Response to centuriOn

I responded to a blog on the blog “Pyromaniacs”. The blog is called "say kids, what time is it?" I probably shouldn’t have done it, but I did. It was one of those blogs that is a “blog spotter”. Links to lots of other blogs. In that blog he refers to the “Way of the Master” website and podcast. He recommends two passages in that podcast: an answer to a question about the uniqueness of the Christian God, and a comment about the “emergents”.

You can read my response for yourself. Click here and scroll down. The essence of my response was that I said I felt that this kind of stuff makes me feel like the kid with the dunce cap in the front (or back?) of the class. It doesn’t take seriously my struggle – and that of many others, to look for Biblical answers to the questions our world of today is asking.

Another well known (at least I think he’s well known) blogger, centuriOn, responded. For his reponse, click here and scroll down even further. His question: Can you tell us what we could do or stop doing which would make you stop feeling like you are wearing the dunce cap? This is not a request to start fighting: this is a request to understand the concern you have provided here, and to make this blog as much as possible about delivering the Gospel to a world which needs it. The advice of a 30-year evangelist must be worth something to that end.

I must be honest – I’m not entirely sure I trust this question. And I’m a bit afraid to enter into this discussion. But I’ll try. It’s a beautiful morning here after weeks of rain – the most rainy August in history, and how else would I want to spend my morning?

So here are a few comments, particularly in relation to the WOTM podcast, to use that as an example.

First, it’s not, IMHO, humor (P.S. when I say IMHO, I really mean it. Not "it's my humble opinion, but I'm sure I'm right". I really think I could be wrong. But I realize it's dangerous to say that also. The person who says he's humble......well, you know). To me, it’s not even funny, but the quality of humor is really low. Good, quality humor encourages one to look at him- or herself and make a wry smile. This “humor” didn’t do that for me. Perhaps I’m the only one for whom it didn’t do that, but I don’t think so. If you are on the “side” these people don’t agree with, their humor does not produce a wry smile. Again, IMHO. I realize that tastes can vary.

Secondly, and more “seriously”, this podcast – and so much of what I see in blogs – doesn’t ask a fundamental question of its “opponents”: why do you think that way? Why is it you feel the need to look at Scripture again and come up with new paradigms? What’s driving that?

Only when you ask that question can you understand the person, and when you have understood the person you have a better chance to help him or her see the truth.

That’s what cross cultural work forces you to do. Why do you all think this way? What’s lying behind it? Why do you feel these needs? And how does the Bible approach your worldview?

And not only on the personal level. What is going on in our world? What are the movements producing the questions for which people are seeking answers? How is our world developing and growing and changing, and what does that say about how people look at faith and how we respond? I realize that weblogs probably aren't the best places to ask or answer those questions, but even so....

For example: my experience in Holland is that a whole generation has turned away from the church, largely because of the way the church has conducted herself. I know there are other reasons, I believe in the sinful heart, but you cannot escape that conclusion here. I have experienced more than once adults crying on the streets (yes, I have done street evangelism in Amsterdam) because of pain inflicted by the church. I suspect the same thing has happened a lot in the States.

I think it would be beneficial if the church would, in the light of “emergent” or any other “movement”, seriously ask the question: what have we done? What has been our part in the current developments in society? What have we missed? Where have we caused pain and hurt, and how can we help heal? How can we understand?

On that basis, you gain the right to speak truth into someone’s heart. This podcast doesn’t address that at all.

Thirdly (and finally – I’ve got to stop somewhere): some of the statements and criticisms are shallow and or wrong generalisations.

The sentence (and I quote): “Justice demands that I go to a bad place unless God steps in and takes the punishment I deserve” raises the very legitimate question, an old question for theologians – is there a standard of justice that stands above God, that He has to adhere to?

A thinking person here in Holland who hears this podcast - especially one who has a church background and left it - would ask that question, but there is no reference to that issue. It can be a legitimate and serious question for a nonbeliever.

WOTM says literally: “the righteousness of God is imputed to you”. I thought it was Christ’s righteousness. That little piece doesn’t even mention Christ.

In these two examples, I am listening to a sarcastic tone of voice, with almost no quality humor, presenting a partial and not really helpful piece of the Gospel. It doesn’t take seriously my struggle to present the Gospel in our society because, if I had ever learned anything from, say, Brian McLaren, at all, I would really be cast as an idiot (“they don’t embrace anything except 'you’re wrong, you conservative’”). And it doesn’t give me real tools to help me. It’s humor, analysis and answer is superficial. Remember: IMHO.

And because it doesn't, in its style or content, take who I am or what I need seriously, it makes me feel like a dunce. I will be the first to admit I may be a dunce, but I think the Bible encourages us to do everything we can so that dunces aren't made to feel that way. Jesus "spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand" Mk. 4:33 (NIV).
[I don't dare quote The Message, which is even clearer ;-). Well maybe I will: he presented his message to them, fitting the stories to their experience and maturity.]

I don’t know if this helps, CenturiOn. I’m interested to know if it does. And this is not really the best medium to share things of the heart. But I wanted to take a stab at it.

If you want to know more about me, see my website: www.normanviss.nl/en.

Thanks for listening. I have tried to be gracious and honest in my reply, I hope I have succeeded.
C.S. Lewis: It matters enormously if I alienate anyone from the truth.
By the way: the contrast between C.S. Lewis (who never shirked from telling the truth) and this podcast is, again IMHO, enormous.

André Agassi

On Friday morning I watched the tennis match between André Agassi and Marcos Baghdatis at the U.S. Open Championships in New York.

Agassi is now 36, and this is his last tennis tournament. He has won 60 titles, 8 Grand Slams. He became a tennis professional in 1986 and won his first title in 1987. This is his 21st U.S. Open. After this he puts his racket away.

Agassi is known for his competitive drive and his capacity to win a match after being down 0-2.

This was one of the best tennis matches I have ever seen. Agassi won the first two sets, and was 4-0 ahead in the third (and, should he win, deciding) set. Then Baghdatis came to life. He won four games in a row, and the set. He also won the fourth set. The match became a five setter.

You began to wonder how long Agassi’s body could take the beating it got from the 21 year old Cypriot. It looked like he was totally out of gas physically and simply could not keep up.

But he continued hitting those long, hard, precision baseline strokes that drove Baghdatis (and many players before him) crazy. They stayed on serve, and the score was 4-4.

(Please excuse the tennis jargon. If you can’t follow it, go on to another site. Thanks for visiting!)

Suddenly Baghdatis got a cramp in his right leg. He could hardly stand up, let alone walk. You wondered if he would have to give up and withdraw himself from the match, which would be a real disaster. But he continued to play, and because he couldn’t use his legs, he used his arms. From 5-4 it became 5-5. Agassi won his own service, 6-5. He only had to break Baghdatis to win the match. But that was now not so easy, as Baghdatis suddenly seemed fit and young again.

Finally it was match point (the second for Agassi, by the way), and this one was enough. Agassi won, 7-5.

This was a terrific battle of body and will, which tennis is. Baghdatis’struggle to keep going even when his body had let him down.

Agassi’s capacity to stay mentally sharp and control the match, even as his body was losing strength.

Here were two champions giving everything they had.

“No, I beat my body” said the Apostle Paul “and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”

There you have it.

André Agassi has set up a charitable foundation to create recreational and educational opportunities for at-risk children in Southern Nevada (I didn’t even know there were at-risk children in Southern Nevada!). “I have been very blessed and had many opportunities available to me," said Agassi. "Children today face so many obstacles. If I can make a positive impact on at least one child's life, then it has all been worthwhile."

There you have it.

Literally

The Rasmussen Report reported recently on the results of a poll in which Americans were questioned about their belief in the “literal truth” of the Bible.

“Not surprisingly” the Bible belt region lives up to it’s name with a high percentage of people who believe the Bible is literally true, concludes the report.

The website of the Rasmussen report says nothing about which side of cultural or political issues it tends to take. It’s also really hard to tell from the ads on the site. A site which reports on Bill Clinton’s new girlfriend is perched prominently at the top of the page. At the bottom is the “Just Hillary Clinton” news. On another page the “World’s Last Chance” website is advertised - the USA and the Papacy want a new world order, it's been predicted for 2000 years, and don't become a victim of it!

And apparently 2006 is the “Year of the Apology”: Post An Apology looks at the politics, entertainment, and culture in which we live. See who IS apologizing, who SHOULD BE apologizing, and who doesn't have a CLUE!

Usually the quality of the advertising on a website says something to me about the quality of the rest of the site. I find it hard take seriously a site full of advertisements for Viagra en penile implants. And believe me, I have been referred to sites like that as a source of truth by conservative Christians! So make your own conclusions about the Rasmussen site.

Anyway – to get back on track: the report itself is very confusing. When referring to the Bible it uses different terms to ask about (or report on) how people view the Bible.

These terms are used interchangeably, making an interpretation of the report almost useless:

literally true, authenticity and literal truth, Bible's authenticity, Bible is true

What disturbs me is not just the lack of clarity in the questions and the report (it is very reasonable to believe in the authenticity of a historical document without believing it is literally true, for example).

The survey is placed in the framework of Republicans and Democrats. The conclusion really is: Republicans are good Bible-believing Christians, Democrats are not.

Or, as someone wrote me recently: I'd rather be poor, fat, ignorant, conservative fool for Christ, than a rich, suave, intelligent liberal, who is nothing more than a fool. (I kid you not!)

I guess I’m really sad about the “cultural” and “religious” war being fought in the United States between “Right” and “Left”.

If there is any group that should know that a “war” mentality is not Jesus’ approach to the world it should be Christians.

I’m trembling already at what the next set of elections are going to bring (and the set after that).

And don’t forget to check out Bill’s new girlfriend!!

The laugh that struck home

Yesterday I baptized the 3 month old daughter of a young couple in our church, who happen to be good friends of ours, whom I also married.

(Pulleeez..... no discussion on this blog from Reformed or Baptist Reformed or Baptist or Emerging or Pomos or Catholics or anyone else about whether child baptism is Biblical or not. My philosophy is: if I gave a New Testament to my nonbelieving neighbor and he wanted to obey it, he would sooner speak in tongues, prophesy and heal people than he would baptize children. I do it because it is my tradition and I think there are some good reasons to do it, but I hardly want to spend a minute 'defending' it.)

Anyway, just after I baptized her she flashed me one of those big smiles that only a 3 month old baby can give you. It was intentional, it was directed at me, and it broke my heart.

I thought of all I had missed and miss with my kids and my grandson because of distance.

And I thought of God's grace, totally unearned, being now poured out on this child and the world.
It was a moment that shook me to the core.

Neat that that can happen in a church service.

Thank you Famke!

Pluto

Dear astronomers,

I’m not against democracy. I didn’t invent it – I actually think a benevolent dictatorship is the best – but it isn’t too bad.

Sometimes democracy - I will resist calling it dumbocracy – produces things to chuckle about. Italy, for example. Ross Perot. Florida 2000.

I still cannot for the life of me figure out how you think you can bring democracy to a country with the barrel of a gun. But that’s your business. I’ve given you permission to figure it out yourselves, and I’m pretty curious about how it’s going to work out. Maybe you finally will decide that a benevolent dictatorship is the best thing after all.

We did have to laugh when you decided (democratically?) that I was dead. “God ist tot!” screamed the madman in Nietzche’s The Gay Science in 1882. “And we have killed him!”

He couldn’t convince his community of that, and so he cried “I’ve been born before my time!”

But I did realize for the first time that you all thought you could determine whether I existed or not.

In 1966 it was official. “Is God dead?” asked Time Magazine on the cover.

"Ours is the first attempt in recorded history to build a culture upon the premise that God is dead" observed the Princeton theologian Paul Ramsey.

O.K. If you want to be that way. I can take it. Italy. Ross Perot. Florida 2000. My own existence.

But today you’ve taken on a favourite of mine. Pluto.

According to a democratic vote she is no longer a planet.

Now you’ve gone too far. I won’t stand for it.

You’ll get McCain. Or Hilary. I can't quite decide.

With lots of love,

God

P.S. Did you remember that you sent an explorer to Pluto in January of this year? It won’t get there until 2015!!

What a knee slapper that is!

Finally

Wow, this seems pretty clear.

But it's probably edited by the Left to make it sound this way......

Missionary

Last evening I had an experience that was a high point in my career as a missionary. On the surface it probably didn’t look like much, but the currents moving – in me at least – underneath the surface were powerful.

I did a wedding in the New Church in Haarlem.

You need to imagine to yourself: an old square in the old city of Haarlem, dating back to before the Middle Ages. A church built in 1649 (the tower dates back to 1613), modelled after the temple in Jerusalem (at least what people thought the temple looked like).

The organ was built in 1523, restored in 1985, and is known as one of the best pipe organs in Holland. Sounded magnificent.

Amazing to stand in that church before a group of people and conduct a wedding in a language and culture that is not your own.

It is a goal of every missionary to be accepted by his or her “target group”. To be “one of them”. I think that has happened to Cyndi and I. I was asked by this couple to do the wedding, even though other minister colleagues of mine could have been asked just as easily. In attendance were people I have just recently met, but also people whom I have known for 15 years. Churched and unchurched people. Young and old. It was a community around a young couple, and we were part of the community.

Another goal of every missionary is to be a change agent - to see and say things just a little bit differently so that a culture acquires a new perspective and begins to change. It is a slow and ungainly process, but it can happen.

And I think it is happening. New ways of understanding who God is and what He has done and is doing, expressed in different images and words, are beginning to dawn. A new kind of community is being formed, one that desires to be a colony of God’s Kingdom here on earth. There is room for the highly educated professor and the mentally impaired. We are showing the world another kind of Christian.

It is not easy for the change agent – in this case, me (and my wife). I still feel the tension at the beginning of those kinds of services, when I realize that it will soon begin to dawn on a lot of people there that the guy standing in front is not a native Dutch speaker. Many of the customs still feel strange to me, and sometimes I think they are simply stupid. I would love sometime to be able to conduct such a service in my native language, with all the freedom of expression and wealth of resources that would give me.

But that’s what this business of missions is all about, and I am so grateful that God has helped my wife and me to hang in there all these years.

It is worth it.

Anne and Eva – congratulations!

Principles

One thing that struck me again when I was in the States this past week was that the Christian community very much wants to obey God’s principles.

That means, though, that you need to work to find out exactly what they are. What exactly is “stealing”? What are the Biblical grounds for divorce? Does the Bible allow certain types of discipline for children? What is gossip anyway? What can we do, and what must we avoid?

Once you have discovered what those principles are, then you have to hold to them. They are unbreakable. When you go against God’s principles you run the risk that the blessing will be taken away from or not poured out upon your life.

(I never hear anyone ask what God really and concretely would do if you broke one of the principles. Does He then throw you into Hell? Does He send misery and destruction your way? What exactly does He do? If you ask this question, you don’t get an answer. People cannot – in light of their theology – say that God throws them into Hell. Because they believe He is a loving Heavenly Father they cannot bring themselves to say that that He gives them a whopper of a disaster or a jolly good thump on the head (which, because God is doing it, bodes no good). But you still get the feeling that people believe that something will go irretrievably wrong if you transgress one of these Biblical principles. I remember once that I asked a colleague of mine, a minister, that question when he told me that he was afraid he was a very bad leader for his congregation. When I asked the question I saw his body literally relax. But he gave me no answer. I had to supply it.)

An elder in a congregation put it this way: If the path that we have chosen is wrong, we pray that God will give us the wisdom to see that. But in the meantime we must do what we see in His word, not what we don't see.

I experienced this as a strait jacket. Because people wanted to hold on to Biblical principles it seemed that every use of common sense was abandoned. There was no creativity anymore. People forgot that God has given us a set of brains to use. God-created gray matter.

A favourite author of mine wrote: Principles are what people have in place of God.

I believe I experienced that last week. And people get hurt by it.

Sad.

Fanny Pack: what women never think of

Last week I was with a (female) friend of mine when she - in a move that surprised me, because I didn't expect it of her - put on a "Fanny Pack".

For different styles of Fanny Packs, click here, or here, or here, or here.

Because we have a relationship based on perfect honesty, I shared with her two thoughts of mine about Fanny Packs. She had never thought of these things, and I share them with you because it may revolutionize the woman's relationship to Fanny Packs.

Here they are:

1. A Fanny Pack screams at the world "I am an American!!!" You are welcome to scream that if you like, and perhaps you deliberately want to scream that as you toddle around this dangerous world (an American is afraid of lots of things). But just so you know.

2. A Fanny Pack placed like this:

screams: "Look at my crotch!".

I really don't think most women want to send that message (again, I realize that there are women who do - feel free, go ahead, don't let me stop you), but you should know that it is pretty hard for any redblooded man not to go there.

For those of you who always wanted to know what is under those fanny packs, you can click here. But click here only if you really want to! You have been warned! (Why did you click?)

Anyway, I promised her I would do a service to all those unknowing women who walk around with Fanny Packs.

I keep my promises.

Now it's up to you. She will never wear one again.

Philadelphia

I'm on my way tomorrow to Philadelphia for a week to be involved with some family issues that need attention.

I hadn't expected to go at this time, but I think it is good that I go.

I won't be blogging as much for the next week, but that's OK. Not many people read the blog anyway.

I may have a chance to let you know what's happening while I am there, otherwise I'll write something when I get back.

United 93

Yesterday my wife and I saw United 93 in Amsterdam.

I usually look at the site Rotten Tomatoes before I go to a film, and usually it is a very accurate judge of films for me. If it gives a rating below 60% I don't even bother to go.

United 93 is rated 90% - right on.

Great film. You feel the knot in your stomach already at the first scenes of a normal day on the East Coast. Normal people, getting on a normal flight. I can go a whole flight without saying anything to anybody - I usually prefer it that way, in fact (I never even used to feel guilty when I listened to evangelists who told about how they used the plane ride to evangelize seatmates).

The film just shows what happened on board that flight - at least what can be pieced together from telephone calls and other information. You learn nothing more about the passengers than what you would normally learn from passengers - until it is crisis time.

Of course you ask yourself the question whether you would have been part of the mutiny on board that plane. Of course I don't know - but would it be arrogant to say "I think so"?

I have felt these emotions before, but you want to just kill those hijackers.

It was a terrible and brutal day. It was totally wrong, with no justification. I hope no one takes my comments on this log about the War on Terror to mitigate the horror of that day at all.

At least the Japanese were honorable enough to attack military men.

I am worried about Muslim extremism, and I think we already have the 3rd World War on our hands. That's why I 'm so concerned that we fight it properly.

This film helps us understand.

I'm encouraged

Last night in Los Angeles, at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, England’s Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a speech on the Middle East and the War on Terrorism that finally made some sense.

I don’t know what his motives were for this speech – I hope more than political gain – but the man said some things that I have missed in speeches from Washington or Downing Street ever since September 11, 2001.

A few quotes: (You can read the whole speech here)

There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other. My argument to you today is this: we will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world.
The point is this. This is war, but of a completely unconventional kind.

Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalize the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win. And this is a battle we must win.
What is happening today out in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will shape our future.
It is in part a struggle between what I will call reactionary Islam and moderate, mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.

At other points in the speech he paints a one-sided and not entirely accurate picture of the arguments of people who are not in support of the intervention of the West in, specifically, Iraq. He defends the actions of America and Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan by saying we wanted “values change” not “regime change”. I’m not so sure that was the case. That was certainly not the grounds for going to war in those countries that was presented to us.

But anyway – he said two true things:

We will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world.

I have been saying that it seems that our only weapon is force, and we need other weapons too. Fairness and justice should be what people around the world think of when they think of us, not the barrel of a gun.

Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalize the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win.

These are biblical issues - and they apply equally to everyone. Lately we have not been bending every senew of our will to make peace between Israel and Palestine, in fact, we have lately been encouraging the war.

Thanks Tony. I hope George Bush is listening.

As the British would say, “spot on”.

Rock Bottom Riser

Wonderful song by Bill Callahan of Smog. Heard it on Tuesday on the main Dutch news radio.
Good video too. Enjoy.

Hi Mom and Dad, Evy and Carol. (I guess it's true for my brothers Stan and Jon also). I will see some of you in a few days. I love you.

The lyrics:

I love my mother
I love my father
I love my sisters, too.
I bought this guitar
To pledge my love
To pledge my love to you.
I am a rock bottom riser
And I owe it all to you
I am a rock bottom riser
And I owe it all to you



I saw a gold ring
At the bottom of the river
Glinting at my foolish heart
So my foolish heart
Had to go diving
Diving, diving, diving
Into the murk
And from the bottom of the river
I looked up for the sun
Which had shattered in the water
And pieces were rained down
Like gold rings
That passed through my hands

As I thrashed and I grabbed
I started rising, rising, rising
I left my motherI left my father
I left my sisters, too
I left them standing on the banks
And they pulled me out
Of this mighty, mighty, mighty river

I am a rock bottom riser
And I owe it all to you
I am a rock bottom riser
And I owe it all to you
I love my mother
I love my father
I love my sisters, too.
I bought this guitar
To pledge my love
To pledge my love to you

It's those Germans again!

I've been wondering for a long time who is really behind George Bush.

Now I know.

Click here to find out for yourself.

Still scratching my head

This morning on the news a report about the massive conveys of American suuplies that will go into Lebanon to help the humanitarian disaster there.
Negotiations with Israel are needed to insure that the convoys can come safely by road via North Lebanon and the ships via the harbor of Beirut.

Other news sources this weekend report that the Bush administration is quickly (and without much discussion) sending smart bombs to Israel so that the attacks can be carried out with more precision, limiting civilian casualties.

Let me try to understand this: out of one corner of our mouth we give the tacit green light to Israel for its attacks and the corresponding collateral (civilian) damage, and out of the other corner of our mouth we send millions of dollars of supplies and have to negotiate with Israel to get the supplies there safely.

And apparently the only means we have at our disposal to limit civilian casualties is to send smart bombs.

I continue to be amazed at the weakness of the U.S. government.

Sandy Berger commented that Condoleeza Rice isn't going to any Arab country on this trip to the Middle East because no country wants her. His comment (paraphrased): "No one there trusts the U.S., and there is no one there who can serve as interlocuter." (This word is listed in the Tiscali dictionary of difficult words. If you didn't know what it means, you're probably not the only one.)

If your only weapon is a hammer, you don't need anybody to translate or explain anything.

More on Israel Lebanon

Jim Rice from Sojourners made these commentes in an article called "The New War in the Middle East".

Worth reading the whole article, here are some excerpts. I still simply can't understand why the born-again George Bush has no other weapon than violence in his arsenal. It boggles my mind. If someone could explain that to me I'd love it.

What is the proper, appropriate response of a nation to violent attacks by terrorists or other radical extremists? We have seen one model illustrated in the response of the British government to last year's attacks on London's public transportation system, in which 52 people were killed and 700 injured. The British rightly understood the attacks as terrorist acts, but responded in a measured manner, dealing both with the investigation of the terrible crime and the need for enhanced security in its wake. Pointedly, the British did not opt for a military response to these acts of terror.
We have also, of course, seen an altogether different model of response, perhaps most clearly exemplified by the U.S. invasion of two countries - one of which was an actual source of the terror - following the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, it seems to be in the latter spirit that Israel responded to terror attacks in the past fortnight. Provoked by the Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, Israel not only invaded the northern Gaza Strip but also destroyed a significant portion of Gaza's infrastructure, including airstrikes against Gaza's power grid.
………..
Even apart from the ethical questions raised by Israel's massive retaliation, there are significant issues of efficacy: Does it work? Is Israel made more secure by a militarized approach? Israel has destroyed 42 bridges in Lebanon this week, along with 38 roads, communications equipment, factories, runways and fuel depots at the Beirut airport, and the main ports of Beirut and Tripoli. And along with the material devastation, the attacks constitute a terrible, possibly even fatal, threat to Lebanon's fragile and fledgling democracy.
………
As Christians committed to the cause of peace, our role is not to "take sides" in the struggle, in the traditional sense, but rather to constantly stand for the "side" of a just and secure peace. We can ignore neither the horror of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (including direct attacks on school children) nor the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories (with all its "collateral damage" to Palestinian children). We must have the vision and courage to stand against the acts of violence by terrorist organizations, as well as the massive state violence by the region's military superpower, while avoiding the trap of positing a false "equivalency" between actions that are not equal.
We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the political, strategic, and moral complexity of the situation to stand back and do nothing. A first step toward a more comprehensive resolution is an immediate operational cease-fire. But that must be followed by a new way of thinking because, as a U.N. official put it yesterday, "The Middle East is littered with the results of people believing there are military solutions to political problems in the region."

I Understand

Various sentences from different news reports:

The outlines of an American-Israeli consensus began to emerge on Tuesday in which Israel would continue to bombard Lebanon for about another week to degrade the capabilities of the Hezbollah militia, officials of the two countries said.

American officials signaled that Ms. Rice was waiting at least a few more days before wading into the conflict, in part to give Israel more time to weaken Hezbollah forces.

At the United Nations the Americans, who have signaled that they will give Israel more time to continue the bombardment of Lebanon to weaken Hezbollah’s military power, opposed a French proposal for a Security Council resolution calling for a lasting cease-fire.

The Bush administration is giving Israel a tacit green light to take the time it needs to neutralize Hezbollah, but the Europeans fear mounting civilian casualties will play into the hands of militants and weaken Lebanon's democratically elected government.

I understand the political reasons for this. I really do.

I'm having much more trouble with the moral ones.

****

President Bush used the word “shit” in a conversation with Tony Blair at the G8 conference in St. Petersburg.

The reaction of the American media was one of shock and/or poking fun at another example of Bush’s “crude” language. The word “shit” was of course bleeped out every time.

Last Monday morning I was watching the news about the Middle East when I got the same feeling I had a few days after hurricane Katrina nearly wiped New Orleans off the map.

Where is the government? Where are our leaders? How can it be that the same government that spoke so strongly and acted with such force in the War Against Terrorism is now so weak, powerless and ineffective?

(Remember Bush’s words to Michael Brown, the Director of FEMA? “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”. If there had been no microphones or cameras around he would have said “hell of a”. Two weeks later Brown resigned because of incompetence.)

War is raging again in the Middle East. Houses and neighbourhoods are being bombarded, innocent civilians are being killed. There is a real possibility of escalation and spread of war.

And we hear nothing from the leaders of the West.

Where is the government? Where are our leaders? How can it be that the same government that spoke so strongly and acted with such force in the War Against Terrorism is now so weak, powerless and ineffective?

In the same conversation with Blair Bush also said: “I feel like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.”

When he wanted to attack Iraq Bush paid no attention to Annan’s opinion and didn’t need him for anything. Now he wants Annan to take care of this problem. Why doesn't he get on the phone?

I get angry and sad at this lack of leadership shown by America, Great Britain, France, Russia, Holland – go down the whole list.

The world and the Middle East need leadership so badly.

And we are not getting it.

I think that is ****.

(For an interesting and interactive map of Lebanon and Israel which shows up to date nieuws and blogs, click here. But take this warning from the website seriously: The purpose of this page is to aggregate what is being said and reported: readers must make their own judgement on what to believe, and what to agree or disagree with.)

Hallelujah

I think this is it - at least for now: Hallelujah

Now I've heard there was a secret chord
that David played and it pleased the Lord,
but you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this: the fourth, the fifth
the minor fall, the major lift;
the baffled king composing Hallelujah!

Your faith was strong but you needed proof.
You saw her bathing on the roof; her beauty
and the moonlight overthrew you.
She tied you to a kitchen chair
she broke your throne, she cut your hair,
and from your lips she drew the Hallelujah!

You say I took the Name in vain;
I don't even know the name.
But if I did, well, really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light in every word;
It doesn't matter which you heard;
the holy, or the broken Hallelujah!

I did my best; it wasn't much.
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch.
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you.
And even though it all went wrong,
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah!

Written by Leonard Cohen.

Walk the Line

Last night I watched the DVD Walk the Line, a story of the early life of Johnny Cash.

Early in the movie Johnny is trying to get a local record label, Sun Records, to take him and his two bandmembers on. They have played a gospel tune, something about "Jaysus", and it is obvious the man isn't impressed.

In desperation Johnny asks, "Well, what do you want?"

And the man says, in one of those lines that give me goosebumps:

If you was hit by a truck, and you was lyin’ out in that gutter dyin’, and you had time to sing one song, one song that would let God know what you felt about your time here on earth, one song that would sum you up, that’s the kind of song that truly saves people.

I'm interested - what would that song be?
(and, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have to be a worship song)

I'll have to think about it a while, but I'll let you know.