Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • I Thought this Before it Started

    Henry Kissinger now says that the Iraq war is not winnable, something I thought from the start. talking to the BBS (via MSNBC), he said:

    “If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible.”

    All those factors were there before the war got started. If you combine the fact that Iraq is a nation pieced together from disparate elements that don’t really want to be a country in the first place with neighbors who would be happy to be in control of the same terrirtory you are placing a tall order. Then consider the fact that there never was a united opposition to Saddam’s reign, simply because the various elements of the opposition don’t generally share a vision for the country.

    If we allowed democracy to take it’s course, Iraq would likely become an Islamic republic led by the Shi’ites. Unfortunately what we seem to want to produce is a government that is both democratically elected and does what we want it to do. Bluntly, it’s not going to happen.

    Before the usual culprits accuse me of being pacifist and not wanting to fight terrorism, that is not my point. I believe that military force should sometimes be used. The problem is that there are those who don’t seem to choose wisely between one use of force and another. There might even have been things that could be accomplished militarily in Iraq. But the Iraq war that actually occurred was, in my view, a strategic error. My concern is not that people were killed, or that some feelings were hurt. My concern is that people were killed without any good and lasting result.

    At this point I’m afraid I see no option but to simply declare a set of doable goals–a certain amount of time spent in training, specified equipment levels for the Iraqi forces, and similar things, and then get out. Goals such as a peaceful, secure state are simply not going to happen, and all we’re doing trying to accomplish such goals is wasting time, political capital, money, and most importantly lives.

  • A Consistent and Principled Approach

    In a poll taken before the last election respondents indicated strong disapproval of congress (31% approve/63% disapprove) as a whole, and yet by an almost equal margin (60%/33%), they indicated approval of their own congressman (Fox Poll 10/13/06). This type of result occurs repeatedly in polls. I’m just using those numbers as an example. Similarly polls (and general observation) shows that people disapprove of attorneys as a profession, but like their own attorney, or certainly want a good, hard-hitting attorney on their side if they are in trouble.

    It’s very likely that these differences in perception have something to do with who each of those people are working for. My congressman has to try to serve my district, for example by trying to keep military bases here, get federal road projects here, and so forth. There are 434 other congressmen who don’t share his priorities on those district based items, and thus it is very unlikely that the people in any single district will approve of the whole of congress as much as they approve of their own.

    (more…)

  • Identifying Moderate Muslims

    Laura has a short post over at Pursuing Holiness on Pakistan and a move toward moderation legislatively. The particular form of moderation involved is preventing women who are raped from being charged with adultery. Personally, I’m eagerly awaiting the announcement of a moderate stoning, so that I could get some idea what that would be like (no, not actuallly!).

    MSNBC has an article on this titled Pakistan lawmakers OK changes to rape law, and it’s subtitle, Death penalty for extramarital sex dropped; Islamic fundamentalists angry is also of interest.

    I think our response to this sort of thing, including both the original problem, the reform, and the response of some other Muslims can be problematic.

    1. We might become hostile to Islam as such. This is an unacceptable option to me, simply because I know from personal experience that there are Muslims who are good people, who make good neighbors, and who would abhor the mistreatment of women (a severe understatement for charging a rape victim with adultery) as much as I do.
    2. We can put our heads in the sand because we don’t want to seem intolerant, so we don’t want to these Muslims, lest we seem to be intolerant of all Muslims. This, in my view, would morally reprehensible. We must, I believe, combat evil, and this is undoubtedly evil.
    3. We can do our best to identify specific people and policies and oppose those. This is what I try, not always successfully, to do.

    This is one of the problems with our “friends” in the Middle East. In many cases it’s a “with friends like these” situation. In order to fight one form of evil, we get tangled with another. When I was in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in that part of the world during the first gulf war, I really thought about this. Who was it that I was defending? In general, my response had to be that they were not people I would want to defend, if I had the choice. This is not about them being Muslims. It’s about them being tyrants and enforcing sadistic laws and policies.

    I’m going to continue to try to distinguish Islam itself from many of its adherents. But I’m not going to let that stop me from making it clear that certain policies are simply evil. The treatment of women in many countries of the Middle East is one of those policies.

  • Finally Some Cover on Multiple Reading!

    Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost has written a post titled How to Change Your Mind. I’m not going to steal the thunder of his post, other than to say that it deals with reading passages multiple times.

    I have long been recommending reading a book of the Bible, or any passage you are about to study (to include a decent amount of context, and a logical selection) twelve times before going on to detailed study. I tell classes and study groups, normally over the shocked looks and nervous laughter that if they will follow this advice they will get an incredible blessing.

    The method Joe Carter is recommending is not precisely the same as mine. He’s talking about a slightly different number of times, though I’ll note that I tell people that they will get some significant blessing from increasing the number of times. I learned my method from my mother and have added to it.

    (more…)

  • Tolerance or Homogenization

    I value tolerance. Even more, I value and celebrate diversity. But frequently I see definitions of tolerance that must be considered self-destructive.

    I usually encounter these in the form of straw-man arguments. Someone may ask me if I believe in tolerance. When I acknowledge that I do, they will ask me then whether I will tolerate some form of intolerance or another. The answer to that is, “It depends.” Whereupon I’m informed that I really don’t believe in tolerance because I don’t tolerate everything.

    I believe in tolerance as a value, not as an absolute. I don’t believe in tolerating everything, merely as much as it is possible to tolerate practically. If someone believes in firing a machine gun into a crowd of people, I find it quite appropriate not to tolerate his belief, at least if he has the intention and the means to act on it.

    (more…)

  • Environmental Skepticism Where Appropriate

    The Evangelical Ecologist has an excellent post on the value of skepticism in the appropriate place, and also touches on where it is appropriate.

    He says:

    There is an important distinction, then, between aggressively promoting environmental stewardship as a God-ordained moral ethic (which it is), and aggressively promoting a particular area of human-derived environmental science as a moral ethic (which it is not).

    I think he makes a couple of excellent points in this post. I’ve been trying to find time to link to some of his stuff since I first found the site a few weeks ago, but I haven’t had the time. Go over and check it out.

  • MBWR To End

    John at Locusts and Honey, is bringing the Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup to a close with this week’s edition. John has done a wonderful job of building up the Methodist blogosphere, and I have great sympathy for him as he lays aside this enormous task.

    I’ll miss the “human touch” in selecting the posts, but there is a new Methodist portal (the Methoblog) which has a good blogroll and some aggregation. So connection via the blogosphere continues.

    Thanks to John for his work. Onward and upward, folks!

  • Christian Carnival CXLVIII Posted

    Christian Carnival CXLVIII is now available at Crossroads for your reading pleasure.

    I will again try to post some links to some of the posts that catch my attention. I rarely get time to link to all of them.

  • Avoiding Shoot-First Apologetics

    My Christianity Today Connection e-mail this morning contained a link to an excellent article, Shoot-First Apologetics. I don’t want to steal the thunder from the article itself–go read it in place, but I do want to quote from the e-mail:

    And while defending the core elements of our faith is imperative, we sometimes shoot too hastily at those we’ve misidentified as enemies.

    I would like to note that the folks involved in this discussion are conservative evangelicals. The issue of courtesy in what we say, and care in determining friend and foe is one that cuts across the lines of the various parties in Christianity. It’s very easy to identify “different” as “hostile.”

    Of course we do need to remember that even if we identify someone as hostile, Jesus commands that we love that person, and not in the cartoon sense–“love those meeses to pieces!”

  • Hebrews 7:1-3: Reuniting Priesthood and Kingship

    1Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, met Abraham when he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. 2Abraham apportioned a tenth of everything to him. He is first “King of Righteousness” and then King of Salem which is “King of Peace.” 3He is without father, without mother, without genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but, in a way similar to the Son of God he remains forever. — Hebrews 7:1-3

    There is a critical element to the Melchizedek priesthood which is often neglected. It’s mentioned in the first verse of chapter 7: Melchizedek is both king and priest.

    In reading the Bible story we are accustomed to a substantial separation between royal authority and priestly activity. Though we have a brief hint at something different in the time of David (2 Samuel 8:18), there is a strong them of separation between the civil authority and the priesthood. This is emphasized by the experience of Uzziah, who tried to usurp priestly functions and became a leper for his efforts (2 Chronicles 26:16-21).

    But it’s easy to miss the significance of this element in the theology of the book of Hebrews. In Biblical history, this separation begins with Exodus 19 when the Isralites are afraid of hearing the voice of God from Mt. Sinai. They are invited to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests, but they prefer to have a safer distance. In the New Testament, this theme is picked up in 1 Peter 2:9 in which Christians are referenced in the same terms. To someone acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, this was a not so subtle way of suggesting that we have entered into the Messianic age.

    In Hebrews, the Melchizedek priesthood serves to make the same point. While civil power was separated from the priesthood from the time when the tabernacle was being built in the wilderness forward, the Melchizedek priesthood was also a royal priesthood. Thus besides being eternal, which is of great importance to our author, authority and priestly intercession are combined in one person, Jesus who is both king and priest.

    This connection is emphasized by the use of Psalm 110. In its original setting, Psalm 110 is an accession psalm, a poem or hymn celebrating the accession of the king to the throne, and thus YHWH says to “my lord” (the poet is speaking), sit at my right hand, vesting the king with divine authority and promising him victory.

    While by modern standards of exegesis, our author uses the wording of Psalm 110 in a substantially different way (I think he’s allowed that as an inspired writer), he still manages to pull in a great deal of meaning by using that precise reference.

    In the incarnation, God becomes human, experiences humanity, and at the same time royal authority (lawgiving, enforcement, sovereignty) with the priesthood (intercession, communication, connection) and God-become-man thus reaches us directly. As Jesus said, “On that day you will ask in my name. I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf;  for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God” (John 16:26-27).

    Asking the Father himself, and knowing that the Father himself loves us, is one of the great gifts of the incarnation. Priestly and royal power have come together again.