Universalism the Christian Way

There’s a lot of controversy going on currently about Rob Bell’s new book and whether it means he’s a universalist. This author has done a good job addressing the issue in this article on the Hope Beyond Hell site. I’d love to know your thoughts on the issue!

The Libyan Strikes: A Just War?

Sorry folks, looks like I’ve got to get a bit political on this one. Many people are trying to use Just War theory to justify the US air strikes on targets in Libya, and I feel I need to point out why that doesn’t fly. Pun intended

Why the US Military intervention in Libya is Wrong and Unjust

First, it is illegal under US law. As Rep. Kucinich points out, Obama himself said in 2007 that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” This is clearly indicated by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Obama, who taught Constitutional law, must know this as his own words show, and yet he went ahead and ordered military strikes without even trying to get congressional approval. Seen in the context of Obama’s other actions, such as continuing military tribunals with Guantanamo detainees, arguing that he has the power to kill anyone (including any American citizen) anywhere at any time, continuing to use signing statements to ignore the intent of congress, and so on, it looks like another attempt by Obama to exercise imperial or near-dictatorial power. Shouldn’t good citizens of the US oppose these strikes, as a simple matter of preserving the Constitution?

Secondly, is it right for any force, American or not, to attack Libya at this time? Well, to show that these air strikes are a just action you must demonstrate that (A) the purpose or goal of the strikes is just (such as self-defense or to protect the lives of innocents), and (B) that the strikes are likely to achieve this goal, and (C) that no less violent or less destructive course of action can achieve this goal.

Let’s take (C) first. A brief look at the actual facts clearly shows that alternative, less violent actions were (and are) available. First, the Libyan government had declared a ceasefire in response to the UN resolution authorizing the no-fly zone (UNSC Resolution 1973), so there was no urgent need to use military strikes. Secondly, a less violent tactic that comes to mind is to use UN peacekeeping troops. The insertion of such troops would not immediately involve any killing, and would also help to protect civilians from their greatest threat, which is not Gaddafi’s air power but the ground forces loyal to him. Third, as former representative Alan Grayson notes, an alternative, less violent strategy is to use “Economic sanctions, including extending the de facto oil embargo and asset freeze that already are in effect… Whatever the result in the streets, as soon as Gaddafi runs out of money, he’s gone.” Fourth, the US used depleted uranium munitions in their air strikes. When these DU rounds explode they disperse uranium, which poisons the ground and all those near the area, including the civilians who the strikes were supposed to protect. Does anyone really think that no less destructive strategy than using DU rounds in air strikes existed?

Those reasons are already sufficient to show that the US air strikes are unjust, as they fail criterion (C). However, the problems are even more significant, as the strikes fail criteria (B) and (A) also.

Let’s take (B) next. Are the air strikes likely to achieve the stated goal of protecting Libyan civilians? Alan Grayson presents good reason to think the answer is “no”: “The Libyan Air Force hasn’t received a major delivery of new aircraft in 22 years. Roughly three-quarters of its ‘air’craft can’t fly. It is true that the Libyan Air Force, such as it is, has been deployed. But the serious threat to civilians in Libya is not from the Libyan Air Force. It’s from the government security forces on the ground. A no-fly zone does not take away their guns, or their artillery.” Grayson points out that the alternative – and less destructive – option of targeted sanctions differs: “And it’s likely that an oil embargo/asset freeze will work. Oil is 95% of Libya’s exports, and 25% of GNP. Libya has about four years of oil revenue in the bank, but with an asset freeze and economic sanctions, that becomes meaningless.” Faced with the prospect of becoming penniless, Gaddafi or at least the forces loyal to him would likely quickly come to heel. Similarly, the option of using peacekeeping troops would also be more likely to be effective in protecting civilians, as noted above.

Finally, (A): surely no one could argue that the stated goal of protecting civilians from a merciless slaughter is a just one. Well, certainly the *stated* goal is a just one, but based on our knowledge of US history, is it likely that the stated goal is the *actual* goal of the US national security state?

As an analogy, suppose someone you think is your friend says they need a gun to defend themselves and you from a gang of thugs at the other end of town who are very well armed and planning to kill you both. You give him a gun. He goes and mows them down, including a lot of the surrounding neighborhood and their innocent family members, and takes over their homes and businesses. You then find out the thugs never had any weapons to speak of in the first place. This fellow then says, “oops, guess I was wrong, but look at that guy over there – the one with the lucrative business? He’s beating his wife and kids, and will surely come after us next. I need another gun – with some more ammo – to deal with him.” After this sort of thing happens again and again, you may start to suspect that your “friend” may not be entirely honest about what his real goals are, and that in actuality he may be nothing more than a mafia-type thug.

An unbiased view of the history of US military interventions (and covert operations) reveals something analogous. The publicly stated aims of US foreign policy rarely match their actual goals. The actual goals tend to be to repress democracy, labor rights, and environmental protections so as to provide the most profitable platform for US-based multinational corporations to extract available resources.

This pattern is completely consistent with what is happening in Libya. Gaddafi stated publicly last Tuesday that all Libyan oil contracts would now go to the Russians, Chinese, etc. instead of American firms, and a few days later the UN no-fly resolution was passed with US support. Libya is one of the most oil-rich African nations, and the US will not want to give up any control over this resource.

The alternative is to think that the US national security state – with US troops currently fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Colombia, while also supplying weapons and other material support for brutal dictators around the world, for years, including supporting genocidal campaigns against indigenous people (see for example the history of Guatemala, El Salvador, etc.) – has suddenly decided to act on purely humanitarian impulses. Possible? Maybe – but likely? Surely not.

Further, the fact that no attention is given to the human rights atrocities happening in Bahrain and Yemen – with US support – gives the lie to the stated humanitarian purposes in Libya.

So I conclude that the US military strikes in support of a US no-fly zone in Libya fail to meet criteria (A) – (C) of a just war, and are therefore unjust.

Shocked or incredulous about my statements about US foreign policy? You can check the facts out for yourself; I recommend checking out William Blum’s _Killing Hope_ and _Rogue State_, Michael Parenti’s _To Kill a Nation_, Chalmers Johnson’s _Nemesis_, and most of Noam Chomsky’s political books (_A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor, and the Standards of the West_ is a nice short clearly written one) for more of the facts of what the US has actually done around the world, and why.

Loving All Things

Some more wisdom from the Orthodox mystical tradition about learning to love all things can be found in this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-cairns/the-responsibility-of-eac_b_684745.html. Very cool.

I also want to mention that including all beings in the scope of the Jesus Prayer (I discussed this practice in the last post) is changing the associations I make with the word “me”. When I say “me” I automatically think of more than myself. I think this is helping me become less self-centered, and more content to be simply a servant.

We’re All in the “Me”: A Note on the Jesus Prayer

I’ve been increasingly aware recently about the extent of my self-centeredness in prayer (well, in life in general really), and whether I should change some of my prayers in light of this consciousness. In particular, in using the Jesus Prayer, “O my Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, Have Mercy on Me” I’ve been considering changing the ‘Me’ to ‘Us’. I was a little reluctant to do this: truly amazing Orthodox monks have used this prayer for centuries, and surely they loved their fellow man at least as much as I did, so who was I to think I knew better? But on the other hand, why should I pray only for myself when I could be praying for all of us?

Then I came across this passage from Wounded by Love, by Elder Porphyrios of the Holy Mountain:

“Pray for others more than for yourself,” says the Elder. “Say, ‘Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me,’ and you will always have others in your mind. We are all children of the same Father; we are all one. And so, when we pray for others, we say ‘Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me,’ and not, ‘have mercy on them.’ In this way we make them one with ourselves.”

I found the passage in the article “The Prayer of the Heart” by Scott Cairns on the Huffington Post website, where the author’s journey closely matched my own.

I was truly reassured to see such mystical wisdom expressed by Elder Porphyrios (it also coincides with my interest in Chinese medicine, where as humans we are considered microcosms of the macrocosm). Mystically, we are all one body, a deeply interconnected body that includes us humans, the earth, our plant and animal siblings, and probably all of creation. So when I say the Jesus Prayer, I can say it with an awareness that the ‘me’ refers to this body, the body that includes all of us and more – not the little me who is so often unaware of his deep connection to his fellow creatures and the world around him.

Sounds good to me!

A Mystical Interpretation of the Seven Seals

I just added a page where I placed the last sermon I gave at Trinity United Methodist. Since it’s a mystical interpretation, it aims to bring the meaning of the scripture directly into your everyday life, rather than only some later end times. I welcome your comments!

The Church of Acts and Us

So recently I felt called to go through the book of Acts and compare what the churches there were doing to our modern day practices. OK so here’s some of what the early Christians were doing according to the book of Acts:

- They ate together daily

- They prayed together daily

- They met daily and studied the Word

- Their lives were filled with daily praising of God

- They celebrated the Eucharist daily

- They sold their possessions and gave to the needy

- They had their property in common

- Miracles came through them frequently

I hope you’ll check through these and make sure I’ve got them right. Also, is there anything I left out that should be mentioned?

OK so how do most of our practices today stack up to these? What practices, if any, can we add to our own schedules both individually and corporately? I await your comments.

One brief thought from me: what leaps out to me is how these folks did a lot of stuff together every day. I feel totally wimped out compared to them!

The Trinity?

It just occured to me that many of us don’t really believe in the Trinity. By that I mean, we’re not really down with it (as we used to say in Brooklyn); it’s at best an abstract concept but not a directly experienced, lived reality. For many of us in the “mainline” (sideline?) churches, when we think of God we think of Jesus. That’s wonderful. However, what about the other two thirds of the Trinity? Except for in the more charismatic churches, many of us basically ignore the Holy Spirit.

And the Father – well, many actually prefer *not* to think of the Father! The Father is still associated (wrongly, IMHO – see my earlier posts for my take on this) with a judgmental, punishing type of figure who is watching your every move and ready at the slightest slip to throw you into perdition. It’s gotten to the point that in my church we’ve actually removed “Our Father” from the Our Father! Instead awkwardnesses like “Giver of Life” are substituted.

I understand the motivation behind doing that – I really do appreciate the desire to have more inclusive language – but is “Giver of Life” really the answer? Who does “Giver of Life” even refer to? When I hear “Giver of Life”, I think it could be my Mom. I love my Mom, but I don’t want to worship her IMHO, there is not enough tradition behind “Giver of Life” for it to mean anything real. There is no lived mystical experience behind “Giver of Life”, I am quite sure. It’s an empty phrase.

Instead of using a meaningless phrase to cover up what are real issues – about who God is, and about the emotional wounds that underlie how some react to the phrase “Our Father” – perhaps we ought to confront these things directly. Prayer (including praying to experience the living reality that “Our Father” refers to), meditation, and conversation among our community is I suggest a more helpful path than trying to sweep things under the rug with “Giver of Life”.

The case with the Holy Spirit is different, it seems more a case of neglect. We (in the sideline churches) don’t usually pray to the Holy Spirit all that much or talk about what the Spirit does. Why? It’s an interesting question. Is it because we’re afraid of the power of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not “quite safe”, to quote C. S. Lewis, is it?

Well, what should we do about it?

I await your comments.

Best Wishes,

Manu