A Nonviolent Response to Joseph Kony

Today I thought I'd share with you a slightly different perspective on the Joseph Kony issue. In response to last Friday's post, A couple of people commented and/or wrote to me about why non-interventionism applies even in this situation. While I stand by the wording of my post, I absolutely see the strict non-interventionist side as well. My point was/is not that I wholeheartedly endorse Obama's actions. I'm simply saying that in light of the extremity of the situation, Obama's decision to send 100 military advisors isn't unreasonable. In my mind, saying that something isn't unreasonable isn't the same thing as saying it's 100% correct.

But enough about me and my insanely frustrating habit of holding to two opposing positions at once

Here's an article to elevate the discussion.

Wish I would have written it----Aaron

By Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove

Armed with the power of social media, some young North American activists set out this week to take on one of the most violent rebels in the Great Lakes Region of Africa–Joseph Kony. They’ve called their campaign KONY 2012, and they’re determined to get rid of Kony and bring the children he’s abducted home by the end of this year.

I commend these folks for their insistence that the church stand against injustice. And, at the same time, I join those who ask: is nonviolence not an option?

Is it possible to respond to Kony with the power of Jesus’ nonviolent love?

For me, this is not a speculative question.

I know the answer is “yes” because I have met her.

Her name is Angelina Atyam.

To continue reading Jonathan's article, click here!

Obama's escalation in Afghanistan, should Christians take a side?

On the eve of the election last November, I wrote a thinly-veiled endorsement of Barack Obama and blasted it out to my friends and family. Now after listening to President Obama’s speech trying to sell the American people on his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, there’s a verse of Scripture that’s taken on a profound new significance, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man in whom there is no help” (Psalm 146:3).

By all accounts, it looks like President Obama is about to commit a colossal mistake. For starters, 30,000 troops is a drop in the bucket for what’s truly needed for an effective counter-insurgency. The Russians tried to do the same thing we’re doing and it turned out to be the death of their empire. And to top it off, we’re sending our men and women to spill their blood in order to prop up a government of war criminals that brutalize women, oppress their people, and use the tax dollars of hard-working Americans to fleece their people and fill their coffers. Is this change we can believe in? No, it’s not. At least for me it’s not.

Then again, I could be wrong. Let’s do a hypothetical and imagine that by a heavy dose of divine intervention combined with an equal dose of strategy and good luck, Obama’s plan works. In 18 months, the threat of the Taliban is neutralized, the Karzai government does a 180 and cleans up their act, and the war is responsibly brought to an end. If I were to attach God to my political views and make it the “Christian view” that the escalation is wrong, then what will I have done to the credibility of the Christian message if I turn out to be wrong? Even, worse. What if I made that a part of the kingdom gospel that I preach? Come to Jesus and end the war in Afghanistan!

Progressive evangelicals often chide their right-wing counterparts for focusing on a narrow set of issues and claiming that their political solutions are God’s solutions. It seems to me, however, that both sides of the political aisle run the danger of pimping God to endorse their political views. It’s all too easy to take the big three of the Manhattan Declaration (abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty) and replace them with the big three of progressive evangelicals’ agenda (war, poverty, and the environment). If both sides claim that God sides with their political views or that their issues are the most important, then how are they really that different from each other? If either side takes a position that turns out to be wrong or endorses a candidate that turns out to be disappointing—as I’m sure that right about now there’s a degree of buyers remorse for religious leaders that endorsed Obama—then whose credibility is damaged?

Perhaps a better approach for Christians is to preach the gospel, serve our fellow man with good works, focus on living a Kingdom lifestyle within the life of the Church, and recognize the ambiguity in all political solutions to earthly problems. I may know that abortion is wrong and never counsel a woman to have an abortion because of my religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that I’m privy to special knowledge on how to translate that into a political solution that will save the most unborn lives. I may refuse to serve in combat because I believe that killing in war is a violation of Jesus’ command to “love your enemies”, but that doesn’t mean that I have God’s perspective on what should be done about Iraq and Afghanistan. If I claim that I do, then the credibility of the gospel that I preach is damaged in the end. If Obama’s decision has taught me anything, it’s that political humility isn’t just an option for Christians; it’s a necessity.

Jesus Camp kids praying for President Obama

Pastor Tim O Brien received a lot of flack when his son Levi O Brien supposedly prayed "to" a cardboard cut-out of President George W. Bush in the film Jesus Camp. Many viewers, including some uniformed people in the media, thought the children at Becky Fisher's camp were worshiping the president, when what they were actually doing was praying for him according to the Scriptural command to "pray for kings and all who are in authority" (I Timothy 2:2).

I've known Tim O Brien, and to a lesser extent his son Levi, since before the release of Jesus Camp. Since then, Pastor Tim and I have had a lot of talks on the role of the Church in society and, although we disagree significantly on many issues, I can say that the portrayal of Tim O Brien and his family as right-wing fundamentalists is off base. The real Tim O Brien, though politically conservative, in no way sees voting Republican as a litmus test for faith. His wife does not consider herself a Republican. And—surprise—his children watch Harry Potter! I've spoken at his church on several occasions, both before and after the release of the film, and each and every time I've found the O Brien family and the church he pastors intelligent and open to new ideas.

Pastor Tim sent me this video this morning of a prayer meeting at his church. I found it inspiring. I hope this breaks some stereotypes.

Let's get the facts!

In the current partisan debacle over health care reform, there's been a lot of misinformation on both sides of the political aisle. As a Christian, I believe that facts matter, and that no matter how devoted one is to his or her political ideology, ideology should never trump truth. And neither should Christians distort facts to fit their prejudices.

For this reason, I'd like to recommend the website www.factcheck.org. I've monitored this site over the past year and I can truly say that this is the only website that I know of that holds both parties accountable.

Here's to hoping that this post will introduce some sanity in this debate.

No, Obama is not a black nationalist that wants to kill your white grandmother

and

No, Republicans do not want to privatize medicare.

Both sides need to be held accountable to the facts.

Check it out!

Obama's secret plot to destroy Catholic social teaching. Really??

I was looking for material to post today when this video was sent to me via e-mail. This one's almost too easy.

Watch first, and then I'll comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVN2MMuiedI

Sounds like a slam dunk doesn't it?

The video implies three things.

1. Socialism is Satanic
2. Mainstream Catholic social teaching is pro-capitalist and anti-socialistic
3. In order for Obama to push his Satanic socialist agenda, he has to bypass the leadership of the Catholic Church and build alliances with far-left fringe minority groups within the Catholic church.

As to the first suggestion, that socialism is Satanic, I'll let the reader decide that, but before we jump to the conclusion that premise two and three are gospel truth, take a look at this article in USA today about the current Pope Benedict's economic sympathies.

Here are a few of the highlights:

Benedict writes, "The market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak.

"

The encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) is a theologically dense explication of Catholic social teaching that draws heavily from earlier popes, particularly PaulVI's critique of capitalism 42 years ago. And echoing his predecessor John Paul II, Benedict says, "every economic decision has a moral consequence."

Italics emhasis mine.

Here's another quote from the article:

The pope's views here are "to the left of Obama in terms of economic policy," particularly in calls for redistribution of wealth, says political scientist Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

Again, italics emphasis mine.

Now here are the Pope's own words according to his latest encyclical on economic policy.

According to the encyclical:

•Labor must be safeguarded after years of rampant market forces leaving citizens powerless in the face of "new and old risks" and without effective trade union protections.

•Elimination of world hunger is essential for "safeguarding the peace and stability of the planet," and the problem is not resources but their inequitable distribution. (italics emphasis mine)

•The environment is "God's gift to everyone" and we have a "grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations" in good condition, says Benedict. He laments, "how many natural resources are squandered by wars!"


My point here is not to deify socialism, but to say that Christians shouldn't be propagators of false hood. A lot of Christians will watch this video and buy into it hook, line, and sinker not because not because it's rooted in truth, but because they want to believe it's true. They want to believe that the Pope agrees with them so much that they'll never bother to check the facts to see if he actually does. Of course, there are some significant differences between the Pope and Obama on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. But this whole idea that Obama's calls for "redistribution of wealth" is foreign to Catholic social teaching is patently false.

If premise two and three are true, apparently the Pope hasn't received the memo.