I liked/understood your last ditty on ROTC, but I'm still frustrated with the first part - continuing to shuffle all anti-ROTCs in the "liberal" camp, which certainly means that they are for abortion and against Wal-Mart. This division is unnecessary. People have diverse views. It's not either/or.

As for Iraq, I guess you do see the glass half-full. Most people realize that it is officially hell-on-earth, and if you count up fatalities on BOTH sides, it's pretty disgusting. Simply comparing numbers with WWII (a much larger war, at that) does nothing to convey the horrors (or pleasant wonders) in Iraq.

 

Interesting stuff. I enjoyed interacting with Ben on his post and on the general issue earlier with one of his linked bloggers at reclinerramblings. Mike had said, "Killing for peace is like raping for virginity" and it just seemed irrational so we went a few rounds on that one.
I remain mystified by the pacifist approach in this, but I am trying to hear it and learn.
I'll throw in a quick response to the first comment: observing that Iraq is hell-on-earth and pretty disgusting is just fact -- seems to have little really bearing on the glass-half-full business. Since when has war been anything but "hell-on-earth" and "disgusting"? It always is and issues of staying the course or not have to be determined by other factors or we would never even go to war in the first place.
For what it's worth....

BTW, I'm a native Kansan -- North Central, town called Clay Center. Used to be a Wesleyan College near there in Miltonvale - that is where my roots are.

 

Here all this time, I thought I was just a Christian, trying to think on my own--but you've nailed it. I must be a "lib." Thanks for the personal clarification.

As tired as you are of "liberal" rhetoric, one would think that you would be growing sleepy with all the comments we have to leave you about your black and white lenses. Welcome to the 21st century. There are a few more options out there than either/or.

Your connection of trained killing machines with doctors (healers), lawyers (justice seekers, sometimes), and educators (teachers) makes about as much sense as falsely including pacifists in the category of pro-abortionists. Oh wait, not that's not true. It makes even less sense.

 

May we never again compare another war to WWII for simple sake of avoiding banality. That is point one.

Two, even Mike and Randy would concede that Augustine has stated that war is a "necessary evil" at times. Regardless of the rest of his argument that would mean that if may be a good idea to have trained soldiers on stand by- not deployed in third world countries by a president who is getting his jolly on with interns. Wars are going to come when you are the top dog on the block and, unfortunately, our enemies have yet to send us notices of iminent attacks.

It is a darned shame that blood clots and cancers do not alert the concious mind years before their development in order to find a suitable doctor.

My point is- crap happens unexpectedly. Better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it.

My apologies if I pigeon-holed (or rightly labeled) anyone else. Take your pick.

P.S. I try to keep these arguments on an idealogical basis and not as "personal" attacks against specific persons. However, I will end up attacking groups because of their idealogy. Keep this in mind.

Thanks for commenting.

 

Hello, Mike. Good to see you again. Just a quick note -- what's with the "21st Century" stuff? Did we somehow discover reality after all of those years of ignorance and incompetents like Augustine, et. al?
I'm amused by the appeal to modernity you seem to make. So what if it is the 21st century. What do we know about the good that was inaccessible to the 20th, the 19th, the 18th, etc?

 

Let me just say that I am not a spokesperson for postmodernity or anything of the sort. In fact, I am a bit tired of that label as well and am ready for the next fad word. McLaren and others are already talking about post post modernity, so don't assume I am a model citizen of the emergents or anything like that.

All I was saying is that things are a bit more complicated than what D.M. Rose would like to think. The black/white, either/or stuff is not needed. What you are saying is well taken--things were no less complicated in the times of Augustine. I am not saying the past is full of ignorance--I am saying that the past is the past. Perhaps they did things better. I love the early church and the councils and all that. I'm into it. I don't throw it away.

I'm not looking at the 21st century as "better" or "more knowledgeable," I'm looking at it as in "hey, this is the 21st century...not the 6th....we have more options now" (but once again, I'm not saying that our optioins are superior. I'm just stating a fact of timeline).

We don't know any more good than was "accessible ot the 20th, 19th, and 18th" centuries. But, we do know their conceptions of the good, and we have even more of a foundation to work on now. It's progressive. If Augustine was here now, I'd think he say "My goodness, all the stuff that has been thought up. I'm not sure it's any closer to truth than what we had in my day, but it certainly is a lot more to think about."

 

I hear you, Michael, and thanks for interacting (and thanks to D.M. for providing this venue :))
You understood my objection and answered it well, so I'll leave it alone (almost). Just this, it is hard, as I see in your answer, to find the line between being "progressive" and respecting the value of what was learned across the centuries. In theology proper it seems even trickier. I remember a conversation with Wingrove Taylor in which I mentioned that the EC was far more progressive (literally) in their understanding of salvation than we are -- the whole "ichtic" emphasis on point-in-time conversion. He reminded me that theological understanding progresses over time, etc. and it was helpful. But back to your comments, I'm still not sure "more options" makes alot of difference. Life -- the essential and important stuff -- still is a certain way and I can;t believe our options really make that much difference. (Did I say I'd only object to one thing....?)
The 21st century thing just pushed a button of mine, but thanks again for interacting about it. Maybe we can pick this stuff up again elsewehere. And I'mglad to meet some more of the IWU friends via the blogosphere.
RH

 

I have a feeling I always push a few buttons of yours.

And I also have a feeling that regardless of what I say, even if we were completely on the same page, you would find a way to disagree. But, I enjoy it. It sharpens the both of us. So keep it coming.

Thanks for the dialogue. I'd still really love to meet up in Marion some day. I may even be moving back there. Are you ever around?

 

Ouch...I'm even tempted to disagree now! :) My wife would say you have me pegged. I am sincerely wanting to work on it. There are things more important than being right, especially if you only think you are (right). (I'm gonna blog about that soon -- really.)
I get to Marion very seldom, though I'm teaching a graduate seminar there next semester on Just War theory (just kidding). But I'd love to meet up sometime --maybe over coffee with doug and Aaron. Nothing like face to face discussion.
Hope it can happen sometime.
Blessings,
RH

I'd like to meet you, D.M., sometime, too. Will keep an eye on your blog, thinking about throwing an honest question your way re. minsitry, etc. If I can get the time. Also interested in KS ministry since I grew up there.

 

Devin, Thank you for writing, even if it causes disagreement. I appreciate people who are willing to engage in honest dialogue. When it comes to war, you and I basically agree on the same position that war is hell, and should preferably be avoided. What we disagree on are the exceptions. Either way, I hope that we can keep listening to each other and maintain the healthy respect that causes me to call you my friend. Keep writing, even if I disagree, for in those times I learn the most for you.

 

Brother, many congratulations on writing a well-formulated topic. A side not to A. Theda, who I am particularly fond of commenting about, and to Michael R. Cline. My brother, as virually any good writer will, simply delivers a dichotomy. This delivery system prevents him having to take measures to incorporate every "either-or" in between available. I mean, come on, that would take up hundreds of pages and he still would miss some people. My point is, stop trying to meticulously point out that he covered only two ends of a spectrum and realize he is not an idiot (only his wife is allowed to call him that). He obviously knows there are not just staunch conservatives and raving liberals; he done-got-that-there college degree an' all. So, next time you wish to attack something, try to make it on a premise of subject matter, not on a dichotomy which are the terms in which practically every philosopher or analyst has spoken for many recorded years.

Kevin, many compliments on intelligently realizing what my brother is saying. You are one that he has complimented on delivering "intelligent, well-thought out" disagreements that treat him as an equal. My props, my man, my props.