The War

I was able to see most of Ken Burns' new series, The War, the past two weeks. It was a very inspiring reminder of the sacrifices of what has been called "the greatest generation." We still have several veterans from the war who are members of our church. I have the privilege of meeting with a few of them each Tuesday morning for prayer, and every now and then we go out for breakfast. During one such excursion a few weeks before the documentary, they spent most of the time relating stories from their war time experiences. Later, one of them apologized to me for taking all of the time up with stories from the war. I assured him it was neither boring nor a waste of time for me; it fact, it was very interesting to hear first hand from these men stories of their individual pieces of the war. I admire them all.

Ken Burns did a great job, I thought, of weaving the story of the war for us through the eyes and ears of citizens from four cities in the U.S., which I am sure were indicative of every city in the nation. What a blessing we have in the sacrifice of so many. We saw first hand the horrors of the war on every side; the first episode, however, was entitled (I think), A Necessary War.

A Necessary War--what a good way to put it. It was simply that--necessary. It is hard to imagine the rationale of anyone thinking otherwise.

Of course, it is impossible to watch such a documentary without considering the current war we are waging. Is it a necessary war? Many people question the motives of the administration. Others point to the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction found. Still others bemoan the slow progress of the Iraqi people in seeking to establish a stable and just government.

I know that I personally always hoped we would wait a bit longer before going into Iraq. Certainly, we needed to be in Afghanistan. I felt that the President had more information at his disposal than I did. Previous administrations had also believed Saddam was seeking to make WMD. At this point, however, questions of whether we should have gone into Iraq when we did are moot. We are there, and the enemy has followed us there. Whether that particular bit of geography could have been avoidable, we are in the midst of a war against international terrorism. There are people who want to destroy and kill everything that doesn't look and think exactly as they do. In fact, they likely want to kill people who may share some of their thoughts if their citizenship is in the wrong country.

In my mind, we are in a necessary war against an ideology of hatred. Wherever the battle is fought, it is a necessary war. I would like to think that we as Americans hold ourselves to a higher standard than do others, of course. I am not ready to give up all civil liberties, nor would I ever condone torture. It pains me to see reports that we at times hide behind technicalities to circumvent rules that we helped write and use methods that we would not want used on our troops. Why not show others that we are as different from them as we claim? I hope these reports are false or are rare aberrations. Unfortunately, it is hard to know what sources of news to trust on every occasion.

In the final analysis, war at times may be necessary, but war is still hell. Let us pray that God would have mercy on us. Let us repent of our sinfulness and selfishness so that God will forgive our sins and heal our land. Let us live up to the highest calling of the American experiment, in times of war and peace.

“Are You a Conservative or a Liberal or What?”

Recently I had someone ask me, “Are you a conservative, a liberal, a fundamentalist, a moderate, or what?” Though I didn’t say it, with those choices I think I would opt for “A what!”

I hate labels.

Oh, labels would be fine is we could be sure they actually communicated something. (See my previous blog on “What Is a Baptist” to understand what I mean.) But as time goes by, more often than not labels become relative to the user. So to an atheist I might be labeled a right wing fundamentalist and to a self described right ring fundamentalist, I might be considered a liberal. I mean, Jerry Falwell is considered a liberal by some independent Baptists today!

Labels are often used to put someone else down without having to explain what they think or believe. This can happen in both theology and in politics, and we have seen a lot of it during the mudslinging ads from both sides in political campaigns, haven’t we? “So-and-so believes in the failed liberal policies of the past” or “So-and-so is an ultra-conservative who…”

Of course, words like “conservative” and “liberal” lend themselves to miscommunication because they are indeed relative to the time and the context. “Conservative” comes from word “conserve” and says basically that we want to keep the status quo. It is interesting that when the Soviet Union began their policies of openness and restructuring under Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980’s, the “conservatives” were those who wanted to keep communism—that is, they wanted to “conserve” what they had.

And “liberal” comes from “liberate”—to free. Often, people are liberals until they achieve what they want; then they become “conservatives,” wanting to keep what they have achieved. I hear people often say that Jesus was a “liberal” of his day. While I think it is hard to make that categorization completely, it is hard to deny that Jesus came to liberate and to change the status quo as far as faith is concerned. “It the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” And the apostle Paul said, “It is for freedom that Christ has set you free.”

Those who want to say that Jesus was a “liberal” of His day, though, tend to think He would be a “liberal” today. And that all depends on what is in place in a certain context! If a group is following after Jesus and obeying His teaching, Jesus would want them to “conserve” that. If a “church” was really more a group of modern day Pharisees, then certainly Jesus would want to liberate them.

So I think you see why I don’t like labels. It is a shame labels don’t mean much anymore, that they so rarely actually communicate a position. I don’t understand why people would even want a label that doesn’t properly describe them. For instance, why do so many people today still want to be labeled as “Christian” when they clearly do not hold to the teachings of Jesus? Why don’t they just give themselves another name?

I actually had a good conversation with the person who started our conversation with the loaded question. Instead of answering his question with any of the labels—even the “what” I was tempted to use—I said, “Let me just tell you what I believe and who I am and you can decide what I am. If you tried to label me by any one subject on a non-essential issue, you might miss what I believe about the most essential things.”

I went on to tell him that Jesus is my Lord and that the Bible is my guide for knowing the real Jesus and for what I believe and how I behave. I talked about my understanding of sin as being the biggest problem faced by mankind and that Jesus is the only One that has the ability to do anything about that problem—that He is able to forgive our sins because of His obedience to the Father, His sinless life, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. We talked about our need to turn away from our sins (repent) and turn to Jesus in faith, and that God wants us to walk in holiness and peace.

Finally, we talked about how important attitude is accompanying our beliefs. While I am orthodox in my beliefs and I teach the truth, I do not delight in condemning others. (Some do, you know, like the Pharisees of old.) Instead, I want to hold out to them the desire of God to forgive and restore them as they turn to Him in repentance and faith. I told him that I try to be cognizant that any time I preach on a certain sin, I know that there are likely those listening who have committed that very sin, and I want them to know that there is hope and forgiveness for them through Jesus and that He welcomes them as surely as the Father welcomed home the Prodigal Son when he “came to his senses” (see Luke 15).

So, no thank you to the offer of labeling myself. That, to me, is a recipe for miscommunication—that is, until we can better define the labels.

Framing the Question

Whether it is in politics, faith, or other issues of debate, it is important to see how the question is framed—and who gets to frame it. The one who gets to frame the question can almost always give an answer that seems sensible and winning.

Often in public debate, each side frames the question to its own advantage. You have seen it happen many times, and you recognize it when you realize that a person did not answer the question that has been asked. It may be that the answerer felt the question was inherently unfair (“Have you quit beating your wife?”); at other times the person simply does not want to answer the question as asked and therefore answers in such a way that he assumes a different question was asked. (Q.: “Did you commit the act you are accused of?” A.: “I think it is important that we do not always look at the past. What’s past is past. It is important for us to look to the future.”)

A good example of framing the question can be observed in the recent debate over how the United States treats those captured in the War on Terror. One side framed the question by speaking about American values, the Geneva Conventions, how we want others to treat our prisoners, and the effectiveness of torture. As a believer in Jesus, I don’t care what anyone else says. I certainly believe that torture of prisoners is wrong. I think we should have values that are followed regardless of what the other side does. I think that is perhaps the greatest demonstration to the world as to the rightness of our cause and our value system. So when the question is framed about whether we should be torturing, of course I agree that we should not be doing that.

The other side frames the question differently, however. “We don’t torture anyone. And whatever techniques that we use that you might not like, how can you compare that to what the terrorists are doing? They are cutting off the heads of civilians they capture. Don’t talk to us about losing the sense of rightness when our methods are mild compared to theirs. Information we get may save the lives of other innocents.” And, of course, when the question is framed as a comparison of tactics, certainly I agree that nothing we are doing is comparable to the tactic of killing innocent civilians through suicide bombers, snipers, etc.

When I hear people state their cases and I agree with both of them, I wonder if I am terribly inconsistent. Then I realize that the question has been framed differently. There are really two different questions here. Of course, since we only debate and do not discuss, we can’t seem to agree that we could tackle both questions. We polarize positions rather than seeking common ground—or at least being honest enough to agree on the question!

Sometimes the framing of the question is really more of a matter of identification or even name calling to the extent that no one wants to be painted with that moniker. For instance, in the abortion debate, I noticed that several years ago a national newsmagazine quit using the terms pro-life and pro-choice. Instead, it started using anti-choice and pro-choice. Hmm…I wondered in a letter to the editor (which was not printed) why, if they were no longer going to use the designation that each side would rather be identified with, that they did not decide on "pro-life" and "anti-life" rather than “pro-choice” and “anti-choice.” More recently, we see it when people who are conservative are called “right wing extremists,” people who question the strategies in the war in Iraq are called “cut and run,” or when mainstream evangelicals are routinely called “fundamentalists.” In each of these cases, people are trying to squelch discussion by making people afraid to be labeled with a certain name.

Of course, we see that same kind of thing in the many negative ads that are so prevalent as the election looms nearer.

As you can see, a proponent frequently frames a question to his liking to put his own position in the best light or in an effort to create a “straw man” out of the opposing position. Of course, there are times when we do not agree on what the question is, and when that is the case, it is really hard to assess the positions taken until we can get to that point.

While we all seek to frame questions, we should at least be upfront about it, letting people know that the way we frame it is the way we see the issue, rather than throwing a smokescreen up in order to avoid examining it at all. When others frame questions in different ways, we should try to determine if it is a valid way at looking at the same issue, a different issue altogether, or an attempt to avoid tackling a tough question.

We should be especially mindful of the way questions are framed as we listen to candidates who are asking for our votes.

Politics As Usual! Ugh!

As a follower of Jesus, I am called to love others—fellow believers, neighbors, even enemies. I will admit, however, that I am really struggling in loving one set of people. No, it’s not Muslims or adherents of any other religion. It’s not any particular race or nationality. The class that I am struggling with is politicians, and as far as it applies, political operatives, including those who so often appear on radio and television or write columns in newspapers or on the internet.

Don’t get me wrong about my struggle. It’s not about ideology. I don’t have any particular difficulty in loving those with whom I disagree. If so, I’d be in real trouble. You see, even though I may have more in common with one group’s platform in any given season than another’s, about the only person I agree with most all the time is me—and there are occasions when I’m not even sure about that!

No, my struggle to love people in politics is because of what I perceive as the “ends justify the means” hypocrisy in dealing with issues. Instead of confronting an issue straight on, so many politicians and their advocates simply look to winning points against the opposition or containing damage to their own side.

As one example, we can look to the story of the congressman from Florida who sent inappropriate emails to a page or pages. When this was brought to light, it immediately became an “us” versus “them” issue between the two majority parties. When the opposition party tried to make an issue of the breaking scandal, we saw back and forth finger pointing.

• “What did you know and when did you know it?”
• “Mistakes were made, but why weren’t you concerned when your last president had problems with ‘that woman’?”
• “Well, this issue was with pages, who are much younger than interns.”
• “The page was eighteen when the emails in question were sent, so it was two adults, and, besides, ‘nothing happened.’”
• “The speaker should resign because he knew of the problem and didn’t act.”
• “It seems like your people knew about this in early summer. If you were really concerned, why didn’t you bring it out then rather than wait until right before elections?”

And on and on it goes. Why, instead, wasn’t there a unified voice that condemned the behavior—in this and in previous instances? Why are those who abhorred the previous indiscretions of others now seemingly defending behaviors of the same sort? And vice versa? Such hypocrisy is unbecoming in those who want to lead us. They choose what to attack and what to defend based on who is involved rather than what is right.

Another example is in our own gubernatorial campaign. Each candidate accuses the other of ethics violations.

• “You got a sweetheart deal on land in Florida and a $100,000 tax break that no one else may have gotten.”
• “Your daddy has all kind of business with the state, inappropriately, and he pays you a handsome yearly salary for virtually no work.”

It’s amazing how adept we can be in identifying the nuances of ethical behavior for others but cannot for the life of us see how anyone could question what we do ourselves! It seems like someone once said something about removing the log from your own eye before removing the speck from someone else’s. Instead, we have blind people doing eye surgery on others.

As distasteful as all of this is, it would be great if we could expect such behavior to subside after the coming elections. But I wouldn’t count on it.

© 2006 Fred O. Pitts

Governments of Men

Recently we have been through the primary election season, and now we have the general election to look forward to. In the past few weeks, what mudslinging we have seen in the races for governor and lietenant governor! When you consider how Mark Taylor and Cathy Cox treated each other (in the Democratic primary for governor) and Ralph Reed and Casey Cagle beat each other up (in the Republican primary for lietenant governor), it makes you shudder to think that in each case the candidates fighting each other were essentially on the same side! Thoughts about the governments of men have been running through my mind...

The Soviet Union, in my mind, truly was an “evil empire,” as it was referred to by President Ronald Reagan. While we could cite it ruthlessness, its false promises, its atheism, and on and on, there is one very simple way to know what a country or an empire is like: just look to its borders. Does a country have to guard its borders to keep its citizens in—or does it struggle to keep illegal immigrants out?

We in the United States are proud of our experiment with a democratically elected republic (most people refer to it as a democracy but I think they know that it is technically a republic). We treasure the freedoms we have—freedom of worship, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, etc.—and we think that everyone should have these freedoms. We think everyone should have some form of democratic-based government.

But is every nation ready for such a government? Does everyone have the capacity to make such a system work?

When I look at the world today, it gives me pause to wonder. Please understand, I don’t know the answers at this point. What I am saying is, as I look at all the nations around the world and what has happened in our world in the past couple of decades, it makes me wonder. I am just thinking out loud.

Must there be an evolution—if I can use that word—of thought, an evolution of worldview, an evolution of understanding before democratic processes can take root successfully in a nation? I know that may sound condescending to other nations to say it that way. And I certainly don't want mean it that way—after all, to keep me humble about our own government, I only need to recall that Cynthia McKinney is "my" congresswoman as I write! Remember, I am thinking as I am writing. Perhaps a better way to say it is that certain worldviews are compatible with some types of government and some are compatible with others.

In fact, we could conceivably move to another form of government that is even better for us at some time in the future. After all, we constantly change leadership practices in business and in other organizations all the time; it can certainly happen in a country. We should all be reminded from time to time of the words of Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons in Britain on November 11, 1947: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

How right he is, and how needful for us to hear it! That leads us back to the question: Are all nations ready for some form of democracy? The question certainly must be asked about Iraq, for instance. Our president, whom I admire, is adamant about instituting some form of democracy. I hope it is successful. In fact, I pray that it is successful. But the question returns: are the people of Iraq, with their worldview/religion, really able to have it work without constant civil conflict or civil war?

Let’s go even further back. At the beginning, I stated that I truly believe the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Taking the words quoted above by Winston Churchill should help us ask the question, “Are we able to replace the bad with something better—or something worse?”

Hindsight makes me ask that question. As evil as I believe the Soviet Union was, stop to consider what replaced it—not so much in Russia, which I think is an improvement, but in its wider "sphere of influence” ("Sphere of influence" is a rather kind way of putting it, don’t you think?) For instance, was Yugoslavia better off as a united country, albeit under communism, than what transpired after the breakup (remember names like Milosovic and peoples like Serbs and Croats and all the violence there). And what about all the _____stans (fill in the blank) and some other now sovereign nations that were once part of the Soviet empire that are in conflict. Was it better that they were controlled as opposed to all the violence we see today? Again, no question that the Soviet Union was evil. Just the question: is what replaced it even more evil?

See, no answers. Just questions about whether we can export democratic ideals until it is demonstrable that enough people understand it—and long for it!

Back when I was in college, I attended an International Student Conference sponsored by the Baptist Student Union in Georgia. This was sometime in the late 1970’s—likely 1977 but I could be off a year either way, I guess. My eyes were opened to issues I knew nothing about until that weekend. Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, was guest lecturer. When he opened it up for questions, it was as if a floodgate opened! All kinds of students were yelling and screaming questions and opinions to him. These students, I soon discovered, were from Iran, and they were decrying the United States’ support of the Shah of Iran—that was probably the first time I had ever heard of him. I didn’t know the underlying current of emotion and thought until 1979 when the Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy, taking 52 hostages. These students were demanding the overthrow of the Shah. I don’t remember a lot—just the emotional force of their questions, as I have said—but I do remember clearly what Dean Rusk calmly said to them in response to their call for the removal of the Shah. Perhaps he knew the Shah wasn’t the greatest government possibility for Iran. I infer that only from his answer, which makes so much sense to me today in view of all that is going on in the world. He simply asked them a question in return: “Who are you going to replace him with?”

After seeing what the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors have done in Iran, that questions looks better and better. It is apparent that Dr. Rusk knew that however bad the Shah might have been, he was better than any lurking alternative. We need to ask that question, too, when we see terrible governments. Will the next wave be better—or worse? (Can anyone say “Castro”?)

Let’s be humble about government systems in the world. What works here may not work elsewhere—at least not yet. Is a democratic republic always best? Israel did pretty well under at least one king—King David. Unfortunately, you know what we have normally observed about absolute power! That corruption appeared in the lives of most other Israelite kings in the Bible (both kingdoms)—and most kings in history, for that matter.

There will be one great exception: one day the Lord Jesus will reign—and His kingdom will be a righteous kingdom, and His kingdom will never end. How I look forward to His reign! Until then, let’s think hard, work hard, and pray hard about how we govern ourselves—and how we intervene in the nations of the world.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day is a great opportunity for us to remember those who have given their lives in service to our country. I hope all of us appreciate the sacrifice of men and women who have loved the best ideals of their country more than life.

On the Sunday before Memorial Day, our church pays tribute to the veterans in our own congregation who have died since the previous Memorial Day. It is a tradition that has been carried on for many years, long preceding my arrival.

At some point in the past, all veterans were asked to complete a form detailing their military service and to submit photographs in uniform. All of these were compiled into a two inch three-ring binder. This gives us a lasting record of the military service.

On the Sunday before Memorial Day, our worship time is opened by all veterans forming an Honor Guard and marching to the front of the Worship Center. While I didn't count, it seems that we must have had around 30. Most of these were older men who served during WWII and/or the Korean Conflict, though some served during peace time. Over half wore at least part of their uniforms, insignia, and badges.

Six of our veterans had died since last Memorial Day. A vase was set up on the platform area having one red and several white roses. Behind the vase were the colors. The aforementioned notebook was also there, with the pages of those who have died in the past year moved to the front. At the pulpit area, the veteran who conducts the tribute had six white roses with him. He called out the name of each who had died, reported their service while in the military, and ended each one by using the military jargon of transferring "to be with the Lord," giving the date of death. After this, the widow (or other family member) was given one of the white roses to place in the vase. To complete the tribute to each veteran, the page outlining the service record of the individual was turned. The only addition we have made in the past couple of years is to project two PowerPoint slides per veteran--the first showing name, branch of service, and appropriate badge or insignia, and the second showing two pictures of the individual, one in uniform and the other more recent.

To end the tribute, the Honor Guard saluted toward the flowers and the colors, and as they moved to their seats, the congregation rose to honor them all with applause. I am sure that many other churches show similar displays of honor, and I know that it a moving tribute worthy of the effort.