Bill Dogterom
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The Strategies of Terror
Terror has long been a strategy in warfare. A small force with fear on their side can easily rout a much larger and better equipped force. Gideon’s army is a case in point – three hundred, armed with torches and trumpets, overwhelmed an army of Midianites numbering in the tens of thousands and possessing the latest in military hardware. Fear, fueled by unconfirmed rumors and coming on top of pre-battle jitters and restless sleep, caused the Midianites to misprocess the information their senses provided. They assumed that each torch and trumpet represented a company of fighting men, rather than the unarmed solitary soldier. Their assumptions had them in heading in all directions at the same time – running into armed strangers in the dark with whom they engaged in battle – defeating themselves. Completely. Fear destroyed the army of Midian.
Our enemy has taken a page from God’s play book. God’s ploy against Midian has become the favored strategy of the devil against God’s people. With limited resources, terror is an ideal tactic. Fear, supercharged by rumor and restlessness, pushes the people of God to misprocess reality, often leading us to fight and destroy each other. We forget who we are, Who God is, and who the enemy is. Our unchecked assumptions make us easy targets for the enemy, going about like a roaring lion seeking some weak, isolated, prey to devour.
What is the counter-strategy to terror? We begin by standing in what is true. We are deeply and truly loved by the King and Creator of the Universe. All power has been given to our Lord and King who is present with us always and in every circumstance. We can’t lose – even if we die!
Next, we can acknowledge what is true about us. We are sinners who sin – but who have a Savior committed to us, even knowing all there is to know about us. He is not surprised by our sin. By bringing the skeletons of our full reality out of the closet and making them dance at the party of grace, we nullify the fear of discovery. The enemy hates redeemed reality – and that is where we live!
If we would take just a minute and stand in what is true, we would be less likely to engage in the kind of self-destructive behavior that sets the corridors of hell echoing with what passes as laughter. And terror would cease to be an effective weapon against us. Hear the angels, “Fear not!”
Our enemy has taken a page from God’s play book. God’s ploy against Midian has become the favored strategy of the devil against God’s people. With limited resources, terror is an ideal tactic. Fear, supercharged by rumor and restlessness, pushes the people of God to misprocess reality, often leading us to fight and destroy each other. We forget who we are, Who God is, and who the enemy is. Our unchecked assumptions make us easy targets for the enemy, going about like a roaring lion seeking some weak, isolated, prey to devour.
What is the counter-strategy to terror? We begin by standing in what is true. We are deeply and truly loved by the King and Creator of the Universe. All power has been given to our Lord and King who is present with us always and in every circumstance. We can’t lose – even if we die!
Next, we can acknowledge what is true about us. We are sinners who sin – but who have a Savior committed to us, even knowing all there is to know about us. He is not surprised by our sin. By bringing the skeletons of our full reality out of the closet and making them dance at the party of grace, we nullify the fear of discovery. The enemy hates redeemed reality – and that is where we live!
If we would take just a minute and stand in what is true, we would be less likely to engage in the kind of self-destructive behavior that sets the corridors of hell echoing with what passes as laughter. And terror would cease to be an effective weapon against us. Hear the angels, “Fear not!”
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Faith in a Time of Terror - Mark 4:35-41
The carefully coordinated explosions which crippled London’s transit system last week brought home again the inconvenient truths of life at the beginning of the twenty first century. We live in a time of targeted terror. A time in which terror is both goal and strategy. Terror destabilizes – undermines – upsets – disconcerts – destroys . . . and brings nothing of value with it. Terror is the weapon of the angry minority who seem to be convinced that, out of the chaos they create, an order more suitable to them will emerge. Or, failing that, that at least their presence will have to be acknowledged. They remind of nothing so much as the bullies and spoiled brats disrupting someone else’s party, simply because it is someone else’s party.
Terror as weapon is not new, but it redefines the nature of warfare. No longer is it helpful to speak of “fronts” when considering the progress of a battle. Now, the front is illusive, individual, impossible to define, surround, penetrate. Some of the greatest numbers of casualties in modern warfare have occurred at the unlucky junction of old methods and new weapons and tactics. Methods designed to be effective against an army armed with muzzle loaders accurate to thirty yards, are suicide when the weaponry is rapid load and accurate to two hundred yards. Thus, Gettysburg. The strategies of World War Two Europe are virtually useless against the guerilla actions of Vietnam, where the enemy simply wouldn’t stay in place, but kept disappearing into and under the jungles. And now, a new kind of war. The kamikaze of the Pacific Theatre now wear knapsacks and ride trains and leave briefcases with timed detonators and deliberately choose civilians as targets of opportunity. And recognize no borders, driven by an ideology beyond politics. It is truly, in Samuel Huntington’s words, “a clash of civilizations.”
So, in this time of terror, what are the faithful to do? C. S. Lewis asked much the same question during World War Two and came to conclusion that they should be doing the same thing, more or less, they would be doing if it weren’t a time of terror. We need to be regularly reminded that, as students of Jesus, the goal is not an orderly society or peace in our time – but Christlikeness and the pursuit of God. Far from this rendering believers impotent in the face of terror, it provides great courage to live normal, peace-full, lives in the midst of conflict. We are not defined by what is external to us, but by Who is internal to us. So . . . we row in the storm, knowing that safety is not the objective, but obedience in joy.
Terror as weapon is not new, but it redefines the nature of warfare. No longer is it helpful to speak of “fronts” when considering the progress of a battle. Now, the front is illusive, individual, impossible to define, surround, penetrate. Some of the greatest numbers of casualties in modern warfare have occurred at the unlucky junction of old methods and new weapons and tactics. Methods designed to be effective against an army armed with muzzle loaders accurate to thirty yards, are suicide when the weaponry is rapid load and accurate to two hundred yards. Thus, Gettysburg. The strategies of World War Two Europe are virtually useless against the guerilla actions of Vietnam, where the enemy simply wouldn’t stay in place, but kept disappearing into and under the jungles. And now, a new kind of war. The kamikaze of the Pacific Theatre now wear knapsacks and ride trains and leave briefcases with timed detonators and deliberately choose civilians as targets of opportunity. And recognize no borders, driven by an ideology beyond politics. It is truly, in Samuel Huntington’s words, “a clash of civilizations.”
So, in this time of terror, what are the faithful to do? C. S. Lewis asked much the same question during World War Two and came to conclusion that they should be doing the same thing, more or less, they would be doing if it weren’t a time of terror. We need to be regularly reminded that, as students of Jesus, the goal is not an orderly society or peace in our time – but Christlikeness and the pursuit of God. Far from this rendering believers impotent in the face of terror, it provides great courage to live normal, peace-full, lives in the midst of conflict. We are not defined by what is external to us, but by Who is internal to us. So . . . we row in the storm, knowing that safety is not the objective, but obedience in joy.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Seasons of A Marriage
Beginning
hope
delight
laughter
free flowing
deep eyed
conversation
future shines
with anticipation
Then a
change in
temperature
a settling in
a sense of place
and person
together
future seems
so distant
Suddenly
aware of a long
time since
lightness
laughter
were not buffeted
with hard work winds
settling in seems like
settling
silence grows
bleak
Another shift in
tectonic plates
embrace of
the loved one
again a familiar
stranger become friend
silences deepen and
grow rich with
shared life
future calls
gently and
close.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Pledging Allegiance
I have begun to wonder of late if it is appropriate for citizens of the Kingdom of God to pledge allegiance to the flag of a nation that is not under God. The question is occasioned by the various lawsuits making their way through the courts on behalf of those who feel their rights to non-belief are trampled when they are forced to include the phrase “under God” in their national identity, contradicting their atheism. The courts have not been too comforting to the Christian community in their refusal to take the case or in the rationale for the decisions they make to retain the phrase. As nearly as I can tell, the logic for retaining the phrase boils down to this. The phrase “under God” is a cultural icon and, as such, has no inherent religious content. It is the same argument that has been used to preserve crosses on public lands and to argue for the display of the 10 Commandments in public courtrooms.
It presents a fascinating paradox. Atheists, on one side, claim the phrase is rich and full with religious meaning. Christians, on the other side with the rationale that the phrase is void of religious significance. I suspect that many of the Christians who celebrate the decisions are not aware of the rationale, and that those who are think the end justifies the means – keeping the phrase is worth removing any religious content it might have.
Considering the origin of the phrase and the background of its inclusion in the pledge in the mid-1950’s, the atheists appear to have the better case. “Under God” was inserted into the pledge, in part, to differentiate Christian America from atheistic and Communist Russia. Christianity was used to sharpen the differences with our enemy during the Cold War. Even then, however, it could be argued that the phrase had more political than religious content – much in the way conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland or between Christians and Muslims in some of the wars in the world are more about politics than religion.
But it did get me to thinking. Does a country really want its citizenry pledging allegiance unless they are under God? Promises made that are not under God don’t have much likelihood of fulfillment. Of course, followers of Jesus can’t make a pledge of allegiance except under God, whether the phrase is included in the pledge or not. And that is what makes them good citizens – they are under to a higher authority that makes their pledge good, or even possible.
It presents a fascinating paradox. Atheists, on one side, claim the phrase is rich and full with religious meaning. Christians, on the other side with the rationale that the phrase is void of religious significance. I suspect that many of the Christians who celebrate the decisions are not aware of the rationale, and that those who are think the end justifies the means – keeping the phrase is worth removing any religious content it might have.
Considering the origin of the phrase and the background of its inclusion in the pledge in the mid-1950’s, the atheists appear to have the better case. “Under God” was inserted into the pledge, in part, to differentiate Christian America from atheistic and Communist Russia. Christianity was used to sharpen the differences with our enemy during the Cold War. Even then, however, it could be argued that the phrase had more political than religious content – much in the way conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland or between Christians and Muslims in some of the wars in the world are more about politics than religion.
But it did get me to thinking. Does a country really want its citizenry pledging allegiance unless they are under God? Promises made that are not under God don’t have much likelihood of fulfillment. Of course, followers of Jesus can’t make a pledge of allegiance except under God, whether the phrase is included in the pledge or not. And that is what makes them good citizens – they are under to a higher authority that makes their pledge good, or even possible.
Archives
June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 March 2006
