[Dialogue] Spong 8/2

[KroegerD at aol.com]

The bishop's insights into the history and current situation in the  Middle 
East resonate with my feelings. 
Dick Kroeger 
August 2, 2006 
Cowboy Diplomacy in a  Frightening World  
In one of its regular features The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS  recently 
showed the pictures of 16 more American military personnel who had  recently 
lost their lives in Iraq. I watched with wrenching emotions. Each  photograph 
represented the broken dreams of a now shattered family. These  photographs 
were not just of a soldier or a marine, they were the pictures of a  child, a 
spouse, a grandchild or a friend. The rest of the NewsHour chronicled  the war 
going on in Lebanon, the bombardment of Gaza, the nuclear threats from  Iran and 
North Korea, the newly rising tensions in Afghanistan and the civil  strife 
in Iraq. It is a very uncertain world.  
I suspect that there have been few eras in human history in which genuine  
peace has prevailed, but the tensions that have exploded into hot wars in recent 
 days seem to me to be excessive. I do not know that any administration in  
Washington can be held responsible for all of the chaos across the globe at any 
 one time but there is no question that this administration's actions have 
been a  contributing factor to a number of the present tragedies.  
In the year 2000, Governor George W. Bush of Texas ran for the presidency on  
a platform of "compassionate conservatism." He opposed engaging America in 
the  task of "nation building." In a television interview this candidate, under  
questions from a reporter, revealed that he could not name the heads of state 
of  the four nations with which America was, at that moment, significantly 
involved.  Unlike his father, who had been ambassador to China, head of the CIA 
and for  eight years the vice president, the young George Bush had almost no 
foreign  policy experience and little overseas travel. Recognizing this 
political  weakness, he named former Secretary of Defense, Richard B. Cheney, as his 
vice  presidential running mate and signaled that he would nominate former 
National  Security Advisor, Colin Powell, to be his Secretary of State. The 
electorate  felt reassured by their extensive experience and Mr. Bush headed toward 
the  White House. However, inexperience in the top decision maker is a 
liability  because with no world vision of his own, the new president quickly became 
a pawn  in an internal power struggle among those who do have a particular 
vision. On  one side of this struggle were people still smarting over the fact 
that they  believed the previous Bush administration had not finished the job 
in the first  Iraqi war, leaving Saddam Hussein in power. They included Vice 
President Cheney,  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul 
Wolfowitz. This trio  was already on public record as advocating the use of 
American power to make the  21st century be the "American Century." Removing Saddam 
and exercising America's  control over the Middle East, with its vast oil 
reserves, was high on their  stated agenda long before the second Iraqi war 
began.  
On the other side of this power struggle was Secretary of State Colin Powell, 
 supported by close advisors from the first Bush administration like Brent  
Scowcroft, who understood the complexities of the deep political and religious  
divisions in the Middle East. As a military man, Powell also knew how many  
troops it would take to pacify a conquered Iraq and he was opposed to  
de-stabilizing the entire region, as war would inevitably do, unless that number  of 
troops was committed. In time, the young president cast his lot with the war  
hawks.  
Upon arriving in the White House President Bush also announced a new policy  
of disengagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was well aware that  
President Clinton's intense personal diplomacy, involving all-night sessions 
at  Camp David, had failed to break the impasse. He did not want to place 
himself in  that position. He did not seem to realize that the power politics of 
this region  could not tolerate America's unilateral withdrawal. So Mr. Bush 
began his  presidency not with a foreign policy statement to keep the world's 
trouble spots  under control, but with an announcement that the United States 
would no longer  fund clinics around the world that assisted anyone in getting an 
abortion. The  religious agenda, not the peace of the world, was for him 
front and center.  
Not surprisingly in his first year, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spiraled 
 out of control. The Clinton failure had brought right-winger Ariel Sharon 
into  power in Israel. Yasser Arafat had become more belligerent and spent more 
time  accommodating Hamas in order to protect his own right wing and to keep 
himself  in power. The middle ground had disappeared.  
Everything changed on September 11, 2001, with the terrorist attack on  
America. This nation's people recoiled in anger and fear. Revenge was in the  air, 
patriotism was running high. The hawks in the Bush administration saw the  
opening and into it they marched. After a quick but shallow victory in  
Afghanistan, which included allowing Osama to escape at Tora Bora, Iraq not  terrorism 
would dominate all other considerations in this government. The  personnel and 
material costs of that decision have been astronomical. The war is  now in 
its fourth year. It was a war of choice, a pre-emptive war, and a  go-it-alone 
war, justified by a series of statements about Iraq's weapons of  mass 
destruction, its nuclear capability and its Al Qaeda connections, none of  which 
turned out to be true. The administration even co-opted Colin Powell to  make its 
case before the United Nations, damaging his reputation considerably.  However, 
even Secretary Powell could not sell this war to many of our  traditional 
allies such as Canada, France and Germany, all of which refused to  join this 
effort. This action also alienated Russia and China whose good will is  essential 
to building a safer world. It tied up American military strength,  making it 
impossible to bring proper pressure on other trouble spots.  Afghanistan thus 
became newly unstable, as troops were withdrawn to fight in  Iraq. North Korea 
grew bolder and more bellicose, announcing that it now had  nuclear bombs and 
was beginning to test long-range missiles. The attitude of  this 
administration turned the world's public opinion deeply against the United  States, which 
in turn assisted in the election of anti-American regimes in Iran,  in 
Palestine and in various countries in South America. In Mexico, our most  populous 
neighbor, the anti-American candidate recently appeared to lose by a  whisker in 
what is now a destabilizing contested election. It all seems  interconnected, 
but this is the world we now face.  
When Hezbollah, emboldened by America's weakened position, decided to risk a  
new attack on Israel, aided and encouraged by both Iran and Syria, this 
nation  found itself and its ally Israel under military pressure on three Middle 
East  fronts. The oil that was supposed to flow from Iraq to make it all 
worthwhile is  not yet flowing. Pipelines are regularly sabotaged in that troubled 
land.  Gasoline prices topped $3.00 a gallon in the United States and our 
citizens have  begun to grow restive. The money spent on the war in Iraq has sent 
America's  deficit skyrocketing so that it now stretches out over the years for 
as far as  the eye can see. The looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare 
is an  ignored ticking bomb. The greatest military power in the world 
suddenly looks  very much like Gulliver, tied down by a thousand pygmies. Soon the 
three  thousandth American military fatality from Iraq will be announced, the 
number of  wounded already stands at 18,000. I think it is fair to say that the  
Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz foreign policy has been anything but successful. 
Mr.  Bush backed the wrong side.  
There is always a tendency for the smaller nations of the world to resent,  
even to hate, the nation with the greatest power, but the levels of hostility  
expressed to Americans around the world today are off the charts of history. I 
 have experienced it in England, in Scandinavia, in France, Canada, Australia 
and  New Zealand. It is based in part on fear but above all, it is rooted in 
a lack  of trust. In a recent European poll, people were asked to name the 
nation that  was the biggest threat to world peace. The United States was the big 
winner with  Iran and North Korea distant runners-up. Foreign cartoonists 
have had a field  day with our president. It is a scary time. Even Time Magazine 
recently  proclaimed in a cover story that the "Cowboy Diplomacy" of the 
present  administration has been disastrous. Time declared that it must end, even  
chronicling signs that Mr. Bush was finally beginning to recognize the 
disaster  he has helped to create. A further sign of despair occurred on July 26, 
when  President Bush ordered more troops to Baghdad three years after it had been 
 "liberated."  
A nation's foreign policy is part of its ongoing political process, revealing 
 the values held by those in power. The decision to fight a pre-emptive war, 
to  go to war in the face of the opposition of world opinion and to 
destabilize an  entire region without a workable plan for its future are all political  
decisions. Fate does not determine those things, people do. However, once a 
war  begins and casualties mount, it becomes difficult to be publicly critical, 
so  opposition falls silent. Criticism feels disloyal even traitorous. I 
understand  that problem. However, a war that loses the support of this nation's 
citizens is  also a cause for great dissension in the body politic. That is 
where Americans  are today. A majority of our citizens now think the war in Iraq 
is a mistake. A  growing chorus is calling for withdrawal, a course of action 
that probably  expresses more frustration than wisdom. This rising negativity 
has had strange  fallout, as Senator Joseph Lieberman can attest. The fact is 
that the general  public no longer has confidence in elected leaders. That 
feels very dangerous.  
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recently wrote: "The world hates George 
 Bush more than any president in my lifetime. He is radioactive - and so 
caught  up in his own ideological bubble that he is incapable of imagining or 
forging  alternative strategies." It is the solemn duty of the elected officials 
from  both parties to rise now and right this Ship of State.  
John Shelby Spong  
_Note from  the Editor: Bishop Spong's new book is available now at 
bookstores everywhere  and by clicking here!_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060762055/agoramedia-20)   
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
Don Peacock, via the Internet writes:  
In your answer of May 10, 2006, you wrote, "I see Christianity at its heart  
as deeply humanistic. The core doctrines of the Christian faith suggest that 
God  is revealed through a human life...so I see secular humanism as the 
residual  remains of Christianity once the supernatural elements have been removed." 
In  the next paragraph, you say you do not think "the supernatural 
understanding of  God is essential to Christianity."  
In your answer of May 3, 2006, you reject "the interpretation of Jesus' death 
 as a sacrifice required by God to overcome the sins of the world" as making 
God  "barbaric" and "Jesus the victim of a sadistic deity." This "deeply 
violates the  essential note of the Gospel, which is that God is love calling us to 
love" and  is not "found in the pious but destructive phrase, 'Jesus died for 
my sins.'"  
My question is: If Jesus did not die on the cross to atone for humanity's  
sins, why did he have to die to bring us the message that "God is love, calling  
us to love"?  
Dear Don,  
First, let me say that you have rightly summarized my thinking, for which I  
am grateful.  
Second, this understanding does challenge the traditional understanding of  
the cross as the place where the price of our redemption was paid and leaves  
many people with a gaping vacuum at the center of their understanding of  
Christianity. You have articulated that well.  
I believe what you need to do is to free yourself of the theistic God who  
lives above the sky and who guides human history to accomplish the divine will.  
That mentality forces us to find purpose in everything. Locked into this view 
of  God, the early Christians sought to find purpose in the cross. That is 
how we  got substitutionary theories of the atonement and began to view the 
cross  through the lens of the sacrificial Day of Atonement that the Jews called 
Yom  Kippur. In the liturgy of Yom Kippur a perfect Lamb of God was slain. Its 
blood  spread on the mercy seat of the Holy of Holies that was thought of as 
God's  place of occupation. Therefore, to come to God, people had to come 
through the  blood of the lamb. Then a second animal was brought out and the priest 
began to  confess the sins of the people. As the priest confessed, the sins 
of the people  were thought to leave the people and land on the back and head 
of this animal.  Then burdened with the sins of the people, this animal was 
driven into the  wilderness. The sin bearer (called 'the scape goat') thus 
carried the sins of  the people away. Both the sacrificial lamb and the sin-bearing 
goat became  symbols by which Jesus was understood. In our liturgies today, we 
still say "O  Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."  
If that understanding is removed from the cross, as I believe it must be,  
then questions like 'What is the meaning of the cross?' and 'Why did Jesus die?' 
 become perennial questions. Take purpose out of them and what is left is a  
picture of a free man - whole, complete, with his life being taken cruelly 
from  him. In the portrait painted in the gospels of the cross, the dying Jesus 
speaks  a word of forgiveness to the soldiers who drive the nails. He speaks a 
word of  encouragement to the thief who is portrayed as penitent. He speaks a 
word of  comfort to his mother in her bereavement. Whether these are 
historical memories  or not is not important to me and I do not think any of them 
literally happened.  They are, however, expressions of the corporate memory of 
Jesus. Here was a life  being put to death unjustly but instead of clinging to his 
fleeting existence,  he is still giving life away. That is a picture of a new 
level of human  consciousness. The cross reveals for me the infinite love of 
God calling the  world and me to a new humanity, calling us beyond survival 
toward the deepest  secrets of transcendence. That is what the cross means to me 
and it moves me  deeply.  
I hope this helps you.  
John Shelby Spong
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060809/404122c4/attachment-0001.html