On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:25:07 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > Actually, the definition of a good guy is anyone who wants to live > in peace and freedom and would be willing to let his neighbor do the > same. That's not really that bad of a definition.
Whose definition is it? Yours? Bush's? Mine? > had to seek peace at the barrel of the gun, I don't see how we can > automatically declare all such views evidence of bad theology. I haven't said that I think Bonhoeffer's theology is bad. I know Bonhoeffer's theology and George Bush is no Bonhoeffer. > But, it was faith in human institutions. It was faith in the power > of human law. By doing things the right we, we somehow evoke God's > power and everything turns out for the best. That's rather ambiguous, isn't it. Whose definition of "best?" Ours or God's? I heard a news item about a Marine regiment in Iraq that had a large number of churches praying for it, and none of their troops were killed or suffered amputations. All that prayer worked, the report said. Does this mean that our prayers for Wes didn't "work?" What were they praying for, exactly? And is the survival of all of those Marines proof that prayer works? How can prayer, which is based in faith, ever be proven? We could said that all those people prayed for the Marines and they all survived, so it all worked out for the best. As far as I'm concerned, things worked out for Wes's company, which had a lot of losses, for the best, too, as long as we make the best of it, trusting that God redeems all. There was nothing in the six-point plan that claimed that God was behind it or that it would surely work. It was presented with churches behind it in hope of success and under a moral imperative to try all other alternatives before going to war. > But, in a world where theological > understanding about the consequences of war and inaction in the face > of dictators I feel angry when anyone bring up "inaction" or "doing nothing," etc., in this thread. Nobody is suggesting doing nothing. But there are times when something seems terribly wrong by human standards, but God asked us to let events unfold, rather than insisting on unfolding them our way. Our notion of control gets us in plenty of trouble, partly because we imagine that we are in control! The presumption that only we, the United States, can minimize the harm being done by a dictator, easily leaves God out of the picture (or worse, makes Him a cheerleader for us, pro-war, pro-rich, etc.). When, how and to what degree to intervene is rarely clear, but that does not change a deep presumption against war. To reduce the uncertainty to non-interventionism is unfair. > we cannot count on > God to intervene because we eschew violence ourselves. Good heavens, Dan, we can *always* count on God to intervene, my faith tells me. Without God's constant, total involvement, all of creation would come to a halt and we would cease to exist. The question is not whether God is involved, the question is what God is asking of us as the body of Christ. Do you believe that God is constantly involved, constantly present? Do you believe that sometimes we need to intervene because God isn't doing so? > No, but it was sold as a plausible alternative. There is no > evidence that it was. How does it differ from the actions at my > church that I described? No evidence? Do you believe that we are obligated to take seriously the voice of the majority of Christians around the world? Would you agree that democracy is a good system not because people are good, but because we have such capacity for wrong-doing? When the majority of churches and Christians around the world are telling us that what we are about to do is wrong, and leaders that represent a huge number of them present an alternative, how can you say there is no evidence? Are they fools? Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
