(continued from yesterday’s discussion)
A study of passivism vs just war might be interesting, but hardly necessary. Passivism does not seem to be a scriptural doctrine for a government to pursue (Rom.13).
But we are not talking about passivism in relation to violating the 6th commandment. We are talking about what we support politically. We are in a position to actively empower our government. We chose to encourage and aid the Ukrainian coup in 2014. I don’t think that fact was even questioned until the very predictable war with Russia. And if that weren’t enough, our war industry is profiting from the conflict while we are actively prolonging it. I have difficulty believing that evangelicals are ‘agonizing’ over the issue when even the evangelicals on this blog who see the war as just have made no attempt to address these well publicized facts.
And the book I’d mentioned, while it does delve into the history of pacifism in the church, focuses primarily on just war theories from a moral standpoint.
None of it — in real life — is so cut and dried, black and white, much as we’d like it to be.
But I’d agree that foreign policy generally in today’s more complicated and changing landscape doesn’t get the political attention it probably deserves. – dj
DJ, I’m not trying to pick on you personally. I want to know what goes through the mind of a Christian when they look at all the evidence and decide to support what we are doing in Ukraine. Just saying Putin is bad and Russia started it doesn’t address the evidence to the contrary.
The reason I focus on Ukraine is because it is just the latest and most visible example of many such engagements on our part, and because our pre-war interference in Ukraine was so flagrant and well documented….and finally, because it was important enough to impeach a US president and all of the illegal and immoral activity that went along with that whole process.
I’d say, to be honest, most of us don’t have the time — or perhaps the particular niche interest in foreign policy as it applies to Ukraine or other specific issues — to do deep dives. That’s on us, but it’s honest. 🙂
I still think recognizing how the church as a whole has struggled – generally – with the issue of war is worthwhile. These are far from new issues for the church — though I suspect we have an evangelical culture that doesn’t think as deeply as those before us have? (And has become too preoccupied with internal US political wars) -dj
The House voted to expel embattled Rep. George Santos over allegations the New York Republican stole money from his own campaign and committed other misdeeds, in only the third expulsion from the chamber since the Civil War. The vote was 311 to 114 just slightly more than the two-thirds House supermajority required to remove a member. ~ dj
Sandra Day O’Connor, First Woman on High Court, Dies
Reagan appointee was most powerful justice for much of her tenure
Justice O’Connor, who retired in 2006 after 25 years on the court, was 93. She ushered in a wave of women marking “firsts” in the early 1980s when she was selected to succeed retired Justice Potter Stewart.
Kevin, might have been an overstatement by the source, but that’s probably why we need to read (and I should post more links) to whole stories 🙂 I’m guessing it’s in influence during issues of that day, but …
From CNN:
~ … O’Connor inspired generations of female lawyers – including the five women who served after her nomination on the high court. They admired her path marking success in a field that had been dominated by men. Over time, she became known as a moderate conservative and often the swing vote on hot-button social issues.
She died after living to see a new conservative-leaning court overturn an abortion decision she helped pen in 1992, lower the bar between church and state and set its sights on another area of interest to her: affirmative action. …
… In nominating O’Connor for the bench in 1981, President Ronald Reagan called her “truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity, and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren who have preceded her.” …
… During her tenure, the court for a time was known informally as the “O’Connor Court” because she served as the deciding vote in so many controversial cases. She was perhaps best noted for her vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 opinion that reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion. Under the new ruling a state could not impose an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion. The opinion would be overturned in 2022 by a conservative court bolstered by three of President Donald Trump’s nominees. …
… O’Connor also wrote a 5-4 opinion upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program in 2003.
Nearly two decades later, the Supreme Court announced that it would take a fresh look at affirmative action during the 2022 term.
She also penned the judgment of the court in 2004 ruling against the George W. Bush administration’s post-9/11 detainee policy, writing, “a state of war is not a blank check.”
She sided with the conservative side of the bench, however, in favor of Bush during the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ensured the presidency for the Republican candidate and remained steadfast in supporting states’ rights.
While criticized at times for lacking a dedication to a hard and fast jurisprudential doctrine, she was known as a swing vote and a pragmatist who dealt with issues on a case-by case basis.
Former clerk Marci Hamilton said anyone who spoke of O’Connor being a fence-sitter was off-base.
“Those would be the people who have never met her,” Hamilton said. “Anyone who has met her knows that she makes up her own mind and is not at all concerned where anyone else is on the spectrum.” …
… After leaving the high court and before her own diagnosis, O’Connor became an advocate for Alzheimer’s disease. She also launched a website dedicated to encouraging young people to learn civics. ~
I see no one is interested in addressing the facts surrounding our support of Ukraine that provide context for the conflict. That’s ok. Nevertheless, in my day to day life, I have been repeatedly asked why evangelicals seem so war-like and eager to use the power of our military to impose our ideas on other countries. I have sometimes used those same excuses that it’s time consuming and complicated to understand, but those words ring hollow in my ears even when they come from my own mouth. I guess those who question those things will just have to be content with doing their own research, coming to their own conclusions, and continue to wonder about the morality of modern American evangelicals. As a community we apparently have nothing else to offer.
I’d rather research it a bit before talking about it 🙂 And I’m not seeing much online (I did check). I am careful about core sources, and I like to read different perspectives. – dj
I think it’s a bit unfair to say U.S. Christians are so “warlike” however, I’m not seeing that. But again it could be different perspectives on what is or isn’t going on globally. -dj
But I appreciate the passion, and you do seem somewhat laser-focused on these particular issues. You clearly care a lot about them. I don’t hear much general discussion about these topics otherwise, for whatever reason (but came of age/high school during Vietnam when war and peace and the US role in the world were front and center). -dj
DJ, The article I linked earlier has some links embedded which might prove helpful for research. Let me know if you learn anything interesting. I’ve been reading and re-reading a lot of heavy duty books and classical authors in the last few months to help put things in perspective– CS Lewis, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas. I’m not ready to buy another book yet, but your and Janice’s suggestions will be on my list.
As for my laser focus, Ukraine is just the latest example. For years we have narrowed our evangelical focus to the issue of the sanctity of life. But we go in debt to kill and destroy, while a few make a profit off of the carnage and the inevitable rebuilding process abroad. It’s insane. I just can’t support what we do anymore in the name of democracy. We play God with people’s lives and civilizations. And our national discussions at election time seem more and more surreal to me. It is no wonder that others are confused by supposedly Christian morality.
What I am expressing is in no way a slam against our military personnel. Dad is a veteran and I was born on a military base. I deeply respect the sacrifices they and their families are making. But we owe them, and ourselves, better leadership.
I hate war. I don’t like guns except for using to obtain food. But guns and war are often necessary for protection of innocrnts from bullies who only deal in violence. I have not thought the money sent to Ukraine has been handled wisely. That is about all I can say as an evangelical who is vision impaired and can’t read a lot.
Debra, thanks, I’ll check the links in that article.
And I agree that sometimes it also has struck me that abortion has become too much “the” focus of evangelical social involvement. There are so many issues the church can and should speak to, though not all of them are easy or will find unity among even believers at times. War is probably one of the more complicated ones and is not a monolith issue, circumstances and issues will weigh heavily in those government decisions.
The US is far from perfect and we’ve had our share of mis-steps (and will again). “Nationalism” and patriotism (in their more negative forms) can blind us to that and that’s why the notion of a Christian nationalist movement is disturbing (to me); but that movement seems to have been in some ascendancy in some corners of late. It’s a cause for concern.
And thanks for the discussion even when it loses some of us 🙂
I don’t know much of anything about Christian Nationalism. It sounds a little creepy at first glance. Someone said when you combine ‘Christian’ with any other term, it inevitably becomes more about the other thing and less about being Christian. I think I agree with that.
Wandering Views 
(continued from yesterday’s discussion)
A study of passivism vs just war might be interesting, but hardly necessary. Passivism does not seem to be a scriptural doctrine for a government to pursue (Rom.13).
But we are not talking about passivism in relation to violating the 6th commandment. We are talking about what we support politically. We are in a position to actively empower our government. We chose to encourage and aid the Ukrainian coup in 2014. I don’t think that fact was even questioned until the very predictable war with Russia. And if that weren’t enough, our war industry is profiting from the conflict while we are actively prolonging it. I have difficulty believing that evangelicals are ‘agonizing’ over the issue when even the evangelicals on this blog who see the war as just have made no attempt to address these well publicized facts.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
Debra
LikeLike
* clarification: “who see the war as just” should be ” who see our participation in the war as just ”
What a difference 3 words make. :–)
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
So your personal issue with this is a narrower or more nuanced focus of US behavior internationally? Just trying to understand. -dj
LikeLike
And the book I’d mentioned, while it does delve into the history of pacifism in the church, focuses primarily on just war theories from a moral standpoint.
None of it — in real life — is so cut and dried, black and white, much as we’d like it to be.
But I’d agree that foreign policy generally in today’s more complicated and changing landscape doesn’t get the political attention it probably deserves. – dj
LikeLike
DJ, I’m not trying to pick on you personally. I want to know what goes through the mind of a Christian when they look at all the evidence and decide to support what we are doing in Ukraine. Just saying Putin is bad and Russia started it doesn’t address the evidence to the contrary.
The reason I focus on Ukraine is because it is just the latest and most visible example of many such engagements on our part, and because our pre-war interference in Ukraine was so flagrant and well documented….and finally, because it was important enough to impeach a US president and all of the illegal and immoral activity that went along with that whole process.
Debra
LikeLike
I’d say, to be honest, most of us don’t have the time — or perhaps the particular niche interest in foreign policy as it applies to Ukraine or other specific issues — to do deep dives. That’s on us, but it’s honest. 🙂
I still think recognizing how the church as a whole has struggled – generally – with the issue of war is worthwhile. These are far from new issues for the church — though I suspect we have an evangelical culture that doesn’t think as deeply as those before us have? (And has become too preoccupied with internal US political wars) -dj
LikeLike
This book is on son’s books to buy list. It may be of interest to some here:
LikeLike
~ WSJ: George Santos Expelled from the House
The House voted to expel embattled Rep. George Santos over allegations the New York Republican stole money from his own campaign and committed other misdeeds, in only the third expulsion from the chamber since the Civil War. The vote was 311 to 114 just slightly more than the two-thirds House supermajority required to remove a member. ~ dj
LikeLike
And another death 😦
Sandra Day O’Connor, First Woman on High Court, Dies
Reagan appointee was most powerful justice for much of her tenure
Justice O’Connor, who retired in 2006 after 25 years on the court, was 93. She ushered in a wave of women marking “firsts” in the early 1980s when she was selected to succeed retired Justice Potter Stewart.
-dj
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s an interesting characterization, “most powerful justice”. What makes one justice more powerful than another?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I already own that book, Janice. 🙂 (Can’t see the title . . . )
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin, might have been an overstatement by the source, but that’s probably why we need to read (and I should post more links) to whole stories 🙂 I’m guessing it’s in influence during issues of that day, but …
From CNN:
~ … O’Connor inspired generations of female lawyers – including the five women who served after her nomination on the high court. They admired her path marking success in a field that had been dominated by men. Over time, she became known as a moderate conservative and often the swing vote on hot-button social issues.
She died after living to see a new conservative-leaning court overturn an abortion decision she helped pen in 1992, lower the bar between church and state and set its sights on another area of interest to her: affirmative action. …
… In nominating O’Connor for the bench in 1981, President Ronald Reagan called her “truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity, and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren who have preceded her.” …
… During her tenure, the court for a time was known informally as the “O’Connor Court” because she served as the deciding vote in so many controversial cases. She was perhaps best noted for her vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 opinion that reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion. Under the new ruling a state could not impose an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion. The opinion would be overturned in 2022 by a conservative court bolstered by three of President Donald Trump’s nominees. …
… O’Connor also wrote a 5-4 opinion upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program in 2003.
Nearly two decades later, the Supreme Court announced that it would take a fresh look at affirmative action during the 2022 term.
She also penned the judgment of the court in 2004 ruling against the George W. Bush administration’s post-9/11 detainee policy, writing, “a state of war is not a blank check.”
She sided with the conservative side of the bench, however, in favor of Bush during the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ensured the presidency for the Republican candidate and remained steadfast in supporting states’ rights.
While criticized at times for lacking a dedication to a hard and fast jurisprudential doctrine, she was known as a swing vote and a pragmatist who dealt with issues on a case-by case basis.
Former clerk Marci Hamilton said anyone who spoke of O’Connor being a fence-sitter was off-base.
“Those would be the people who have never met her,” Hamilton said. “Anyone who has met her knows that she makes up her own mind and is not at all concerned where anyone else is on the spectrum.” …
… After leaving the high court and before her own diagnosis, O’Connor became an advocate for Alzheimer’s disease. She also launched a website dedicated to encouraging young people to learn civics. ~
-dj
LikeLike
Janice, thanks for the book title. I’ll consider it.
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see no one is interested in addressing the facts surrounding our support of Ukraine that provide context for the conflict. That’s ok. Nevertheless, in my day to day life, I have been repeatedly asked why evangelicals seem so war-like and eager to use the power of our military to impose our ideas on other countries. I have sometimes used those same excuses that it’s time consuming and complicated to understand, but those words ring hollow in my ears even when they come from my own mouth. I guess those who question those things will just have to be content with doing their own research, coming to their own conclusions, and continue to wonder about the morality of modern American evangelicals. As a community we apparently have nothing else to offer.
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d rather research it a bit before talking about it 🙂 And I’m not seeing much online (I did check). I am careful about core sources, and I like to read different perspectives. – dj
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s a bit unfair to say U.S. Christians are so “warlike” however, I’m not seeing that. But again it could be different perspectives on what is or isn’t going on globally. -dj
LikeLike
But I appreciate the passion, and you do seem somewhat laser-focused on these particular issues. You clearly care a lot about them. I don’t hear much general discussion about these topics otherwise, for whatever reason (but came of age/high school during Vietnam when war and peace and the US role in the world were front and center). -dj
LikeLiked by 1 person
About foster care:
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/explainer-hhs-targets-faith-based-providers-in-lgbtq-foster-care-rule/
LikeLike
DJ, The article I linked earlier has some links embedded which might prove helpful for research. Let me know if you learn anything interesting. I’ve been reading and re-reading a lot of heavy duty books and classical authors in the last few months to help put things in perspective– CS Lewis, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas. I’m not ready to buy another book yet, but your and Janice’s suggestions will be on my list.
As for my laser focus, Ukraine is just the latest example. For years we have narrowed our evangelical focus to the issue of the sanctity of life. But we go in debt to kill and destroy, while a few make a profit off of the carnage and the inevitable rebuilding process abroad. It’s insane. I just can’t support what we do anymore in the name of democracy. We play God with people’s lives and civilizations. And our national discussions at election time seem more and more surreal to me. It is no wonder that others are confused by supposedly Christian morality.
What I am expressing is in no way a slam against our military personnel. Dad is a veteran and I was born on a military base. I deeply respect the sacrifices they and their families are making. But we owe them, and ourselves, better leadership.
Debra
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hate war. I don’t like guns except for using to obtain food. But guns and war are often necessary for protection of innocrnts from bullies who only deal in violence. I have not thought the money sent to Ukraine has been handled wisely. That is about all I can say as an evangelical who is vision impaired and can’t read a lot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra, thanks, I’ll check the links in that article.
And I agree that sometimes it also has struck me that abortion has become too much “the” focus of evangelical social involvement. There are so many issues the church can and should speak to, though not all of them are easy or will find unity among even believers at times. War is probably one of the more complicated ones and is not a monolith issue, circumstances and issues will weigh heavily in those government decisions.
The US is far from perfect and we’ve had our share of mis-steps (and will again). “Nationalism” and patriotism (in their more negative forms) can blind us to that and that’s why the notion of a Christian nationalist movement is disturbing (to me); but that movement seems to have been in some ascendancy in some corners of late. It’s a cause for concern.
And thanks for the discussion even when it loses some of us 🙂
-dj
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know much of anything about Christian Nationalism. It sounds a little creepy at first glance. Someone said when you combine ‘Christian’ with any other term, it inevitably becomes more about the other thing and less about being Christian. I think I agree with that.
Debra
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for the continued discussion.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 2 people
And some get labeled Christian Nationalists by others who do not take time to distinguish individual nuances and label properly.
LikeLiked by 1 person