Exploring the Connections

Our Guns and Butter Economy

America has two favorite new exports: Firearms and obesity

by David Sirota
Salon, May 11, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Credit: ChinellatoPhoto via Shutterstock

With the economy still struggling and the debates over how to fix the problem more intense than ever, one word still evokes bipartisan consensus: exports. “I want us to sell stuff,” said President Obama, summing up the bipartisan sentiment.

That nebulous word “stuff” is significant. It asks us to see all exports as the same and to refrain from making nuanced value judgments about what exactly we’re shipping overseas. In this coldblooded view, a job-creating export is a job-creating export, and that’s as far as any conversation should go.

At first glance, such reductionism seems logical, rational, even boringly uncontroversial. But two recent news items highlight how in a globalized economy, there are troubling consequences that come from the particular kind of export economy we’re building.

The first bit of news came from the Washington Post, which this week reported that “the Obama administration is crafting a proposal that could make it easier to export firearms and other weapons.” Though the Homeland Security and Justice Departments say the new rules could make it easier for terrorist and drug cartels to further arm themselves, the White House is nonetheless citing the “stuff” theory of exports to ignore the objections.

This is part of a larger pattern since President Obama took office. During Obama’s first year in the White House, he began to gut the Pentagon’s approval process for arms exports, weakening controls on what could and could not be sold. Later, diplomatic cables uncovered by WikiLeaks showed, as Fortune magazine put it, “American officials act(ing) as de facto pitchmen for U.S.-made weapons.”

The result is that America has become the true “Lord of War,” as the arms dealer motto goes. We are the leading arms supplier to the developing world and we are responsible for the majority of all weapons sales across the globe. Yes, we are so committed to selling instruments of death to the rest of the planet that military industries have almost tripled their share of the U.S. economy in just a decade.

The second bit of news came from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, whose new study shows that America is exporting our obesity crisis to Mexico. Coupling health statistics with U.S. export data since the North American Free Trade Agreement tore down Mexico’s agriculture trade barriers, researchers found that the Mexican market was flooded by American agribusinesses’ taxpayer subsidized commodities (corn, soybeans) and their processed derivatives. According to the report, that quickly wiped out Mexico’s local food economy, leaving its food system exactly “like the industrialized food system of the United States — characterized by the overabundance of obesogenic foods.” Not surprisingly, Mexican obesity rates have consequently skyrocketed.

Taken together, these export booms represent what could be called America’s new Guns and Butter economy. We are so desperate to export any “stuff” we can, we are now fattening up the world and arming it for permanent bloodshed.

Seeking to short-circuit any objections to this trend, President Obama has said simply that “we’re at a moment where necessity has tempered the old debates” over exports and economic policy. In terms of history, he’s not wrong — during the previous century, America witnessed fevered fights over what constitutes a moral farm policy, and in the 1930s the U.S. Senate’s Nye Committee held almost 100 hearings into “greedy munitions interests” that were unduly influencing public policy. Sadly, Obama is correct – those debates have been silenced.

But should they be? Should we simply say that any exports — no matter their moral, ethical, environmental or health implications — are inherently good? Does “necessity” really mean that “stuff” for stuff’s sake must be the basis of our export economy?

Washington and profit-at-all-cost industries certainly say yes — but that doesn’t mean it’s the right answer.

David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his websit at www.davidsirota.com.   

The People's Bishop

by Chris Hedges
Truthdig | News Analyis, May 7, 2012 

Retired Episcopal Bishop George Packard was arrested in Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza in New York City last Tuesday night as he participated in the May 1 Occupy demonstrations. He and 15 other military veterans were taken into custody after they linked arms to hold the plaza against a police attempt to clear it. There were protesters behind them who, perhaps because of confusion, perhaps because of miscommunication or perhaps they were unwilling to risk arrest, melted into the urban landscape. But those in the thin line from Veterans for Peace, of which the bishop is a member, stood their ground. They were handcuffed, herded into a paddy wagon and taken to jail.

It was Packard’s second arrest as part of the Occupy protests. Last Dec. 17 he was arrested when he leapt over a fence in his flowing bishop’s robe to spearhead an attempt to occupy a vacant lot owned by Trinity Church in lower Manhattan. The December action by the Occupy movement was a response to the New York City Police Department’s storming and eradication of the encampment in Zuccotti Park. Packard will appear in court in June to face the trespassing charge that resulted. Now, because of this second arrest, he faces the possibility of three months in jail.

Packard’s moral and intellectual courage stands in stark contrast with the timidity of nearly all clergy and congregants in all of our major religious insti-tutions. Religious leaders, in churches, synagogues and mosques, at best voice pious and empty platitudes about justice or carry out nominal acts of charity aimed at those bearing the weight of resistance in the streets. And Packard’s arrests serve as a reminder of the price that we especially those who claim to be informed by the mes-sage of the Christian Gospel—must be willing to pay to defy the destruction visited on us all by the corporate state. He is one of the few clergy members who dare to bear a genuine Christian witness in an age that cries out in anguish for moral guidance.

‘‘Arrests are not arrests anymore,” Packard said as we talked Friday in a restaurant overlooking Zucotti Park in New York. ‘‘They are badges of honor. They are, as you are taken away with your comrades, exhilarating. The spirit is calling us now into the streets, calling us to reject the old institutional orders. There is no going back. You can’t sit anymore in churches listening to stogy liturgies. They put you to sleep. Most of these churches are museums with floorshows. They are a caricature of what Jesus intended. Jesus would be turning over the money-changing tables in their vestibules. Those in the church may be good-hearted and even well-meaning, but they are ignoring the urgent, beckoning call to engage with the world. It is only outside the church that you will find the spirit of God and Christ. And with the rise of the Occupy movement it has become clear that the institutional church has failed. It mouths hollow statements. It publishes pale Lenten study tracts. It observes from a distance without getting its hands dirty. It makes itself feel good by doing marginal charitable works, like making cocoa for Occupy protesters or providing bathrooms from 9 to 5 at Trinity Church’s Charlotte Place.We don’t need these little acts of charity. We need the church to have a real presence on the Jericho Road. We need people in the church to leave their comfort zones, to turn away from the hierarchy, and this is still terrifying to a lot of people in the church and especially the church leadership.

The Idolatry of Politics and the Promise of the Common Good

[Thanks to Ron Paget for the heads-up on this article - MT]

by Jim Wallis
Huffington Post, March 3, 2012

Politics is a true American idol, and the 2012 presidential election will be a dramatic demonstration of that reality.

Simply put, we create an idol when we ascribe attributes or place hope in persons or things that should belong only to God. People of faith may be tempted to worship at the altar of politics, but make no mistake: The kingdom of God and the kingdoms of politics are never one and the same.

Our worship of God rightly should shape our engagement with politics, but when politics shapes our religion it distorts our service (and worship) of the One True God.

Left and Right are political categories -- not religious ones. Attempting to mold faith to fit those labels distorts its meaning and power.

The purpose of the Religious Right -- to identify faith with one political party, the Republicans -- was a blatant act of idolatry from its inception. And when the much smaller, less organized so-called "Religious Left" tries to create a mirror image of the Religious Right for the Democrats, it makes the same theological mistake.

Rather than becoming ersatz chaplains and enablers of political idolatry, the faith community should confront it.

Politics is anything but a monotheistic enterprise -- its idols are legion. There are idols of money over democracy, of celebrity over leadership, of individualism over community, of ideology over civility, and of winning over governing.

When conflict arises in our society, each political side invariably does two things: Make us afraid of the problem, and then blame it on the other side. What they don't do is work together to solve the problems -- they are always running to win, rather than finding (or creating) solutions for the common good.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The 2012 election will likely be the ugliest in many years. The amount of money that will be spent, without any transparency, will just fuel the attack politics and should teach us that we will never be able to put values back into politics until we take the money out of it. The check writers control the law writers in Washington D.C., and the Super-PACs, which dominate politics, are real enemies of democracy.

The ultimate importance that both parties and their candidates will attach to their electoral victories is a clear sign our political culture has gone off the rails. The conservative right and the Republicans have not been content simply to say where they disagree with President Obama's policies. Instead they have caricatured and even demonized him as a person, belittled and cast aspersions on his Christian faith, and labeled him the "worst" and "most dangerous" president in history, who is plotting "radical" (and nefarious) changes to America while perpetuating an all-out "war on religion."

At the same time, they say Obama has done nothing, dismissing any and all of his accomplishments during his three and a half years in office. All of these allegations are not only ridiculous but also blatantly idolatrous, as they place ultimate value on what has been, and likely will be, mostly incremental changes in an utterly broken political system.

Meanwhile, the liberal left and the Democrats say that Barack Obama did everything he could possibly have done to pursue their values, and it was just those horrible Republicans who blocked the "change we can believe in." This, too, is utterly ridiculous, and overestimates how much has changed, or will change, in the context of such a flawed political process, which neither end of the political spectrum is prepared to confront on the basis of deeper moral values and principles -- the common good, for example.

Having the Sisters' Back

by Jim Wallace
God's Politics, April 24, 2012 

After an official investigation, the Vatican seems pretty upset with the Catholic sisters here in the United States. They have reprimanded the women for not sufficiently upholding the bishops' teachings and doctrines and paying much more attention to issues like poverty and health care than to abortion, homosexuality, and male-only priesthood.

Nuns attend Mass at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew
the Apostle in Washington, D.C. NICHOLAS KAMM/

AFP / Getty Images

There are concerns with, “a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes,” and the sisters have also been taken to task for “occasional public statements” that disagree with the bishops, “who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.”

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the largest representative group of all the Catholic sisters' orders, has now been put under the control of some bishops who are to “reform” them, change the group’s statutes and programs, and approve who will speak at their events.

The Vatican’s approach to its concerns is, to say the least, quite regrettable. Condemnation and control were chosen over conversation and dialogue. Quite honestly, do most of us believe, or do even most Catholics believe, that the bishops are the only “authentic teachers of faith and morals?”

The sisters may be the most positive face of the Catholic Church today, and they are keeping people in the Church who would have given up on the all-male hierarchy long ago. These women are often the ones at the core of Jesus' ministry, building relationships with the poor and vulnerable, and most concretely offering the love of God. If you had a referendum on who the best faith and moral teachers are in many local communities and parishes around the country, it would likely be the women who are now under attack. That is the sad situation here and the serious mistake being made by the Vatican.

Over the years, I‘ve seen how Catholic women formed the heart of Christian ministry around the country in schools, hospitals, prisons, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, women’s clinics, and children’s programs—often in the worst urban neighborhoods and rural poverty areas. They were among the most faithful in peace marches and non-violent protest of our nation’s endless wars. They were the ones who went to the ends of the earth to be with the most forgotten people on God’s planet.

Sojourners is grateful that these Catholic women have, from the beginning, been at the core of our subscribers and supporters. I’ve gotten to know them and their work as they hosted me and others in their monastic communities and for spiritual retreats.

The Church is very concerned about these sisters losing focus on abortion. But most I know still feel abortion is a terrible moral tragedy and do whatever they can to reduce them. Their approach however is to support low-income women, which actually reduces abortion, instead of mostly legislative strategies that could just push abortions into back alleys. And perhaps the sisters would also rather minister to gay and lesbian people with the love of Christ instead of just telling them they are wrong and unacceptable.

When the Vatican said that issues like poverty are more important to the sisters than issues like sexuality, they are probably right. But from a biblical point of view, the sisters may be right and the Vatican wrong. The Bible is much clearer on the Christian imperative to serve the poor and stand for justice than it is on same-sex marriage or exactly when full human life begins. I, for one, miss the leadership of Catholic bishops like the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who taught a “consistent ethic of life” and a “seamless garment” that defends life and dignity wherever it is threatened: from abortion on demand to poverty, the death penalty, and nuclear weapons.

Of course, there are important issues to discuss in regard to theology, Catholic teachings, what constitutes the most important issues of “orthodoxy,” and how to most wisely and lovingly deal with crucial moral issues like abortion and human sexuality. But couldn’t that be done through serious and respectful conversation with women who have earned the respect to be treated differently than they are here?

Thinking differently about religion

by Simon Barrow
Ekklesia, April 26, 2012

Very frequently, discourse about religion - which, with the changes in perception taking place in the world over the past decade has come back onto the global and political agenda with great force - remains stuck in a series of un-enlightening polarities.

'Public' versus 'private'. 'secular' versus 'religious' and 'liberal' versus 'conservative' are perhaps the dominant paradigms. They assume that 'religion' (a fairly tenuous aggregation of different phenomena more particularly described as internally and externally diverse religions [plural] and beliefs / life stances) is mostly one, and at best two, kinds of thing.

This leads to vastly simplistic questions and equations, such as "should religion be accepted in public life, or should it be seen as a purely private opinion?" and "Christianity equals the church equals major denominations." Or, "should religion be kept out of politics?"

Here 'religion' means nothing more and nothing less than peculiar (in the technical sense) beliefs of an essentially private and extra-political form that gets intruded into public, political life and could simply be left to households, small clubs and personal convictions.

But not all religion is like this, and much of it is quite unlike it. Regarding 'religion' as essentially apolitical does not help avoid the difficulties of domineering religious politics, it enables them, for example. Churches and mosques are not 'private' clubs, but rather public institutions.

The way Ekklesia has tried to address the issues, specifically in a Christian context, is through the language and analysis of Christendom and post-Christendom. The former are the shapes the church takes in allying with, blessing and being granted privileges by governing power. Post-Christendom is what happens when this breaks down and is challenged, and when the language, symbols, assumptions and doctrines of the church are no longer readily comprehended or accepted.

From Ekklesia's perspective, post-Christendom can take a positive turn, recovering the subversive, anti-establishment traditions of nonconformity, and choosing witness (good example) rather than control as a way of interacting with society at large, including its governing institutions.

Likewise, it can take a negative, defensive form - as when Christian groups seek to protect privileges for themselves, or develop a 'victim narrative' of persecution when challenged not to discriminate against others.

Professor Naomi Goldenberg, from the University of Ottawa, is enriching our understanding of the place and performance of religions in society through her analysis of religions as operating like, or being treated as, 'vestigial states' within national and inter-national formations. She largely sees this as a negative thing, since it reserves and sacralises power in unaccountable ways, enforcing prejudice or rejection (against women and LGBTQ people, say) and gaining or maintaining a 'special' privilege not granted or assumed with other civic formations.

At least, this is my understanding of part of what she is saying. I am looking forward to hearing more about her challenging analysis as she speaks at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church at 7pm in London tonight (26 April 2012), as part of a short tour sponsored by the Critical Religion Research Group at the University of Stirling and supported by Ekklesia.

The talk, “What’s God Got to Do With It? Feminism, Religion and the State”, will also be 'tweetcast' live. The hashtags we will be using on Twitter are: #womenreligion and #statereligion. A recording will also be made available in due course.

Simon Barrow is co-director of Ekklesia. He will be chairing the meeting with Professor Goldenberg.

 

With God On Our Side

by Bob Dylan, 1964

                            WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from 
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side. 

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns on their hands
And God on their side.

The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

 

JESUS RADICALS: Christianity is Empire, part 2 (subjugating creation)

by Mark Van Steenwyk
Jesus Radicals, April 12, 2010

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” – Genesis 1:28

As commonly understood, the Christian doctrine of the creation sets the human being apart from nature, advocates human control of nature, and implies that the natural world was created solely for our use. It continues, in the minds of many within Judeo-Christian traditions, to justify (or even compel) our deep exploitation of the earth in the name of advancing civilization.

Empire requires exploitation of the land. Empires require the sort of surplus and hoarding that one cannot normally achieve in a simple harmonious relationship with the earth. And Genesis 1-2 has been used, more than any other passage in Scripture, to justify the exploitation of resources required to make Empire possible.

In recent decades, growing environmental concerns have certainly softened our language about the subjugation of creation…though our actions would, perhaps, indicate otherwise. While our rhetoric has shifted towards a more environmentally “aware” idea of stewardship, we continue to use the earths resources with a primary concern for our own amusement. For many Christians, this is largely justifiable; it is, after all, in our job description.

Genesis 1:28 has been, throughout Christendom, a useful text for rationalizing ecological destruction in the name of civilization. Or, at its best, it has been a useful text for underlying our Lordly relationship over all of “lesser” creation. Either way, it certainly bolsters imperialistic thinking.

Lest someone accuse me of being single-minded in my rejection of Empire, let’s pick on the Brits. After all, if America learned how to be an empire, we probably learned it from our friends across the pond. In his work The Ideological Origins of the British Empire, David Armitage writes:

God’s commands in the book of Genesis to subdue the earth and to go forth and multiply provided justification for emigration and settlement in the New World on the grounds that they were issued to all mankind, not simply to Adam…Combined with the other two most frequently cited texts from the New Testament, Matthew 24:14 (that the Gospel might be preached throughout the whole world to prepare for the last days) and Mark 13:10 (that it should be published among all nations), scriptural precedent could sanction the English to ‘plant as well as preach, and subdue as well as teach’… (p. 95)

And when a civilization expands to subdue the land, it is willing to subdue “lesser” peoples as peasant labor for agriculture and industry. While the Scriptural mandate itself doesn’t justify the exploitation of “lesser” nations or peoples, Armitage argues that, at least within the British Empire: “God’s commands to replenish the earth and assert dominion over it provided a superior right to possession for those who cultivated the land more productively than others, and hence who adopted a sedentary, agricultural existence on the land.” (p. 97)

And so, the command to fill the earth, regardless of original intent, has been used to legitimize not only widespread agricultural development of open spaces, but also the subjugation of the land of peoples who are deemed either intrinsically inferior or inferior by virtue of their lack of land development. In other words, we are justified in taking indigenous lands because A) they are simply savages who will only benefit from us forcing civilization upon them or B) they simply don’t know how to use the land the way it is supposed to be used…they don’t cultivate it to its potential.

Some would surely object: “That was a long time ago! We certainly don’t operate that way today!”

I wish that were true…but the way our corporations act today isn’t all that different. They go to the ends of the earth securing natural resources for the betterment of first world people at the expense of locals. And while it is (usually) done legally, it is the powerful that set the rules, and the effect is simply more of the same–exploitation and oppression of locals. This leads to the ridiculous situation where local workers are paid mere dollars a day while local peoples receive a small sum for their resources; meanwhile, we get relatively cheap goods to help us have a lofty standard of living.

This sort of behavior is simply a continuation of a pattern that was set by Christian imperialism and colonialism. While the folks at Halliburton (probably) don’t quote scriptures to justify their exploitation of natural resources and local populations, it seems that hundreds of years of a mis-reading of Genesis have made it possible for “good Christian folk” to support such activities as part of our larger mandate to use the world for our own purposes as we see fit.

But is that we should learn from Genesis 1:28? Are we the Lords of the Earth whose divine mandate is to bring creation into subjugation? Can we assume that within these verses, we have the right to farm, mine, and build over the face of the earth as we see fit?

Within the context of the first chapter of Genesis, it is safe to assume that Adam and Eve were still vegan (humans weren’t even allowed to eat meat until the time of Noah in Genesis 9) and that they were gatherers (rather than folks who raised crops). It is deeply problematic and anachronistic to read back into our mandate to “subdue” the land the right to modern agricultural practices, mining, and city planning. While these activities may be justifiable, we can’t simply justify them on the basis of Genesis 1.

And it is a mistake to assume that we are, as a race, the benevolent (or malevolent) dictators of the Earth. Adam’s first act of “subduing” or “ruling” was to name the animals. It is reasonable to assume that God’s mandate to subdue the land involved the ordering of creation, not the exploitation of creation. There is no reason to assume that Adam and Eve’s mandate includes anything we might consider coercive.

As Ched Myers points out: “Another wordplay associates the summons to “multiply” (rabah) and to “rule” (radah)…the primary task was to conserve the fertility of the land for the next generation—not to plunder it for short-term gain. Yet because the early Israelites were eking out a living on marginal and drought-plagued land, this task often felt like a wrestling match with the elements. It is in this sense that we should interpret the phrase “fill the land and subdue it,” which has fueled modern theologies of domination…” (Ched Myers, To Serve and Preserve. Sojourners Magazine).

I’m not saying we should all run out into the woods and become naked vegans. But, if we are to take Genesis 1 as a template for our relationship to the earth and its inhabitants, it is better to work towards a harmonious relationship with creation (one of reciprocity) rather than a top-down relationship of exploitation.

Since, historically speaking, Empire requires exploitation of the land. One way of cutting imperialism at its root is to return to harmonious ways of living with the land. It is not only (arguably) a more faithful way of living into the mandate of Genesis 1:28, it is also, increasingly, necessary for our survival.

JESUS RADICALS: Christianity is Empire, Part 1

by Mark Van Steenwyk
Jesus Radicals, April 7, 2010

Editors’s Note: This is the first of a four-part series examining the intrinsically oppressive nature of much of traditional Christianity. 

Our recent interview with Waziyatawin has gotten to me. Towards the end of that first part of our interview with Waz (an insightful Dakota scholar), she basically says that Christianity has no real place in creating a just world because Christianity, at its core, is about subduing the land, asserting its superiority over other faiths, and believes that it is the one true religion.

These qualities, if indeed central to Christianity, make it the ideal imperial religion. I’m sure more than a handful of Roman Emperors, European Rulers, and American Presidents would agree.

The argument that Christianity is intrinsically oppressive is nothing new, but it persists. That’s because it is true. Christianity, at least as it is understood by the majority of Christians throughout the ages is inherently oppressive and will inevitably lead to Empire. A Christianity that is willing to use the Sword will always nurture Empire.

This may not always be the case with all Christians everywhere, and it certainly wasn’t true for the earliest followers of Jesus, but it is such a well-worn pattern of Christian practice that it would be foolish to simply dismiss those who argue that Christianity is inherently oppressive.

Traditional readings of Genesis (about subduing the land) mixed with traditional views of the Lordship of Christ (which gives his followers socio-religious superiority) mixed with the evangelistic impulse of the Great Commission (which gives us a mandate to extend Christ’s rule to the ends of the earth) are problematic enough as they stand. But if you add the willingness to use violence to accomplish these ends, you are creating the perfect empire cocktail.

If we are going to have a faith that resists domination, we need to re-examine our willingness to use the Sword to accomplish any Gospel-inspired goals. If a Christianity that is willing to use the Sword will always nurture Empire, we need to put away the sword.

But we need to go further than that, because one can still be an oppressor without the use of overt violence. We need to re-examine the place that 1) subjugation of creation, 2) socio-religious superiority, and 3) the Great Commission have in shaping our faith.

In the following three parts of this series, we will briefly examine the Biblical basis for each of these tenets, summarize the shape they have taken historically, and explore a faithful way forward in the midst of our own imperial context.

Witnessing for peace within an empire

Opinion: Perspectives from readers

by Berry Friesen
The Mennonite, October 1, 2010 

A few recognized it long ago, soon after our government killed 140,000 residents of Hiroshima on an August morning in 1945 and then repeated the atrocity a few days later in Nagasaki. For most of us, it has taken longer to sink in. The United States of America aims to rule the world; we’re an empire now.

Today, our nation has nearly 800 permanent military bases in over 100 countries of the world. Its troops have invaded and occupied a large swath of south central Asia. It spends as much annually on armaments as the rest of the world combined and has begun to fill outer space with military weapons. It bullies weaker nations with threats of war, lawless mercenaries and secret agents. 

Since 9/11, this agenda has been supported by both major political parties, by the mainstream media and by many coworkers and neighbors. It has become the new status quo. However much we abhor war and desire peace, the worldview of empire is difficult to resist. What is our alternative? How will it keep us safe? 

Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense, had a penchant for telling the truth about empire. "We have two choices," he said. "Either we change the way we live, or we change the way they live. We choose the latter." Asked about the many casualties of this approach, Rumsfeld replied: "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. ... Stuff happens." 

Indeed. Over 1 million Iraqis have been killed since the empire invaded that country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has become commonplace for innocent civilians to be gunned down by the empire’s forces. In Iran, terrorists funded with our tax dollars bomb and maim.

This is what empires do. They seize control of resources, and as they do so they kill lots of innocent people and impoverish many more. 

How can we prepare ourselves to articulate Jesus’ way of peace as the alternative that will save the world?

1. Reclaim the biblical view of empire.  Empires are never benign. They always are captivated by their own rhetoric, convinced of their own entitlement, addicted to their ability to inflict overwhelming violence. 

John Stoner, a Mennonite who has been a pastor, teacher and lifelong peace activist, says this: "In the Bible’s story, empires constitute the primary organized manifestation of that from which humanity must be saved."

2. Break the empire's spell. When we can no longer conceive of an alternative to the empire’s way of managing the world, we become weak, and the empire’s triumph is complete.

The first step in breaking the spell is to repent of our dependence on mainstream media for information about the world. For more liberal Menno­nites, this repentance will bring a new skepticism of National Public Radio. For more conservative Mennonites, it will bring a new skepticism of Christian radio’s news and commentary.

The second step is to acquaint ourselves with and begin talking about the bloody details of empire: its deception, greed and atrocities. Our inclination and training as Mennonites is to speak of peace in lofty religious and almost philosophic terms. But Jesus’ message of peace loses its power when we separate it from the ugly realities from which we are being saved.

3. Embrace a theology of the public square. Two-kingdom theology has served us well by supporting an identity distinct from the one the empire offers. But it fails us when it leaves us in the privacy of our homes and congregations, grieving the violence of empire yet resigned to its sway.

Being "people of Christ's peace" is not a possession; it is a calling that sends us into the public square with the expectation that God’s saving work awaits us there. 

Empires do not end well; history tells us that. Living as we do as citizens in and beneficiaries of the current iteration, it is far from clear how God will save us. But it will entail public witness to the way of Jesus, of that we can be sure. We can join that witness confident it will not be in vain. 

Berry Friesen is a member of East Chestnut Street Mennonite Church, Lancaster, Pa.

Quakers divided over 'loyal address' to British monarch

by staff writers
Ekklesia News Service, March 27, 2012

A decision by British Quakers to give a “loyal address” to Elizabeth II has triggered heated debate and controversy amongst the denomination's own members. Quakers have a strong anti-royal tradition.

Quakers, also known as the Religious Society of Friends, were one of several groups invited to give an address in celebration of this year's diamond jubilee.

But many Quakers believe that the denomination's commitment to equality is inconsistent with addressing someone as a superior. Some go further and argue that faith in the Kingdom of God rules out loyalty to a human ruler.

A number of Quakers took to social media to express their disappointment as twelve representatives of the Society delivered the address at Buckingham Palace today (27 March). The decision to give the address was made at Meeting for Sufferings, the national committee of British Friends (which retains its seventeenth century name).

There was particular anger that the address described the monarch as “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II”. Quakers generally avoid titles and refer to people by their names only.

"To be a Quaker, and uphold a testimony to equality, is mutually exclusive with supporting or endorsing the monarchy," wrote the socialist Quaker blogger Tim Rouse. "Facilitating, endorsing, or simply acknowledging the legitimacy of the monarchy is contrary to the testimony to equality".

In contrast, other Friends have argued that the address is an opportunity to raise issues of Quaker concern at the heart of power. The address promoted sustainability, economic justice, marriage equality and active nonviolence.

The issue has already triggered vociferous debate on the letters page of the weekly Quaker magazine The Friend, which is independent of the Quaker organisation. The publication of the text of the address is likely to fuel controversy further, as the language is more deferential than was expected.

However, it is reported that Joycelin Dawes, who read out the address today, declined to curtsey to the monarch, choosing to nod her head instead.

The address began by offering congratulations on the diamond jubilee. It went on to say, “We give thanks for the commitment you have shown through six decades as monarch and for your steadfast upholding of the value of faith to our nation’s wellbeing”.

A large part of the address was devoted to issues of sustainability. It explained, “Last year, Quakers in Britain met in the worshipful stillness that is our tradition, and made a strong corporate commitment to become a low-carbon, sustainable community... This concern grows from our faith, and cannot be separated from it... It is our responsibility both to conserve the earth’s resources and to share them more equitably.”

The address called for equality for same-sex and mixed-sex marriages “because of our deeply held belief that we see the light of God in everyone which leads us to respect the inherent worth of each individual and each loving relationship”.

These sentiments may please left-wing Quakers who oppose idea of a “loyal address”. But some took exception to the way the address referred to peace issues.

It stated, “We lament the resort to armed conflict as an instrument of policy. We welcome your personal commitment to peace, such as you have shown in relation to Ireland.”

Stuart Masters, a Quaker living in Birmingham, expressed his disagreement. He said that Quakers had "told the commander in chief of the British armed forces how much we appreciate her commitment to peace".

Quakerism developed in England in the 1650s. It grew out of a number of radical groups linked to the parliamentarian side in the English Civil War. Quakers emphasise that anyone can experience God directly and inwardly.

They are perhaps best known for their commitment to pacifism. In the UK, Quakers are the largest Christian group so far to have endorsed same-sex marriage.

There are around 400,000 Quakers worldwide, including about 23,000 in Britain.