Tension
Last night I lay awake in bed for more than a hour thinking about a tension I have between two of my beliefs, the first being my belief in the qualified "rightness" of the United States specifically as it relates to the war on terror, the second being my belief in an almost neo-amish view of The Church and its "mission" (transnational, nearly apolitical, etc.).
I can't resolve these beliefs. And best I get loud voices simply reiterating their positions. What I want is resolution, whether that be a missing philosophical/theological pieace of the puzzle or something that shows that there isn't actually a tension. I pondered a lengthy, lengthy blog post appealing to all the readers out there, specifically some fellows like Phil & Chris, brilliant beyond my best estimation, to help me figure it all out.
And maybe I'll do that. But not yet. I have alot, alot of clarification and exposition on the various pieces of this tension and my belief system, and I'm not ready to put them all out there yet. Still, any initial feedback would be great.
What I do want to finish with is an except from an article about the Marine who shot an un-armed Iraqi insurgent. I'm not sure how big this story has gotten, but the video has been floating around the web for awhile, and its stirred up a good bit of controversy.
The incident is being used as proof that the Marines are no better than the insurgents. While in an ultimate sense, in a sense of the potential for evil, of course that's the case, but we're not talking about the ultimate sense, we're talking about the actual case and sitution. Philip Carter sums it up very well:
"There is another key difference that reveals a great moral divide between the Marines and insurgents they fought this week in Fallujah. The insurgents choose the killing of innocents as their modus operandi and glorify these killings with videos distributed via the Internet and Al Jazeera. They recognize no civilized norms of conduct, let alone the rules of warfare. The Marines, on the other hand, distinguish themselves by killing innocents so rarely and only by exception or mistake. Collateral damage is part of warfare, and civilians will die no matter how many control measures are in place. Yet the U.S. military devotes a staggering amount of resources to ensuring that civilian deaths do not happen, from sophisticated command systems that control precision bombs to staffs of lawyers at every level of command to vet targeting decisions. And when such breaches do occur, as they apparently did on Saturday, U.S. military commanders act swiftly to punish the offender, lest one incident of indiscipline blossom into many. (Indeed, one Army captain currently faces charges for killing a wounded Iraqi after a firefight and pursuit through the streets of Baghdad.)
War may be hell, but no honorable warrior likes to spread the hell unnecessarily. Killing Hassan, regardless of any attenuated argument the insurgent apologists may make, was both unlawful and amoral—and beneath what any warrior would do. Killing the insurgent in a split second because it was instinctual, on the other hand, was a tragedy, not an atrocity."
That's all I've got for now.
Josiah Q. Roe | By Josiah Roe | 10:49 AM
Comments
I feel that tension too. I touched on this in one of my posts earlier this week. The way I generally deal with it is to frame the conflict in pragmatic terms. The conflict between Islam and the West isn't a confict of Good vs. Evil, it's a conflict of Us vs. Them. They want me dead, so it's okay to defend myself. As They operate outside the boundaries of civilized law, they do not deserve the protections of the same, so pre-emption is justified.
Things get sticker when we start to talk about the conflict between Islam and the Church. This is an unambiguous battle of Good vs. Evil. It happens that the enemies of the Church also happen to be the enemies of America. Thus we can applaud America for killing our enemies, even while we condemn America for her many problems. America is an accidental hero in the larger conflict, and can be honored as such without assigning her unbridled moral goodness.
Posted by: ryan at November 19, 2004 11:56 AM
I tend to think that the tension you describe is exactly where we should be. We're resident-aliens. That means that life here is messy and confusing. Really, I tend to like your two beliefs. I think your freedom to hold the first follows from the second.
Because of your view of the church, you can sort of "stand back" and cheer on the nations that seem to be approximating justice, using the sword against the right people, etc. But because we know life is messy, we don't freak out when we discover that the nation we're cheering on does bad things too.
I don't know. Maybe we just need to be more at peace with tension. I tend to think we _should_ feel ill at ease this side of the new creation - good people on both sides of issues, etc.
But then again, maybe I'm missing your point.
Posted by: nick at November 19, 2004 12:54 PM
I might not fully understand your tension, and maybe I should just wait for the full version, but in a knee-jerk, initial-feedback way:
You are a citizen of America. You are also a citizen of the Kingdom of God. You know that these are not the same entities, nor do they overlap, but you are part of both.
As a citizen of America, you have an opinion on America's foreign policy. You think America is doing the right things to defend herself from other political entities.
As a citizen of the Kingdom of God, you recognize that the Kindgom of God has nothing to do with defending itself militarily, allying with political powers, etc., but has a mission and a war that, at this point, is purely spiritual. The enemies are spiritual forces which, granted, may move through more tangible means.
I don't think these are contradictory (although maybe tension is appropriate) as long as you keep your categories straight, i.e. the Kingdom of God transcends and, in a sense, opposes and subverts all earthly political structures. You also happen to belong to one of those earthly political structures, and unless you move to Antarctica, you always will.
I think the epistemic minefield comes in when these two "spheres of allegiance" become conflated or misprioritized. I, for example, am much more of a brother to an Iraqi Christian than I am to a non-Christian American soldier, however much I might care about the fate of our soldiers and feel some kind of sense of identity with them.
I think I've just restated what you and everyone else has said so far. I sure hope the "Phil" that you were referring to in your post weighs in, too.
Posted by: Phil at November 19, 2004 01:54 PM
I think you are awfully cute, and I appreciate your sentiment. But I have to say, you never lie awake for more than 5 or 10 minutes once your head hits the pillow. I know, because I always resent how quickly you can drift off :)
I love you!! LOL.
Posted by: april at November 19, 2004 03:08 PM
Post a Comment About "Tension"
Email "Tension" to a friend!
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16732
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tension:






