Tagged: Blogging
It’s Not Over
I fought in Iraq.
Not often, but sometimes while I was there I felt a unique-to-me sensation which I later determined to be my body’s response to feeling afraid-for-my-life. For me, this kind of fear feels similar to run-o-the-mill crying. But whereas everyday crying feels localized to my face and eyes, afraid-for-my-life doesn’t leave any part of me untouched–plus it is many times more intense. Put another way, I might say crying cuts like a scalpel, afraid-for-my-life cuts like a semi-truck.
That said, as I keep reading about these attacks, I hear the interstate. What about you?
****
Maybe you don’t think you’re smart enough to see what is going on. It’s not that difficult. If you can read, you can get it.
Here’s what I could track down as the formal response of some of the West’s leaders. One formal statement is different from the others. Can you discern whose it is and how it is difference? Or do you need pictures?
Germany – Merkel: “We have to assume it was a terrorist attack.”
Russia – Putin: “This is a shockingly cruel and cynical crime committed against peaceful civilians.”
America – Trump: “Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin.”
America – White House Spokesman: “…we stand together with Berlin in the fight against all those who target our way of life and threaten our societies.”
Poland – Szydlo: “…with pain and sadness we received the information that the first victim of this heinous act of violence was a Polish citizen..”
London – Khan: “My thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by the awful suspected attack on Berlin last night…”
Can anyone explain to me what Khan means by “suspected”? Does he not know what “an attack” is? Does he not know that even if it turns out to be the equivalent of a Columbine or Sandy Hook mass-murder that it is still an attack? Is he really asking us and expecting us to withhold forming an opinion?
What about you? Are you with Khan? Am I being silly? Does he seem reasonable to you? Should we put our ability to match like-with-like on hold? Also, who is he praying to? Allah? The same god that the “suspected” attacker prayed to? How does that work?
****
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is only path to victory. For H-‘s sake, do not believe the lie that the war is against flesh and blood.
Our God’s Word–the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who loved the world so much He sent His son Jesus the Christ to die for us and whom He resurrected on the third day, this God and no other–could not be clearer: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Do not send our children to fight flesh and blood. Instead, turn off the television and fulfill your calling and proclaim the Gospel. In our day this looks like ensuring and insisting the people in your life know that Our God is not their god. This begins with you knowing this is the case. Do you know this? Do you know our God? Do you know Jesus? Really know Him? If you have any doubt, then track down a “Christian” and ask them to remind you what the Gospel is. If they don’t seem to know, or if what they say doesn’t sound like good news, thank them for their time and find another one. (Christian churches are a good place to start…)
When You Say ‘Radicalization’, What Do You Mean?
The 1910 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica uses “Mahommedan Religion” to describe what we now call “Islam.” Times have changed so much that my 2016 spell-checker thinks even the spelling of “Mahommedan” is wrong–both times. Here’s how the entry opens,
“The Mahommedan religion is generally known as Islam–the name given to it by Mahomet himself–meaning the resigning or submitting oneself to God. The participle of the same Arabic verb, Muslim (in English usually spelt Moslem), is used for one who professes this religion. The expression “Mahommedan religion” has arisen in the West probably from analogy with “Christian religion”, but is not recognized as a proper one by Moslem writers.”
(As a grammar refresher, a participle is a verbal adjective. In English, it is usually an “-ing” word: running, walking, or in this case, in Arabic, Islam (“to resign/submit [verb] to Allah”) becomes Muslim (“resigning/submitting” [participle] to Allah”).
Before getting to radicalization, I want to take one moment to call your attention to the name change–or how no one says “Mahommedan Religion” anymore. My point is not to romanticize the past, but instead to suggest that we can benefit from the admission that there has been a change. And not just a change in names, but in the way we write–a change in our methodology. That little paragraph is very observational. The writer merely recorded what was going on. The writer was very honest. He admitted, “We say ‘Mahommedan Religion’, they say, ‘Islam’.” (period)
I cannot speak for you, but to me that kind of honesty feels as refreshing as a new pair of wool socks on a snowy winter morning in the Rockies.
On the whole, though, like the American prize-fighter Muhammad Ali demonstrated, I fully support letting each person decide their name. This should be no surprise considering the theme of my last two posts. At the end of the day, I just want to be able to swap stories and ask what you mean if I become confused.
And I am confused these days.
See, we hear the word radicalization more and more. In my social circles, I seem to be the only who is confused by this word.
By my thinking, radicalization is a distinctly non-Christian word. By my thinking, radicalization implies some form of neutrality at an earlier stage. And by my thinking, followers of Christ–those of us filled with the Spirit of the Living God–know that there is no such thing as radicalization. Instead, we believe that there is redemption. For we believe that all have sinned–even the terrorists.
There is no neutral–not in our story at least. I certainly was never neutral. I have only ever been in motion. And I think no matter what story you have believed up to now, you have only ever been in motion too.
I have been moving forward or backward or left or right my entire life. It was never a question of “should I move?” or “should I grow?”, but “which direction?”
Cars have neutral. People–not so much.
You want to use the word radicalization? That’s cool. But can you please tell me what it means? Because as of this moment, I can’t seem to ground your word except in relation to redemption. And redemption only comes from the blood of Jesus Christ.
On Talking
I’m wearing down. I’ve been studying Hebrew nearly all day. I figure I have one more round of flashcards in me after I write this. Then the big final is in the morning.
This wraps up my third semester of studying ancient biblical languages (though, unlike Koine Greek, Hebrew is alive and well). I love it. Really, I do. I even switched my degree program and concentration so that I take more languages. But I have one big beef with the way the material is being presented. Often times we are told something like, “So because of this, then, we know we’re working with a nominative noun, and that’s how we know he meant ‘ship’.” Or what have you.
That’s flatly wrong. Grammar does not give words their meaning, we do. Grammar is a tool we invented to help communicate meaning, but at the end of the day, we give words their meaning–you and I.
Words are not transcendent. They are here. They are mine and they are yours. They are me. They are you.
Do you understand my words?
We are each responsible for our words’ meaning. It’s not like there are a bunch of words floating around and we just grab them out of the air and order them in some aurally or visually pleasant manner–no. We have something to say (or not) and then we begin to utter the words within us. Where do we get new words? People. How do we know what the new words mean? People tell us.
Looking for fun in unexpected places? Join me in telling “men of letters” that they give their words meaning. Sheesh. It’s like I was arguing for flat earth or something. It is quite frustrating. The more “educated” someone is, the more they desire, perhaps unwittingly, to turn words into numbers. Folks want each word to mean one thing and only one thing. This desire and the attempt to manifest the desire is selfish. By calling it selfish, I do mean to communicate clearly that I believe it is downright evil.
To be sure, if you’re ever confused about what I meant, just ask. I will tell you what my words mean. If I’m confused and ask what you meant, then you tell me what your words mean. This back and forth is called talking.
Welcome to Erff.
Reflection
H- answered, “Officer Judy is from Zootopia.”
“Zootopia, eh? When were you watching that?”
“Before school.”
“So you wake up early enough to watch movies before school when you’re at your mom’s?” I asked.
“I wake up when my alarm goes off.”
“What time does your alarm go off?”
“Seven ten.”
“Then what?”
“I go down stairs and eat breakfast and then I change clothes.”
“You change clothes downstairs? Why downstairs?”
“Well, my mom throws down my clothes, and then I put them on and watch tv until it’s time to go.”
“I see. Where is your mom while you are watching tv?”
“She’s upstairs with C-.”
“Oh,” I said, cutting myself off quickly. Unable to resist the pull to follow inquiry further, I rejoined with, “What is she doing with him?”
“I think they play with each other.”
“Hmm. What do you mean? Like play games? Maybe play video games?”
“No,” she held the note, “not video games.”
“I don’t think I understand, H-. What are they playing?”
“I don’t know,” she said.
As if Truth’s gateway, the rear-view mirror reflected that her searching eyes did not notice mine.
Finding no satisfaction, H- concluded, “More like wrestling, I think. I don’t have the word.”
But Who Can Explain Longing To My Child?
But who can explain longing to my child?
The teardrop tries but fails,
For it carries many.
The silenced voice is unheard,
The pounding heart, muffled.
The knotted gut is unseen,
The lumped throat, concealed.
But who can explain longing to my child?
I could explain longing to my child,
But for it is not when I am with her.
Response To Pew Research Center Study On Why We’re Giving Up On God.
As you’re no doubt aware, we’re giving up on God. Why? The research group “Pew” knows.
If you’re a redeemed sinner, washed clean by the blood of Jesus Christ, and it pains you to see so many other sinners harden their hearts, close their eyes, and cover their ears, please keep reading. In response to Pew’s findings, I’m going to do my best to give you some tips on how to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with folks similar to those Pew surveyed.
(RFL is ‘reason for leaving’ and GR is ‘Gospel Response’.)
RFL 1: Learning about evolution when I went away to college.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ literally has nothing to say about evolution. Not in an “evolution is wrong” sense, but in a “the Gospel of Jesus Christ also has nothing to say about Harry Potter’s prowess in a quidditch match” sense.
RFL 2: Too many Christians doing un-Christian things.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is literally the good news that un-Christian things can be forgiven.
RFL 3: Religion is the opiate of the people.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news. Good news is not a substance or thing that I put into my body.
RFL 4: Rational thought makes religion go out the window.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ literally has nothing to say about rational thought. Not in a “rational thought is wrong” sense, but in a “the Gospel of Jesus Christ also has nothing to say about the fact that Batman’s costume switched colors from blue and grey to black over the years” sense.
RFL 5: Lack of any sort of scientific evidence of a creator.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ literally has nothing to say about science. Not in a “science is wrong” sense, but in a “the Gospel of Jesus Christ also has nothing to say about Christian Grey’s preference for BDSM” sense.
RFL 6: I just realized somewhere along the line that I really didn’t believe it.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ literally is the good news that there is hope–even if we don’t believe it.
RFL 7: I’m doing a lot more learning, studying, and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ literally has nothing to say about learning, studying, and making decisions by yourself. Not in a “learning, studying, and making decisions yourself is wrong” sense, but in a “the Gospel of Jesus Christ also has nothing to say about Rocky Balboa’s decision to train Apollo Creed’s illegitimate son” sense.
RFL 8: I just believe that religion is a very personal conversation with me and my creator.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news. The ability to have a personal conversation with your creator is not good news. Muhammad had a very personal conversation with Allah.
RFL 9: I don’t have a particular religion because I am open-minded and I don’t think there is one particular religion that is right or wrong.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news. The fact that you can have an open mind and/or choose to not condemn a certain religion as “wrong” is not good news. Muhammad didn’t condemn a certain religion as wrong; he just agreed that other religions were on to something. Being “on to something” is not good news, either.
RFL 10: I don’t have time to go to church.
GR: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a calendar event that you find time for in the same sense that bad news is not a calendar event that you find time for.
Black Lives Matter
Here’s another way to explain how I (a diligent Evangelical Christian seminary student) interpret the passing scene.
Blacks are being killed by law enforcement in a newsworthy manner. They, then and rightfully, became angry and began to protest and to draw more attention to the killings. Someone, somewhere thought “Black Lives Matter” was catchy and accurately communicated what blacks are feeling. It proved to be catchy for sure, but non-blacks could not tell what it means. Rather than ask a black what they meant, they adhered to post-modern thinking and assigned the phrase whatever thought they thought it meant. Given that fear was the catalyst behind the initial killings, the fear only grew. The only reason I, Pete in the flesh and blood, am any wiser on the passing scene than you, is that I joined a black Christian church about 2 years ago and humbly sought understanding, I learned and confirmed that what blacks mean by “Black Lives Matter” is “Ouch”. Upon learning this, it makes total sense why tensions have only risen and now blacks are killing police. (And now it is apparent that no one was ever really killing over skin color, but culture. This explains why white culture blacks aren’t being killed, and why black police officers are being killed. This also happens to perfectly cohere with how evil works. Evil feeds on fear.)
But, like I’ve said and demonstrated throughout my 35 years of life, I hate being afraid. I refuse to do it at nearly all costs. Proof of this is that I flew combat missions, I worked in the oil fields, and I managed a strip club. Most people, but especially most white people, do not hate fear like I do. In other words, most white people are afraid. How else do you explain the suburbs? Rather than facing fear, they (we) ran. Fear is the reason the blacks are being killed, and fear is what prevents us (white culture) from asking a stranger from black culture what the heck they mean when they say something that seems racist, in response to the newsworthy killings.
White culture: Black Lives Matter is not a liberal movement–it is a liberating movement. Christians especially, we need to understand the Gospel and the freedom from fear that the Cross released. There is hope. Repent! In the name of Jesus Christ, repent.
The weapons on the MH-53 that I flew in Iraq (while a captain and pilot in the Air Force…I’m standing third from the right in the last photo in that video) were for defensive purposes only. We had three machine guns, all manned by enlisted aircrew (sweaties). Essentially, our missions were supposed to be secret, so in theory, no one (friend or enemy) knew that we were doing our thing. But, on the off chance that we misplanned the route or miscalculated the threats, we had some guns with which to attempt to stay alive whilst completing the mission.
The crews I was a part of never came under direct fire in any of my ten months of combat missions. Well, I take that back. There was one mission where our formation came under fire, probably just from one pissed-off Iraqi who didn’t realize what he was up against. In response, my tail…
View original post 722 more words
Black Lives Matter
The weapons on the MH-53 that I flew in Iraq (while a captain and pilot in the Air Force…I’m standing third from the right in the last photo in that video) were for defensive purposes only. We had three machine guns, all manned by enlisted aircrew (sweaties). Essentially, our missions were supposed to be secret, so in theory, no one (friend or enemy) knew that we were doing our thing. But, on the off chance that we misplanned the route or miscalculated the threats, we had some guns with which to attempt to stay alive whilst completing the mission.
The crews I was a part of never came under direct fire in any of my ten months of combat missions. Well, I take that back. There was one mission where our formation came under fire, probably just from one pissed-off Iraqi who didn’t realize what he was up against. In response, my tail gunner managed to fire off a few rounds before he ran out of azimuth (line of sight) but our sister-ship’s gunner was able to kill the man. Like most of these stories, the event was over before it began. (I remember filling out the flight record more clearly than I remember the event.) And the biggest “lesson learned” for me was yet another confirmation that multi-tasking is impossible.
You see, piloting an aircraft safely requires a deliberate cross-check of many, many things. How’s my altitude? How’s my heading? How’s my airspeed? Etc. In the beginning of pilot training, your cross-check is slow and everyone on board, including the student, can tell. This is because the aircraft is too high, too low, too fast, too slow, out of trim, or what have you. But over time, you speed up your cross-check and consequently begin to control the aircraft professionally. However, throughout the cross-check, you are never doing more than one thing at a time. Instead, you just learn to do each single thing very quickly. This impossibility of multi-tasking is why black lives matter.
White people: listen up. Regarding “Black Lives Matter”, you’re not getting it. And because you’re not getting it, police officers are dying. Luckily, as a Christian, because of my faith in the Triune god, I have the Holy Spirit on my side and believe I can help us. Through diligent conversation with friends at the seminary and friends at church (a black baptist church) I believe I understand the problem. It’s a translation problem. I will translate for you what blacks mean.
When a black person says or holds up a sign which reads, “Black Lives Matter,” you need to merely hear/read the word, “Ouch.” However, if you come across any non-blacks who are brave enough say or hold a sign that reads, “Black Lives Matter,” know that they mean just that–black lives matter. Do you see?
Blacks are saying, “Ouch, that hurts. Why are you doing that?” This is no different than when my formation was fired upon. When our formation felt an “ouch,” we all turned our focus to the most pressing problem until it was neutralized. When we were being fired upon, all I cared about was airspeed. We needed to get away as fast as we could. Likewise, right now, blacks are being killed. And they’re being killed by us–by whites. Unfortunately, unlike my formation being fired upon by an enemy outside our aircraft which could be killed, the enemy is inside us. Our racism is what needs to die.
So how do we kill our racism? Here’s a simple solution. We need to stop saying, “I don’t see color.” We need to stop saying that because, unless you’re blind, it’s a lie. Instead we need to say, “I see color and I think it’s beautiful.” But there’s a catch. If we tell the truth and admit that we do see color, and yet we have no meaningful interaction with the Black community, then this little assertion proves to be a lie too. Because it necessarily follows that we don’t think color is beautiful if we don’t have it in our lives.
To summarize: first, when a black person says, “Black Lives Matter”, hear or read “Ouch.” Second, stop lying. See color and learn to find it beautiful. If you’re Christian, this is part of your calling.
One last thing. White people: stop saying you have black friends. Even if we “really do (honestly!)”, that’s evidently not meaningful. We need a black family. We need black people in our lives who we eat with even when we’re mad at each other. We need black people in our life with whom we take long car rides. We need black people in our lives with whom we mourn the loss of a loved one. We need black people in our lives with whom we celebrate a wedding and a birth. Again, we need a black family.
Luckily for Christians, Jesus Christ–the Word made Flesh–provides us just such a family. It’s called the church. If you regularly attend a church, voice your desire to interact with black churches. But if you don’t regularly attend, or haven’t in some time, then visit some black churches and in humility of heart join the one you like the best.
Hopefully you now see how unconscionable it is to believe “Black Lives Matter” is a divisive, racist phrase. Blacks are saying, “Ouch,” and we’re replying, “Well, you’re causing it!” Just stop. Stop being willfully blind and start seeing.
On Tolerance
How tolerant are you? I think I’m very tolerant, but I’m pretty sure I would be viewed by most Americans as being very intolerant. Here’s a litmus test for tolerance that I think is worth considering.
Last week we explored Islam and Allah. The biggest take away was that Allah is not the personal name of Islam’s god. Allah is merely the Arabic word for God.
In the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag, there is a line that declares, “One Nation, Under God”.
My tolerance test for you is the following question. Are you tolerant enough to show the refugees that we love and welcome them by changing the pledge to declare, “One Nation, Under Allah”? After all, Allah is just the Arabic word for God.
Or how about when the president closes his national addresses with the phrase, “God Bless America.” Are you tolerant enough to not voice an objection if he were to say, “Allah Bless America”?
Does Anyone Think We Can Defeat The Enemy?
Here’s President Obama’s self-absorbed response to Mr. Trump’s self-absorbed bombas-ticary.
Assuming you don’t have 25 minutes to spend on the above video, I’ve done my best to clarify the arguments below.
Mr. Trump is arguing that
A – American leaders need to use the label “Radical Islam” in order to stop terrorism.
B – Implicit to Mr. Trump’s argument is the argument if we don’t label the enemy accurately (know who/what the enemy is) then we cannot possibly defeat the enemy.
C – If we don’t elect Mr. Trump as president, then no one will say “Radical Islam.”
A + B + C =
D – Without using the label “Radical Islam,” we cannot defeat the enemy (whatever the enemy is).
Since B and D are the same, then Mr. Trump is using circular reasoning. All Mr. Trump has actually argued is, “Without me, we cannot defeat the enemy.”
In response, President Obama is arguing that
A – If we use the label “Radical Islam,” we don’t really mean the adjective “radical”. In other words, if we say “Radical Islam,” people only hear “Islam.”
B – Extremists successfully recruit new extremists by telling the lie to young Muslim men that the West believes Islam is the enemy.
C – If the number of extremists grows, we cannot defeat the enemy.
D – If he were to say, “Radical Islam is the enemy,” then he’d be doing the recruiting for the extremists (ISIL/ISIS).
A + B + C + D =
E – If we use the label “Radical Islam,” we cannot defeat the enemy (whatever the enemy is).
Since C and E are the same, then President Obama is likewise using circular reasoning. All President Obama has actually argued is, “Without me, we cannot defeat the enemy.”
In sum, Mr. Trump believes we must use the label “Radical Islam” to defeat the enemy and President Obama believes we must NOT use the label “Radical Islam” to defeat the enemy. But each man clearly believes that without him, the enemy cannot be defeated. Can we agree that besides being self-absorbed and redundant, their argument is depressing?
For a different, encouraging argument, try mine.
I am arguing that,
A – I wanted to fight or I did fight terrorism (Wait. Terrorism? Who are we kidding? We’re at war with Allah) with violence from Sept. 11, 2001 until March 1, 2012.
B – It’s now 2016. 4 years after stepping off the violent path, it is apparent that terrorism (Allah) is still a growing threat.
C – Terrorism (Allah) cannot be defeated by violence because it is an idea.
D – Only ideas can defeat ideas.
E – Due to internal inconsistencies not much different than President Obama and Mr. Trump’s circular reasoning, neither naturalism, nor deism, nor Buddhism, nor scientism, nor atheism, nor Mormonism, nor Tom Cruise-ism, nor patriotism, nor nationalism, nor globalism can defeat terrorism (Allah).
A + B + C + D + E =
F – Christianity’s Triune God, in all of His mystery (tell me again, how was Jesus fully human and fully divine at the same time?), in all of His reality (the concrete resurrection of Jesus as proclaimed by the New Testament writers and its subsequent 2000 year witness of manifest grace) is the only idea that can defeat terrorism (Allah).
In other words, A + B + C + D + E =
F – We can defeat terrorism (Allah). And we can defeat terrorism (Allah) without me! We just need to submit ourselves to the will of Christianity’s Triune God.
In sum, my argument (Christianity’s argument), unlike Mr. Trump and President Obama, is, “Without me, the enemy can be defeated”–emphasis on “the enemy can be defeated” and “without me.” There is hope people. His name is Jesus.
Do you see?