplete.
“That’s not saying “pacifism” is wrong. It is only saying it is not the ONLY way. Those that deny this do so for mostly political reasons. To read CPT’s description of their role in Iraq – as posted on their own website – is to immediately recognize their disconnect with reality. They state a reason they are “getting in the way” in Iraq is because of the abuse suffered by Iraqi’s at the hands of U.S. Forces. No mention of abuse from other forces. Apparently there is acceptable AND unacceptable abuse.”
Your characterization of the CPT as ‘out of touch’ with the reality of Iraq and as only critical of violence at the hands of the US occupation is wrong. They speak out against violence in all its forms, from a variety of perpetrators, in hotspots and conflict zones around the world (including in Canada). The group was founded by Americans, however, long before the Iraq war began, and naturally Americans particularly want to hold their own government accountable (not because they are anti-American, that’s ridiculous – it’s not anti-American to point out abuses and evil by your own countrymen; Americans have always done so: one could even call it a proud American tradition).
Fact: prior to the war, the CPT ran afoul of Saddam Hussein’s security police, the Mukhabarat, and were expelled in March 2003 for taking unauthorized photographs (they came back shortly afterward). In Iraq and elsewhere, it is simply false to say that the CPT never challenges injustice or violence at the hands of anyone but the US. That’s simply not true.
Fact: in early April 2004 CPT pulled out of Iraq into Jordan. They returned because of the appearance of photos and reports revealing that Iraqi prisoners were being tortured and abused. Question: should this use of torture have been allowed to continue without protest by Americans, or anyone for that matter?
The CPT mission in Iraq was not “stupid” in the sense of wilfully ignorant of the risks. In fact, just so that you know what they do there, most of the peace teams’ work in Iraq has been as English-speaking advocates for Iraqi families seeking access to prisoners or compensation for abuse or damage to their homes & property. They also try to persuade sentries at military bases to allow them access to local commanders, urge police and other officials to carry out inquiries into injustices and generally try to cajole the Army bureaucracy into action in areas such as prisoner abuse etc.
“In my view they weren’t very “brave”, and they sure turned out to be stupid to think the forces of Islam would understand those delicate nuances.”
I think you ought to be very careful in suggesting that ‘the forces of Islam’ are responsible for the kidnappings and killings of hostages. These violent people do not represent or embody “Islam” when they kill.
As for your allegation of the CPT’s “mushy-headed thinking” and “theology gone dreadfully awry,” their actions show evidence that, on the contrary, they are fairly clear-eyed about their purpose. It is not their intention to go and be ‘martyrs’ to some ethereal principle, or to get themselves killed, but to be witnesses and advocates in a danger zone. In doing so, they do put their beliefs to the ultimate test: as the CPT themselves have said, “Unless Christians are as willing to die for peace as soldiers are willing to die for war, we had better basically shut up about being peace activists.” Disagree with them if you like, but to suggest that Tom Fox’s death was akin to a needless road accident callously misrepresents the CPT and its purpose.
Neato Ann! Where does the phrase “He helps those who helps themselves.” come in to play? Your statement seems to take away all individual responsibility from the captured CPT members…
Richard,
You are revealing some ignorance of the Bible. “God helps those who help themselves!” is not a verse in the Bible.
More important, this “verse” is unbiblical in its meaning. It is exactly the opposite of the message of Scripture. Here are some actual biblical verses that say the opposite:
Jer 17:5 (NIV) This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.”
Prov 28:26 (NIV) “He who trusts in himself is a fool…”
I take these to mean that we should always trust in God, and never in ourselves or our own judgments.
“Your statement seems to take away all individual responsibility from the captured CPT members…”
The point of my post was to suggest that the CPT did take responsibility for their actions as individuals and as a group. They went to Iraq be witnesses to injustice, fully aware of the risks they were going to face. One of them has now been killed as a result of his beliefs. How is pointing out that fact, or trying to show what in fact the CPT were doing in Iraq attempting to absolve them of individual responsibility? On the contrary, they made a conscious choice to live by their beliefs; they took individual responsibility.
You know, it’s easy to take cheap potshots, and far more difficult to make a reasoned criticism backed up by solid evidence.
I was going to ignore your earlier ludicrous comparison, but since you addressed me directly, I’ll bite: “Do you admire as well the Muslum [sic] individuals who strap munitions to themselves and stand by their convictions with the help of a little c-4? Or, how about the dumbass who used a match as a light while he visually confirmed the contents of a fuel can? He had the courage of his convictions didn’t he?”
It’s insulting to compare the death of Tom Fox to a suicide bomber. Are you going to suggest that a soldier is like a suicide bomber then too? I don’t agree with war, but I am able to see that soldiers are, in fact, willing to die for their beliefs. (It’s the fact that they are willing to kill others for them too that I disagree with). Their willingness to put their lives on the line is admirable; so is the willingness of the CPT members to die for their beliefs.
However, just because some good people are willing to die for their beliefs, does not mean that all who are willing to die for their beliefs are equally right. A suicide bomber commits senseless self-murder, as well as the murder of as many innocent civilians as he can manage. Both of these actions are wrong, according to Christian and Muslim teaching. The CPT do not kill themselves, do not commit murder of innocents (or anyone) and do not back up their convictions with violence. Your exaggerated comparison makes a common logical error known as the false analogy.
Thank you Dylan, Ann Walsh, Stephen, steve in bc, &
Joe. I’ve appreciated your comments.
So what you’re saying Ann is that we’re all supposed to wander around as stupidly and allow things to happen to us with out predicting consequence and reacting afterwards? Do I understand that correctly?