My friend Chuck (Rev. Charles M.) Sampson sent me a copy of Dennis Prager's November 22 Townhall column where Prager refers to a passage from the Talmud that explains a great deal and is worthy of keeping before our eyes, namely, that those who show mercy to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.
This is not a simple indictment of mercy shown to cruel people from which Christians should resile, but of mercy granted apart from justice, which properly speaking is not mercy at all. In our day this is highly counter-intuitive except among those who have been granted the clarity of perceiving the obvious--the cruelty of people who allege kindness and liberality to be their controlling virtues, but for whom in practice this means tolerance or even active support of evil and hatred of people who oppose it.
I would add prudence to justice.
Posted by: Charles R. Williams | November 25, 2005 at 08:03 AM
Prager's piece is so simplistic, it's hard to know where to start with it. To begin with, surely those on both the left and the right have their blind spots wrt what they consider evil. One can be skeptical of Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric without being a fan of the regimes he named (or of "evil" in general); many objected to the rhetoric because of how it was being used to bolster the case for attacking Iraq. (More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil)
How is political opposition to GWB and his administration's foreign policy understood as cruelty? Political opposition w/in a democracy is cruel? George W Bush is the epitome of mercy? I find this rhetoric very bewildering.
Finally, how do we (Christians, of whatever political stripe) manage to hate evil without hating "evil-doers"? Much of my wariness about this rhetoric is because we so easily dehumanize and demonize those whom we are commanded to love. This temptation, of course, is faced by those on the left as well as those on the right.
Posted by: Juli | November 25, 2005 at 11:47 AM
Juli,
What you are witnessing in the advocacy of Prager's article in Hutchens not-so-subtle war mongering. Conjoined with his overt distaste for minority poor (referring to them as "rats"), Hutchens is never one to show self-restraint when it comes to pouring his John Birch Society style conservatism into an empty vessel variant of "mere Christianity."
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the neccessity implied by the statement "those who show mercy to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful." If by "mercy" one means turning a blind-eye, than perhaps Hutchens (and Prager's) "logic" would follow. However, in no conception of "mercy" that I have found in my scant few years on this Earth have I seen "turning a blind-eye" to come part and parcel with them. Maybe anything short of bloody revenge and self-righteous anger constitutes flimsy, wishy washy "mercy" in Hutchens' morally pristine Weltanschauung.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 25, 2005 at 02:57 PM
Many nowadays think it "simplistic" to call evil by its name. But to avoid naming evil is to avoid recognizing it. To avoid calling something evil because something else is also evil is a sign of moral confusion. I am talking about the common evasion, "I know Saddam Hussein was bad, but George Bush told lies about weapons of mass destruction."
If you can say that then no, you do not really think Saddam was evil. You would rather have let him continue to feed his opponents into shredders, to allow his sons to rape any woman they felt like raping, to destroy the great marshes because these were the ancestral homelands of people who had become his political opponents, to create mass graves, to keep a nation living in terror -- rather let him continue these things than to admit that it was just and right to go to war to remove this man if this means giving an ounce of credit to your own enemy, George W. Bush.
Think of those who were merciful to Saddam in years past: The UN officials who would not call him evil, but many of whom turned out to be making large sums of money from him through the oil-for-food program. They were merciful to the evil Saddam, and so they allowed evil to continue toward his victims, and the victims of other tyrannies, and the victims of genocides.
Posted by: Judy Warner | November 25, 2005 at 07:54 PM
I need to clear up a point in my previous post. I do not think George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. It is a sign of the same moral confusion to allow oneself to be swept up in the political machinations of the left and believe that saying what virtually every intelligence service in the world believed at the time was "lying."
Posted by: Judy Warner | November 25, 2005 at 07:57 PM
Think of those who were merciful to Saddam in years past
Including the past American administrations that found it expedient to support Saddam, covertly or overtly?
Posted by: Juli | November 25, 2005 at 08:43 PM
But to avoid naming evil is to avoid recognizing it. To avoid calling something evil because something else is also evil is a sign of moral confusion.
I agree with you to a point. However, your first statement begs the question, "How do we recognize it?" or, maybe more appropriate, "Who is to recognize it?" One would hope we have enough moral common sense to identify robbing a bank or beating an elderly man to be immoral; but how about going to war? Slashing funding for welfare? Raising taxes to support environmental measures? I suspect the moral sense on these issues is not all that common. Reasonable people disagree.
If you can say that then no, you do not really think Saddam was evil.
Perhaps, but does his evil warrant a war? Is his evil of a greater degree than the evil of North Korea or the evil of China's human rights abuses? Is it evil for us to fail to go to war against them? Or, at the very least, does it convey a moral failing?
They were merciful to the evil Saddam, and so they allowed evil to continue toward his victims, and the victims of other tyrannies, and the victims of genocides.
All of those charges can be steered towards U.S. foreign policy as well--your point?
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 25, 2005 at 08:57 PM
Our past support of Saddam made it even clearer that we had a duty to the people of Iraq.
No, we cannot go to war against every evil. But we can recognize the evil and take that into account in our debates -- in a real way, not just "well, he might be evil, but..."
If we had a clear way to save the people of North Korea I would be in favor of it. But not everything is as clear cut as getting rid of Saddam. We co-existed with the Soviet Union for decades because there was no other alternative. That evil empire was brought down by the actions President Reagan (and others) who spoke about the evil for the world to hear and for the inspiration of anti-communists within and outside Russia. Those who showed mercy (not to mention kowtowing) to the Soviet dictators over the years did not help the suffering people there.
Posted by: Judy Warner | November 26, 2005 at 06:33 AM
Many nowadays think it "simplistic" to call evil by its name.
That's not what I was referring to as simplistic; what *is* simplistic (or disingenuous) is the pretence that those on the left aren't opposed to evil. A friend of mine on an e-mail list observed that those on both the right and the left focus on certain evils in the world and ignore others.
Our past support of Saddam made it even clearer that we had a duty to the people of Iraq.
Do you consider those in past administrations who supported Saddam (many of the same players in the current administration) to have been complicit in supporting evil? They weren't leftists at the time, so what does that imply?
Posted by: Juli | November 26, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Yes, I think some of them were complicit. I think George Bush senior was and is very much a man of the foreign policy establishment, which means morality plays no part in his political beliefs. At some point during his presidency when he was meeting some Soviet official who had been in the KGB, he commented to the effect that both the KGB and the CIA had done "naughty" things. This shocked me so deeply that I have always remembered it, and it is the first thing I think of when I hear his name.
You are right that everyone focuses on certain evils and ignores others. Partly that is because of ideology; for those in positions of responsibility, sometimes it's because you can't take on every problem in the world. I think it's significant, though, that the left often takes on evils that do not affect them or their country, while minimizing those that do. Thus South African apartheid was to the left the greatest evil of the time, while Communist Russia was just a country reacting to the United States's provocations.
Posted by: Judy Warner | November 26, 2005 at 03:35 PM
Do you consider those in past administrations who supported Saddam (many of the same players in the current administration) to have been complicit in supporting evil? They weren't leftists at the time, so what does that imply?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I've never understood why this "argument" carries so much weight with opponents of the administration's policies. Isn't it possible that Rumsfeld, Cheney, & co. have changed their minds? Maybe it's even possible that after 9/11, they realized the error of their previous ways and decided they should rectify the situation. Or maybe it is actually the case that in the '80's the circumstances dictated that we support Iraq, however distasteful we found Saddam, while in the '00's circumstances dictated that Saddam be removed.
There is an elemental distinction that has to be made here: there is a difference between recognizing evil and calling it by it's name and making a judgement about what one should do in response to that evil. To the extent the Ford or Reagan administrations didn't recognize the evilness of Saddam's regime, or didn't publicly declare it as such, they were complicit in the same errors the Left makes today.
And it's a false choice to claim that we can either militarily attack all of the members of the Axis of Evil, or none of them. We've toppled Saddam's regime and are well on the way to establishing the most liberal regime in the Arab world, on top of doing something similar in Afghanistan, and we've lost a ridiculously low number of soldiers, as painful as those losses are. We attacked Saddam because we could - if we could do something similar in Iran and/or North Korea with comparable costs, we would. But in fact the costs would be much higher, and the American public (to say nothing of the press or Beltway grandees) isn't willing to suffer those costs. Now, if a nuclear weapon made in North Korea goes off in some American city, the calculations will be entirely different.
Posted by: Mike S. | November 26, 2005 at 07:25 PM
The situation with South Africa and the Soviet Union is quite apt. South Africa's apartheid regime was grossly unjust, but South Africa was not aiming for a worldwide empire and trying to expand its regime over the globe. The number of people suffering because of the Soviet Union dwarfed those suffering because of apartheid. But because apartheid violated the liberal sacred doctrine of economic equality, it was loudly denounced by liberals and (correctly) made into a pariah. But because the Soviet Union professed the correct doctrine of economic equality (no matter what the actual realities were), it's sins were overlooked by the left.
Posted by: Mike S. | November 26, 2005 at 07:30 PM
The fundamental issue both "sides" (if such a crude bifurcation even works here) ignore is that the primary "doctrine" behind the Iraq War involves a gross revamping of American foreign policy from the realist/neo-realist perspectives of "classical conservatisim" towards the neoconservative vision of maintaining American hegemony through the exportation of democracy. Whatever one might think of this doctrine, it's clear (or should be clear) that it marks a significant turn in the way America comports itself on the world stage. It also sets a new justification for going to war that would have appeared almost insane in previous generations (not that the "wisdom" of the past always serves as an adequate basis to condemn the present).
What I have seen missing from the discourse on the neoconservative approach is whether or not it can possibly be viewed as appropriate from a Christian perspective. Christianity has (seemingly) long held to the doctrine of "Just War" as first set forth by Augustine and later reaffirmed by Aquinas and those of his school. It has been a cornerstone of Catholic thought for centuries and yet I remain perplexed at how many Catholics (and likeminded Protestants) in the United States have passed it by in order to give the thumbs-up for the current military effort in Iraq. Given that Iraq has never attacked the United States nor was ever suspected of having weapons that could touch American soil, can a preemptive war like the one we have waged be deemed "just" under the Augustine-Aquinas understanding? I fear nobody wants to confront that issue because the "obvious" answer is, "No...it can't..."
Of course we live in a different world than Augustine and Aquinas did; certainly there is room to adjust the "spirit" of their thought to our contemporary geopolitical situation. However, that still leaves the primary question unanwered as to whether the neoconservative vision can properly fall within it. We're doing more than simply defending our soil--we're engaged in a project meant to revamp the political core of the Middle East. Is that justified? Can a Christian truly ascent to such measures? Those are the questions that ought to be asked by anyone concerned with "mere Christianity." What saddens me (and sometimes even sickens me) is how quickly the apologetics flow in such patently independent forms from anything recognizable as Christian.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 27, 2005 at 01:12 AM
There are valid defenses of the war aside from a neo-conservative perspective. I don't agree that the war is to extend American hegemony. Rather, it's based on the idea that a democratic Middle East means a far less aggressive Middle East, and that means a safer world for us. It's classic constitutional reasoning: the government's duty is to protect its citizens. Without democracy, the Middle East provides a breeding ground for radical Islam. If we leave Iraq, al Qaeda will take hold in the resulting turmoil. If democracy takes hold, even an imperfect democracy, the citizens of other Middle East countries will demand change. Even in Saudi Arabia, which produced most of the 9/11 attackers.
Posted by: Judy Warner | November 27, 2005 at 08:52 AM
Judy, a democratic Middle East at this time does not result in a safer world, because the majority will always vote for Islam. I don't object to the toppling of Saddam in general--the man was indeed evil--but I think it was a big mistake for America to do it the way it did, seeking to establish democracy. See how America's desire to implant "freedom of religion" resulted in the Iraqi constitution enshrining Islam in law.
If we want a stable Middle East, we need to ensure a greater victory against Islam in general. When that heresy is entirely broken and we are sure no one is inclined towards it anymore, than we can trust the people of Iraq et al. to vote in a godly manner.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | November 27, 2005 at 09:57 AM
Given that Iraq has never attacked the United States nor was ever suspected of having weapons that could touch American soil, can a preemptive war like the one we have waged be deemed "just" under the Augustine-Aquinas understanding? I fear nobody wants to confront that issue because the "obvious" answer is, "No...it can't..."
If the first Gulf War was a just war, then the second one is, too, since it is a logical extension of the first one. In the interim, Iraq regularly attacked our military aircraft and tried to assassinate our ex-president. It's also a mistake to think that Iraq is a separate and distinct problem from the terrorist threat (which is of course the connection between Iraq and 9/11, not the idea that Saddam collaborated with Al Queda on the attacks), but that's been hashed to death and few people aren't decided on that question one way or the other.
It also sets a new justification for going to war that would have appeared almost insane in previous generations...
Previous generations never faced anything like the current Islamist movement, coupled with advanced technologies. Our old policies got 3,000+ people incinerated. The alternative to taking Saddam out was to sit back and let him gain more power and influence over the region, and eventually develop nuclear weapons. Or do you have another plausible scenario?
Posted by: Mike S. | November 27, 2005 at 03:04 PM
Mike,
If the first Gulf War was a just war, then the second one is, too, since it is a logical extension of the first one.
That's just silly. The first Gulf War had a different objective than this one. Yes, it may be a "logic extension" if one follows the neocon reasoning that we had a larger job to do in the first one that was left incomplete. However, that still doesn't answer whether or not that "incomplete" job would have been justified.
Our old policies got 3,000+ people incinerated.
That statement assumes a lot and offers little in the way of support. We can speculate endlessly on what could of been had we done "X", but there is nothing to test that against. Even if we had followed the measures that had been suggested in the past, there's no guarantee 9/11 would not have happened or that something else wouldn't have.
The alternative to taking Saddam out was to sit back and let him gain more power and influence over the region, and eventually develop nuclear weapons.
It really doesn't matter anymore, does it? We'll never really know and I suspect that it would crush too many people's good, Christian war mongering to ever think twice on it. We're there, he's out, and the rest--as they once said somewhere--will be history.
All of what you wrote, by the way, completely dodged the question as to whether or not a Christian can call the Iraq War "just.'
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 27, 2005 at 03:40 PM
Interesting that such a long string on President Bush and war policy should have developed over what caught my eye in Prager's column as a general truth expressed in the Talmud and echoed in the Christian faith in the teaching that believers should expect to be hated for no other reason than their goodness.
Do I think the war as an act of mercy applies to a significant degree to the Bush war policy? I do, because it seems more reasonable, given the President's personality and beliefs, than explanations that depend on making him into a monster or an knucklehead. I have seen his views on the reasons for pursuing the war among friends and relatives returning from the field who know the people for whom and beside whom they have been fighting and helping to rebuild the land. They are convinced that their presence there is an act of mercy, and have, to put it mildly, a low regard for those who can't appreciate their work as such.
There are political arguments, as there always are, for pursuing or not pursuing any given war, which will work themselves out upon the social fabric of the nation and determine when and under what circumstances this particular one will end. What concerns me most in these matters--and is most disclosive of what Bush's presidency, whatever its strengths and weakness, represents to those who hate and fear him most--is the appearance that he is serving as Christianity's whipping boy--that is, as a person upon whom the irrational, transpolitical, hatred of those who hate good can be, and is, being poured out. He represents to many what they hate and fear about the Christian faith, and to the degree this is so, what appears to him, and to many of us, as an attempt to exercise mercy, must be explained in some way that bases his motives in evil or stupidity, or some combination thereof. I don't think Christians can accurately discuss the rightness or wrongness of any highly controversial policy, of this President at any rate, without coming to some kind of understanding on this point--for if there is no agreement here, I would not expect agreement elsewhere.
Now, Mr. Sanchez, who is so concerned for truth: You tell the readers that I have written that I regard the minority poor as rats. This surprises me, for while I believe quality of rat-ness to be unstrained, rising as a gentle effusion from hell, I also believe it comes upon people of all races and classes--as does goodness from heaven. I would readily refer to some minority poor as "rats," to be sure, but you give the impression that I have said this about the whole class. This I find surprising, for I don't recall saying something that reflects my actual views so badly. I wonder if you might bring forth the citation to which you are referring so that I might own my fault publicly and praise you for your moral indignation and the acuity of your recall. Let's have it:
Posted by: Steve Hutchens | November 28, 2005 at 12:16 PM
Mr. Sanchez says:
"That's just silly. The first Gulf War had a different objective than this one. Yes, it may be a "logic extension" if one follows the neocon reasoning that we had a larger job to do in the first one that was left incomplete. However, that still doesn't answer whether or not that "incomplete" job would have been justified."
I think this demonstrates a major disagreement between the perspective of the "left" and "right". Mr. Sanchez (as a representative of the "left") call's Mr. Mike's entirely reasonable view "silly" and seems to think that only a "neocon" could reason in such a way. I don't subscribe to the "neocon" perspective of "democratic hegemony" (as Mr. Sanchez puts it) yet I am entirely in support of the US mission in Iraq. While I do suspect Mr. Sanchez of posing the "just war" question for merely utilitarian purposes, I do think it a good question. The "left" seems to want to utilize the Roman Church's "Just war" doctrine in support of it's essentially pacifistic stance. There has been a couple of good article's on this in First Things. As an Orthodox, I can confidently say that our "Just war" doctrine is more fluid, and can more easily respond to modern developments such as Islamo-facism...
Posted by: Christopher | November 28, 2005 at 01:03 PM
Mr. Hutchens says,
"I don't think Christians can accurately discuss the rightness or wrongness of any highly controversial policy, of this President at any rate, without coming to some kind of understanding on this point"
It seems to me that there are many sincere traditional Christians who none the less take essentially pacifistic stance towards "justice between nations" and essential socialistic stance towards "tax and property". To these Christians, the correct understanding towards your very good point is largely irrelevant. Theirs is a marriage of coincidence (not convenience) with the secularist/materialist, and they can not really be responsible or their spouses sins. At the end of the day, whether Bush is a "knucklehead" for sincere but erroneous reasons, he is still a tool of the Devil. I of course don't agree with this view, but I have more than once heard it...
Posted by: Christopher | November 28, 2005 at 01:18 PM
I apologize for the triple posting, but I somehow missed this from Mr. Sanchez:
"All of what you wrote, by the way, completely dodged the question as to whether or not a Christian can call the Iraq War "just.'"
As an Orthodox Christian, I believe the Iraq War is "Just", a "Just War". It is not even a "lesser evil" as some would have it, but a lesser Good, in the sense it is in accordance with virtue, prudence, and courage. May the Lord God have mercy on our fighting men and women, keep them safe in body and soul, and grant the victory over our adversaries!
Posted by: Christopher | November 28, 2005 at 01:25 PM
I'm assuming the "rats" reference had to do with this thread from a few months back:
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2005/09/the_wisconsin_s.html
I don't think Christians can accurately discuss the rightness or wrongness of any highly controversial policy, of this President at any rate, without coming to some kind of understanding on this point--for if there is no agreement here, I would not expect agreement elsewhere.
Do you mean that Christians who disagree about this policy or GWB's character cannot agree on other issues or matters of faith? I do disagree strongly with some Christians about these matters but also believe that we share much common ground.
Posted by: Juli | November 28, 2005 at 02:03 PM
To all:
I am hardly advocating for the "Left" when it comes to the Iraq War. I love how simplistic and unsophisticated the Hutchens-inspired threads on this blog get as politics generally gets bifurcated into "Left/Right", "Liberal/Conservative", or (most comedic of all) "Good/Evil." A Christian worldview is chipped away into an unconvincing apologetic for the Republican Party, as if God Himself ordained it as His true representatives on Earth. Sometimes, if I didn't laugh, I would have to cry.
As for Christopher's comments, I'm really curious where in Orthodoxy one finds this "fluid just war" doctrine. I have a chilling fear that the citation I am going to be confronted with will be that of Fr. Webster's historical-theological revisionism that went to press last year. (Strangely, most who advocate for Fr. Webster's position seem to ignore the rather serious blows done to his approach in the St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly a couple of years back.) I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how "Islamo-fascism" could ever apply to a forcefully secular state as the former Iraq under Hussein. Perhaps I missed something when all of my conservative brethren were picking up cool new terminology from professed bigots and public embarassments like Michael Savage.
I thank Juli providing the link. Perhaps now Mr. Hutchens will be so kind as to explain his clairvoyance when it comes to determining the "rats" of our society. I'm strained to imagine how a statement that is bereft of the back peddling "explanation" Mr. Hutchens offered above should have been read. Perhaps folks such as myself are supposed to take it on faith that when Mr. Hutchens speaks, he speaks only with the voice of authority. "Ratty" minority minds such as the one I possess should be silent in the face of his bright white intellect.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 28, 2005 at 02:32 PM
When I say, "I would not expect agreement elsewhere" I am still speaking of the controversial policies of this presidency. Do I think Christians can disagree over GWB's character can agree that Christ rose from the dead? Yes, as surely as anybody can be right on one thing and wrong on another, or be right or wrong by degrees. But I also believe that eventually every believer will be right, and that we will all eventually have to repent of sins that have caused sin-related wrongness, and that on the Last Day, some will have much to repent of, and others will have little--and that it is wise to labor toward agreeing with our Adversary while we are yet in the way.
Posted by: smh | November 28, 2005 at 02:56 PM
Mr. Sanchez,
Wow! After reading your last post and the link to Mr. Hutchens Orwellian inspired allegory I have to say that, from little I know about you, "angry young man" seems to fit you like a glove. Please tell us, how do you get to "Ratty minority minds" from his post back in September? Scratch that, I do not want to know.
Of substance (possibly) is your thoughts on Orthodox Just War doctrine. Are your Orthodox? You are aware of Mr. Webster's efforts to counter the anti-Christian pacifism of the "lesser-evil" philosophy. Have you actually read the St. Vlad's Theological Quarterly? If so, please tell me what was the "rather serious blows done to his approach"? All but one (possibly two) of the "responses" read like pseudo-Protestant tract's. They were un-historical and clearly pre-supposed a deep and abiding pacifism. There was no way to tell from the responses what Tradition said about the matter - the responses were not from the Tradition. Mr. Webster may have overstated his case, but only one response had anything substantial to offer. I find this very unfortunate, because western Orthodoxy (i.e. America and Western Europe) is bereft of solid thinking right now. Basically you only have two substantial voices: Fr. Webster on one hand and the misnamed "Orthodox Peace Fellowship" on the other. In any case, the Tradition clearly offer's us a perspective that, Thanks be to God, allows us to take a robust and courageous stand against Islamo-facisism...
Posted by: Christopher | November 28, 2005 at 03:12 PM
Christopher,
After reading your last post and the link to Mr. Hutchens Orwellian inspired allegory I have to say that, from little I know about you, "angry young man" seems to fit you like a glove.
Does it fit? That's fine if you think so, but I have to confess my pulse beats steady even when I'm confronted with dangerous rhetoric. You'll have to excuse me if I feel anything but impeached by your remarks.
Please tell us, how do you get to "Ratty minority minds" from his post back in September?
Sure, as soon as you tell me where I put that quote on Hutchens' lips. I believe that phrase was sarcastically deployed in the closing of my previous post, no?
Scratch that, I do not want to know.
Is that "compassionate", "classical", or "self-righteous" conservatism? Sometimes the distinctions are so, so fine.
Are your Orthodox?
Yes.
If so, please tell me what was the "rather serious blows done to his approach"?
I believe you already summed it up when you tried to quickly toss off the fact "Mr. [sic]Webster may have overstated his case...." Now, you may say the responses "read like pseudo-Protestant tract's," but that tells me nothing. I believe Fr. Webster's overstatement of the case is devastating given the fact we're discussing war, i.e., the concentrated effort to take human lives; it's not a debate over who should have won the Sara Lee pie bake-off.
Even if the responses to Fr. Webster "clearly pre-supposed a deep and abiding pacifism," I do not see that as a basis upon which to reject them outright. Now, if they pre-supposed a "deep and abiding" misunderstanding of Fr. Webster's position or a "deep and abiding" misuse of Tradition (as you seem to believe), then we're getting somewhere as far as rejecting what they have to say. What I see coming from you is a clear pre-supposition that a "deep and abiding pacificism" must be rejected a priori when discussing matters of war from a Christian perspective.
I find this very unfortunate, because western Orthodoxy (i.e. America and Western Europe) is bereft of solid thinking right now.
Well, perhaps I would be inclined to agree with you if I didn't have to worry so much that "solid thinking" amounts to little more than your particularized worldview.
Basically you only have two substantial voices: Fr. Webster on one hand and the misnamed "Orthodox Peace Fellowship" on the other.
Well, here is a point of agreement between us then. I think there is a substantial lack of real voice in Orthodoxy right now concerning not just the relationship of the Church to liberal democracy, but also how its members are to approach and understand politics. The closest we have are the two voices you have mentioned and both come across as little more than apologists for decidedly secular positions. Though I do believe the pacifist approach conforms better with the Tradition, I am not blind to the obvious exceptions. Nor am I blind to the reality that the Christian polity presupposed by many Fathers in the Tradition that Fr. Webster (and others who join his thinking) have drawn upon simply does not exist anymore. That fact alone typically leads me to find the pre-Constantinian writings of the Fathers more applicable to the present situation Orthodox find themselves in than the post-Constantinian which saw a much more accepting attitude towards matters like military service since it was seen as being for the defense of the Church itself.
In closing, I should reiterate that I am not a pacifist nor am I on board with the Orthodox Peace Fellowship. I do believe the issue is more complicated than what you have presented and I think you (and many, many other Christians) are too quick to swap out a critical Christian response to present conditions for whatever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh are lobbying for on their respective shows. I agree in principle with your sentiments against terrorism and the need to combat it in the name of protecting innocent lives. I suppose what I see (and perhaps what you do not see) is a serious disconnect between the neoconservative foreign policy vision and one that could be legitimately called Christian. It is that tension and that tension alone which concerns me with regards to the military campaign in Iraq; I have no use for flag waving at the expense of reason.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 28, 2005 at 04:52 PM
Mr. Sanchez,
I do think your response to Mr. Hutchens is, well ill-tempered at best. It was allegory, after all, and not a hint of racism or pseudo-racism in it. I think an admission of quick-judgment and an apology is due to him. However, that will be the last thing I say about it.
As far as Just War, we are not very far apart at all. Pacifism, as Fr. (thanks for the correction) Webster himself makes clear is of course a "valid Christian response" in certain context's. For example, it is a "valid" response for a monk, or a martyr. However, as the Tradition makes clear (as well as Holy Scripture) it is not the only "valid" response to the unrepentant evil doer. Indeed, for someone like myself, who has a duty to my family, my children, my neighbor, it is just as likely (even more likely) that I am to Justly defend their lives (even to the death of the attacker). You say "What I see coming from you is a clear pre-supposition that a "deep and abiding pacifism" must be rejected a priori when discussing matters of war from a Christian perspective.". No, but a deep and abiding pacifism is suspect in the sense that it is not likely that I (or my family/neighbors/country) am being called by God to be a martyr. This is also the case with the vast majority of Orthodox Christians - most of them being neither monastics, nor without some duty to family/friend/country. It is one thing to die for the Faith, another entirely to simply die for no good reason. You say "I believe Fr. Webster's overstatement of the case is devastating given the fact we're discussing war, i.e., the concentrated effort to take human lives; it's not a debate over who should have won the Sara Lee pie bake-off." I would think just the opposite. His responder's "misuse" of the Tradition is far more "devastating" to any right use of political/military might. Pacifism, in this sense is it's own disease - and it's own moral condemnation. It would have us substitute the Peace of Christ for that bloody and unholy alter called "peace". Fr. Webster's systematic and Traditional approach clearly shows that the Church (i.e. Orthodoxy) clearly supports the right and Just use of force. This stand's over against the majority of the responder's pre-supposition of "lesser-evil" and pacifism. I agree that the Church needs to say more about Just Defense in relation to "liberal democracy", modern weapons/tactics, etc. However the basic principles (and Revelation) still stand. I am not nearly as bothered as you are that most of what was written in the past falls under "Constantine" polity (and this is not a defense of a "secular position"). As to Iraq in the particular, again I am not as concerned with the "disconnect". Of the many circumstances, causes, and reasons leading up to the war, I am convinced that on the whole it was (and is) the right thing to do. I am more concerned with the un-Christian reasoning's of the many pacifist (or pacifistic leaning) Bishops, clergy, and seminary professionals who have bought into the "lesser-evil" philosophy. Thanks be to God their voices have not seemed to reached the "average man in the pew". I have no doubt the Spirit has something to do with this...;)
Posted by: Christopher | November 28, 2005 at 06:07 PM
To all:
In response to my remarks about Hutchens' "rats" classification (linked above), let me say this:
- Nowhere in the "allegory" did Hutchens make any distinctions about who were or were not "rats." Since his allegory dealt with a form of economic redistribution he felt unjustified (and strangely connected to "mere Christianity"), he felt justified in labeling those who would reap the benfits "rats." (Now, to be fair, he did use the term "squirrels" as well, though he did state that their merit for the redistribution was based upon their cuteness; the "rats" however are simply "rats" with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.) It is impossible to surmise from such remarks that Hutchens attempted to engage at all in making distinction amongst the poor over who are "rats" and who are not; all are "rats" and all are presumably unworthy or unjustified in receiving the benefits of economic redistribution (i.e. welfare).
- The poor in the United States have been and continue to be overwhelmingly overrepresented by racial and ethnic minorities in proportion to their actual numbers. This is not a discreet nor underpublicized fact. It is not something I would expect to escape the notice of a PhD holding individual who frequently publishes online and in print commentaries on American society.
- Racial minorities have been and continue to be characterized in a multitude of cultures as some representation or another of an undesirable or filthy animal. The use of vermin throughout history to accomplish this despicable characterization is, again, not a discreet piece of information. To accuse a particular group of being "rats" is to imply there is an infestation of them and that their very presence acts as a catalyst for disease in the body politic (note the obvious association of rats with death since the time of the Black Plague in Europe).
So, taken together, I see racism in the use of "rats" in Hutchens example; racism of the most contemptable sort. It is the racism that current studies on genocide routinely point to as the first signs of a society (or individual doctrines) moving in that direction. It is the racism of 19th Century "Social Darwinism" that classified groups of human beings into categories of "fitness", oftentimes making crude comparisons to lower members of the animal kingdom to drive home their points. It is the racism intelligently turned on its head in Art Spiegalman's much-heralded Maus and it is the sort of racism I would expect someone of S.M. Hutchens intellectual merits to be aware of.
Now, some on here might attack me as being "overly sensitive" or assume that because of my last name, I can only "see" racism everytime a white man opens up his mouth. Though I am inclined to reject both after a clear searching of my conscience on this matter, even if I conceded, Hutchens' remarks are only "vindicated" so far as they can be said to attribute vermin-like status to certain whites as well. Thus, in exonerating him from racism, I suppose we're supposed to take solace in the fact he's just a good ole' fashioned Social Darwinist.
At the very least, however, Hutchens remark is racially insensitive given the great weight of history and the present state of affairs as it concerns the poor in this country. If he is willing to admit that his remarks were made independent of actual knowledge of this history and that all there is to be disgruntled about is his narrow outlook on society, then I shall be more than happy to apologize for accusing him of racism.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 28, 2005 at 09:05 PM
Mr. Sanchez,
My first instinct is to say that you are quite incorrigible and not to say another thing about the matter (as I said I would in the above post). However your lengthy explanation has caused me no small amount of concern. Have you discussed this matter with your priest? Perhaps you should, even bringing to him a copy of Mr. Hutchens original post and your several responses. Do you live with someone (a wife, or perhaps some other family member)? Please give some thought on discussing this matter with them. Is there anyone else you can turn to?
Sincerely, Christopher
Posted by: Christopher | November 28, 2005 at 10:02 PM
Christopher,
There are a number of ways I could take your remarks and I fear none of them well (though I fully grant you had good intentions in making them).
If you think my interpretation is flawed, so be it. What amazes me is that these connections are (as I gather from your response) that difficult to make. Perhaps one way to look at it is if I made a similar allegory concerning animals about living on the South Side of Chicago and made use of "monkies" in it. I suppose I would have to find someone off their rocker if they found it racist.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 28, 2005 at 10:27 PM
Now, some on here might attack me as being "overly sensitive" or assume that because of my last name, I can only "see" racism everytime a white man opens up his mouth.
Next you will be accused of moral relativism for the implicit suggestion that your perspective on this subject might be shaped by your experience.
After reading your last post and the link to Mr. Hutchens Orwellian inspired allegory I have to say that, from little I know about you, "angry young man" seems to fit you like a glove.
Have you discussed this matter with your priest? .... Is there anyone else you can turn to?
Iow, "there, there, my dear - calm yourself." The tone taken here with Gabriel is very condescending. I see flashes of temper regularly on this blog, and they're not typically dismissed in this way unless the writer is challenging the blog authorities and their assumptions.
Posted by: Juli | November 29, 2005 at 09:09 AM
Mr. Sanchez has, as I requested him to do, responded to my complaint that he charged me with racism without adequate reason for doing so. He says, in nuce, that I am being disingenuous, that no one with my level of sophistication would write anything like this without full knowledge that I was identifying the poor and people of color as vermin, much in the way of the social Darwinist. This, I allow, is one possible interpretation, and I will leave it to readers (as, of course, one must) to judge for themselves whether it is the best or most likely one. I did not respond in any detail to him before, and do not now, because other correspondents have already given the necessary corrections, and, this being the case, I am content to move on.
I do not believe it a good idea to give people like Mr. Sanchez a religious chiding. Applying the golden rule, I must observe there is nothing I hate more. It sounds condescending, and will always be read as a way of admitting that reason has been exhausted--as may well be the case. People who are clearly intelligent, well-informed, thoughtful, and passionate, rarely recast their minds and outlooks instantaneously. St. Paul is an exception. In my experience, Lewis and Muggeridge are more like the rule.
I would also like to point out that in Mere Comments the writers are a good deal freer in expressing their individual views than they are in Touchstone. There is, to be sure, a community of opinion here, but there is rarely any editorial interference with what appears here, and we would not press the claim that Mere Comments reflects what we would all agree is Mere Christianity. It is more like the opinions of people who, over the years, we editors have come to respect.
Posted by: Steve Hutchens | November 29, 2005 at 03:34 PM
To be clear, I did not intend a particularly "religious" chiding for Mr. Sanchez at all. I mentioned his priest merely because I suspect him to be someone Mr. Sanchez trusts. Mr. Sanchez is obviously a well read and intelligent person. It is out of a sincere concern when I say I believe it important for him to get some perspective on what he is saying and how he is thinking (from some place other than this impersonal blog)...
Posted by: Christopher | November 30, 2005 at 12:04 AM
The virtue of forbearance, not to mention the parable about the mote and the beam, enjoins us to interpret the actions and words of others in a charitable light, not in the worst imaginable light, which is exactly what is always done in this country in matters regarding race.
It is exceedingly dismaying to see that the Talmudic principle has been lost here amidst political wrangling. That principle reveals a strange and important truth about human behavior, and about the unintended consequences of false mercy. (That there is also false justice no one will deny, but that happens not to be what we are talking about here.) When the Menendez brothers were on trial in LA, there were cries for mercy, or even for acquittal, based entirely on the emotional reactions of some people in their favor. The parents they murdered were forgotten -- and the parents that other people, set to school by the example of the Menendez brothers, were not considered at all. In Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, the stern Angelo (about to fall prey to mortal sin), insists that his prosecution of strict justice against a young man sentenced to death for fornication is an act of mercy towards all those in the future who would be tempted to commit the sin. Of course, Shakespeare believes that the punishment is far out of proportion to the crime, and Angelo himself, never having sinned that sin, is about to fall most terribly. But the principle that Angelo evokes is not entirely incorrect, as Shakespeare also shows: Vienna is in a parlous state partly because the duke had allowed, in false mercy, to let the people tweak the law by the nose.
It is a temptation to label our cowardice (and our self-pleasing softness) mercy, just as it is a temptation to label our cruelty justice. I'd like to return to a discussion of that principle.
Gabriel, if the Lord should one day interpret your words and actions with the invidious fault-finding you have shown Steve, I'd not want to be in your shoes. I speak as an academic who has witnessed careers destroyed because of a word or two turned to damnation.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | November 30, 2005 at 07:13 AM
Though I have strong doubts people are sifting this far back to read this thread, I will close with this...
Hutchens has neither denied by charge that his use of the label "rats" racist at worst and "Social Darwinist" at best nor denied the historical reality of the word. Apparently I shouldn't expect it out of him either.
As for "other perspectives" on the matter, that's all I've been getting and they tend to drift in the same direction. Nobody I've consulted has found any way to justify using "rats" to refer to poor people in an allegory and some saw deeper racial meaning behind the word than even I did. These are not uneducated people nor are they apologists for anything that flows from Touchstone editor's mouths.
Anyhow...
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | November 30, 2005 at 11:45 AM
It is exceedingly dismaying to see that the Talmudic principle has been lost here amidst political wrangling....I'd like to return to a discussion of that principle.
It might have been easier to avoid political wrangling if Prager's piece hadn't been a polemic against "the Left." It's not like anyone had to change the subject.
Though I have strong doubts people are sifting this far back to read this thread, I will close with this...
I've been meaning to make a suggestion ... have you at MC considered adding a feature to the main page that would include links to recent comments? That's how the orthodoxytoday blog works, and visitors can see at a glance recent posts on any threads - and an old thread can be brought back up to the top of the comment list. I think it's a helpful feature.
Posted by: Juli | November 30, 2005 at 03:33 PM