Friday, January 06, 2006
Middle East Peace Over Before Sharon's Stroke
Within my short lifespan, I can think of no American president who did not push too hard for middle east peace. Carter pushed it hard, and ignored all other foreign policy. He pushed so hard that both sides became upset with him. Reagan said "peace through strength," and supplied both sides with arms, which are still in use to this day. The first Bush pushed for peace, made unhealthy alliances with dictators, and saw no success. Clinton pushed very hard on both sides to agree, but to no avail. After he left office, the sides were more irreconcilable than when he entered. Current President Bush first took a "peace through victory, encouraging Sharon to do what he had to do in order to defeat the terrorist organizations. What was the result? All of these policies resulted in no progress for peace in the Middle East.
Sharon has been the tale of two presidencies. He started by firing on Hamas camps in neighboring countries, building walls, shooting terrorist leaders in the streets, and surrounding Arafat's compound, which was eventually bulldozed. No Israeli president had dared come close to that aggressive a policy up to that point. Then, something changed. Sharon began to follow the so-called "Roadmap," by forcing thousands of Jews out of their homes. No other person would have gotten away with a policy that people would be expelled from a given region based on the fact that they were Jewish. Now, with the withdrawal over and a new Palestinian government, everyone thought that peace would be possible. However, the opposite has been true. Violence has continued to escalate in Israel, supported by vocal elements in Iran and Syria, as well as other, more subtle Middle Eastern leadership.
As I have listened to the news over the last few days, commentators have lamented the loss of Sharon, and his leadership toward a plan for peace. The fact is that he was nothing of the sort. It seems to me that the Middle East has a long history of these struggles. Beyond that, peace throughout history has not come in any context by conciliation, by negotiation, or by broad-based integration programs. Peace has only come through victory. Sharon would have had a better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East if he had stuck to the first style of negotiations--shoot first, ask questions later.
As a Christian, I this approach seems a little brutal, but in light of the fact that the terrorists are bombing women and children and asking no questions, I think that a duly elected government has the better chance of justifying its warfare.
Even more important to remember is that God has promised that the only One to bring true peace to the world will be the Prince of Peace. He will come and rescue His people from their oppression and establish a true peace and the only just society that will have ever existed. Until that time, it is good not to let one's emotions rise and fall in some false hope of a peaceful Middle East, from the leadership of any government.
Sharon has been the tale of two presidencies. He started by firing on Hamas camps in neighboring countries, building walls, shooting terrorist leaders in the streets, and surrounding Arafat's compound, which was eventually bulldozed. No Israeli president had dared come close to that aggressive a policy up to that point. Then, something changed. Sharon began to follow the so-called "Roadmap," by forcing thousands of Jews out of their homes. No other person would have gotten away with a policy that people would be expelled from a given region based on the fact that they were Jewish. Now, with the withdrawal over and a new Palestinian government, everyone thought that peace would be possible. However, the opposite has been true. Violence has continued to escalate in Israel, supported by vocal elements in Iran and Syria, as well as other, more subtle Middle Eastern leadership.
As I have listened to the news over the last few days, commentators have lamented the loss of Sharon, and his leadership toward a plan for peace. The fact is that he was nothing of the sort. It seems to me that the Middle East has a long history of these struggles. Beyond that, peace throughout history has not come in any context by conciliation, by negotiation, or by broad-based integration programs. Peace has only come through victory. Sharon would have had a better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East if he had stuck to the first style of negotiations--shoot first, ask questions later.
As a Christian, I this approach seems a little brutal, but in light of the fact that the terrorists are bombing women and children and asking no questions, I think that a duly elected government has the better chance of justifying its warfare.
Even more important to remember is that God has promised that the only One to bring true peace to the world will be the Prince of Peace. He will come and rescue His people from their oppression and establish a true peace and the only just society that will have ever existed. Until that time, it is good not to let one's emotions rise and fall in some false hope of a peaceful Middle East, from the leadership of any government.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Let's Start at the Beginning
Here it is Wednesday, and I am missing the Bible study I used to lead. Therefore, I decided to start writing a short (haha) bit from Bible study. But I do not know where to start. I was moving through the New Testament Epistles. However, I think it would be good to kind of start over with a simple understanding of the Bible. This is because I really never have typed something like that on my own before, and because only the people who were there would be able to pick up where we left off.
So, then, let us begin at the beginning. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 KJV) God introduces the principle character of the Bible in the first sentence: Himself. Before we can understand any part of the Bible, we have to understand the very important principles of this verse. First, there was a beginning. This is in stark contrast to the secular position that everything has always been. Second, this beginning came because God made it happen. God, being the only person in history who has created anything (indeed all things) out of nothing, transcends all of creation. I chose the word transcends carefully. It is used to indicate that He is separate from creation in that He is not created, in that He is sovereign over creation, in that His existence is not defined by creation, in that He was before the creation and therefore is not a part of it, but that He is present in the creation, and that He works in and through it. This is very important. We have to understand God as God. Third, we have to understand that the Hebrew word for God elohim is plural, indicating a plurality of God. I do not want to get too far ahead of the message, but later in the chapter, the text also uses jehovah,which is in singular, and adonai which is also singular. That is because from the beginning of the Bible God is teaching us the complex doctrine of the trinity. All of these things (time beginning, transcendency, and trinity) are very deep concepts about God that the most advanced theologians and Bible scholars have struggled to fully explain.
So, why did God start with these very deep principles in an almost trivial manner? I believe that it is because they are foundational to understanding who God is, which is the essential nature of the Bible. I also believe that God is introducing them, not in a philosophical discussion or laboratory context, but that He is giving us a real, historical context in which we see them demonstrated. Next week we will look into this history and see how that these characteristics are explicated. God is the best teacher. He knows how to reach us where we are. Today, we just looked at the "thesis statement" for the first lesson.
What does this mean for us? It means that God must be who He is. We must recognize that He is our Creator. We must recognize that He is ruler over all of creation. We must recognize that we depend on Him for our existence. We also must recognize that He is quite different from anything else that we know, and therefore we are dependent on His Word to explain just Who He is.
So, then, let us begin at the beginning. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 KJV) God introduces the principle character of the Bible in the first sentence: Himself. Before we can understand any part of the Bible, we have to understand the very important principles of this verse. First, there was a beginning. This is in stark contrast to the secular position that everything has always been. Second, this beginning came because God made it happen. God, being the only person in history who has created anything (indeed all things) out of nothing, transcends all of creation. I chose the word transcends carefully. It is used to indicate that He is separate from creation in that He is not created, in that He is sovereign over creation, in that His existence is not defined by creation, in that He was before the creation and therefore is not a part of it, but that He is present in the creation, and that He works in and through it. This is very important. We have to understand God as God. Third, we have to understand that the Hebrew word for God elohim is plural, indicating a plurality of God. I do not want to get too far ahead of the message, but later in the chapter, the text also uses jehovah,which is in singular, and adonai which is also singular. That is because from the beginning of the Bible God is teaching us the complex doctrine of the trinity. All of these things (time beginning, transcendency, and trinity) are very deep concepts about God that the most advanced theologians and Bible scholars have struggled to fully explain.
So, why did God start with these very deep principles in an almost trivial manner? I believe that it is because they are foundational to understanding who God is, which is the essential nature of the Bible. I also believe that God is introducing them, not in a philosophical discussion or laboratory context, but that He is giving us a real, historical context in which we see them demonstrated. Next week we will look into this history and see how that these characteristics are explicated. God is the best teacher. He knows how to reach us where we are. Today, we just looked at the "thesis statement" for the first lesson.
What does this mean for us? It means that God must be who He is. We must recognize that He is our Creator. We must recognize that He is ruler over all of creation. We must recognize that we depend on Him for our existence. We also must recognize that He is quite different from anything else that we know, and therefore we are dependent on His Word to explain just Who He is.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
What Shall I Write?
Sometimes I really struggle for what to write when it comes to news about myself. First, because it is no longer news to me after it has passed. Second, because it tends to be things like these that follow:
Feeling like a Goat (not a hero)
I was a bit embarrassed yesterday, since the teacher singled me out and kept asking me what my greatest struggles in the language were. Each struggle I mentioned resulted in the whole class doing some drill. However, the day ended well, as I was able to watch some extended highlights of the Nebraska Bowl game. I did not know what to think. I guess the mystery over who deserves to win will never be solved.More than Perfect
Yes, that is right. Today we learned the more than perfect tense. It was a little hard figuring out exactly what "more than perfect means," but it was very easy to construct. It was just a little hard to learn when to use it. In fact, the teacher said that we would find it in certain older documents and some very formal documents. In other words, this tense will enable me to understand lawyers. Don't hold your breath. I think that is impossible. Sorry lawyer readers, I had to try a lame lawyer joke.So, how does news like this make me feel?
I have mixed feelings about writing things like this. I have friends and family that ask for this news in as much detail as I have time to type. I have other friends and family that say don't bore me with the details, keep the focus on the larger things. I personally am excited about learning the idiosyncratic nature of prepositions, tenses, and pronouns in the objective case. Most people are not. I guess the biggest struggle is in determining whether or not learning Portuguese is really a ministry. After all, my goals are to be planting churches in remote par
ts of Africa that have little to no missionary activity. Here I am in a city. I am learning Portuguese at a secular university. I attend church services, but am unable to participate because of a language gap. However, as time has passed, I have been able to understand more, and develop relationships. I can also better learn biblical language and paritcipate in small group discussions at a low level. This is all part of the big goal. I am here in Portugal precisely because I can learn more quickly and better, thus I can be ready to begin the tribal work much faster.