Clearly something is afoot because some Adventists have unveiled this on the side of their church.

http://www.ryanjbell.net/intersections/2008/07/help-bring-an-e.html

I am always bothered by the rationale "because what we allow our military to do to non-citizens abroad will eventually come home". Are we really just worried about ourselves? A main reason not to torture is because it might then happen to us? It is true that if US troops are tortured it would be hard a US complaint to be taken seriously. We must not torture on purely moral grounds.

Great point, Dick. I think this is one of those issues were the purely moral interest and self-interest coincide. In other words, "Do unto others, what you would have them do unto you," because they probably will. For me the question is, Is it OK to appeal to self-interest rather than conscience on a moral issue?

I remember reading this poem outside the National Holocaust Museum in Washington DC:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Nienoeller
Lutheran Pastor

To me, this poem illustrates how appealing to self-interest on moral issues can lead the "self" to identify with the "other" so that in the end an appeal to self-interest becomes an appeal to conscience. Suddenly, the person who was one of "them" becomes one of "us", and what the government does to those it calls terrorists, becomes something it does to my 'neighbor'.

As an Adventist, I strongly identify with the terrorists, because I realize that one day the government might call me a undesirable, and what happened to Maher Arar might one day happen to me. I have come to realize that the terrorist is my neighbor and I must care for him or her in the spirit of Christ. Therefore, I must vote for fair trial of those accused of being terrorists and humane treatment of those found guilty.

I think what the Hollywood Adventist church is doing is awesome, and I think these ought to be hanging on the walls of every Adventist, scratch that, Christian church, especially as the election draws closer. If you want information to bring to your church board go to Banners Across America at the National Religious Campaign Against Torture website.

"As an Adventist, I strongly identify with the terrorists, because..." ? I can assure you that as an SDA (albeit a bit of a reluctant SDA) I can not identify with terrorists. I would also suggest that if you have terrorists as neighbors and they consider you the great Satan, you should move or have them moved.

Wow...adventists identifying themselves with terrorists?? That is a mighty liberal thought. And I can't help but notice that this seems to be a vote for Obama issue as well. No thanks for that. But at the same time, I too do not agree with torture. It is, a moral issue, and I do not know what lines can be drawn between what anyone might think is torture and what we might consider is not really torture. And Mr. Larsen, you cannot move america. But as usual the BIG question has not been asked. What do you do? You have a captured terrorist cell, they claim to have planted a dirty bomb somewhere in L.A., And you have 4 hours to find it. I know....do we let millions die or do we..........You fill in the blank.

The Christian view of hell is torture. Please explain--the difference between the RCC view and the SDA view in terms of ultimate morality. E.G. White states that some will "burn" for days! There is life and there is death no tint between. This twisting slowly slowly in the flames is a man made revenge--a hell of its own. Just because God has the righ guys, dead to rights, doesn't make torture moral.

If one finally denies the source of life the consequence is oblivion, immediate and everlasting. If not, I suggest Hollywood take down their sign.

Tom

Christopher Hitchens is conservative?

Dick:

Maher Arar was a terrorist...or was he? The prisoners held at Guantanamo were terrorists...or where they?

Remember that not all who the government says are terrorists are actually terrorists. It is in that sense that I identify with terrorists.

Tom:

Do you believe that it is permissible human governments to give evil-doers a taste of final judgment in the here and now?

Then I guess it depends on who is definig a terrorist.

As this (sub. required) article in the NY Review of Books points out, on the issue of the Iraq War and terrorism it's not wrong to characterize Hitchens as most closely aligned with the neo-conservative/conservative hawk drumbeat.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=21614

In fact, the overwhelming majority of terrorism experts note that ticking time bomb scenarios are most inventions of the 24 television show set.

Here is a very substantive discussion of the ticking time bomb scenario.

http://www.apt.ch/content/view/109/lang,e

And here's a really great article on the man behind the media popularization of the ticking time body scenario, including some instructors at West Point who think that the hype about ticking time bombs actually hurts military performance.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer

Bottom line: under torture the intelligence is more often than not bunk. Seriously, study after study show that there is a greater chance than 50% that someone will say whatever it takes (lie) to make it stop. On the other hand, the best interrogators use psychological persuasion much more efficiently to retrieve information.

As Sun Tzu writes in The Art of War:
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

As a citizen in a country at war, I want to understand my enemy which means, in part, identifying their reasons for opposition. The best way to destroy the reasons for armed struggle is not always head on, but rather by undercutting their reason to be.

David and Dick

Did you or did you not read my commentary on WWII in which a Major (Physcian) tortured a Japanese Soldier in examining him for wounds? In which case, I as a buck private at 19 years of age protested? No, I believe that the heads of state should fight a duel. The losing side may or may not wish to continue the struggle. But let the principals have at it first. Why let a nation bleed to death its young blood first? Name me ten 19 year olds who really understand why Bush sent them to war. Also explain to me why waterboarding is worse than bunker buster bombs. I'll bet you 10 to 1 if the draft were reinstituted both of you would declare ministerial priviledge. (I recall on V J day a number of ministerial students at E.M.C. immediately changed their major--men of principle, men of steel everywhere but in their backbone!) There is lots of guts out there in the ministry--most of it yellow. Not one of you could even stand up to Neal Wilson--so don't talk to me about courage or right and wrong.

God's way was to let Christ died at the hands of Satan in order that we might be spared. The principals settled that case once and for all.

My initial point was if Torture is Hell then Hell is Torture!! By rights then God is the number one torturer.

What theological nonsense.

It is man who rejects the life giver and thus foregoes eternal life. God does not take it away--He just doesn't force it upon anyone! The fear is not of fire but of judgment and eternity forsaken. Tom

Tom,
Who said that "torture is hell"?

The very interesting thing about Christopher Hitchens is that, while he certainly has been closely aligned with the neoconservatives/hawks on Iraq, he is no blind supporter. And he is painfully aware of the impact his pro-Iraq stance has had, which he wrote movingly about in a tribute to a young man who went to Iraq and was killed after reading his work. See http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711

Part of Hitchens' November 2007 article reads:

"As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality. . . and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean."

Hitchens' view seems to be evolving - a very admirable thing.

And can you imagine other well-known hawks asking to be waterboarded?

Also, he has been described as more of a contrarian than a conservative.

But of course your main point on torture stands - America's actions over the past few years should make us all ashamed.

Doesn't God love terrorists as much as anyone else? In that sense, we can identify with the terrorists, who are fellow humans. I believe most terrorists have been hurt and damaged psychologically, which makes their terrorism understandable, though not acceptable.

Tom:

Since the original post was about torture, I wondered why you would ask the Hollywood Adventist take down their banner. But after your clarification, it appears you were addressing the topic of hell.

I don't think it's wise to speak with too much certainty with regard to what hell will be like. The language in Revelation is mostly symbolic. And I recognize that there is more than one view on hell that does not make God a torturer. But I recommend we leave discussion of those views for another post, and unite on the fact all of us here seem to want to stop torture in America before it goes any farther.

Carrol:

Thanks for pulling me out of the thickets of debate, and reminding me of what's really important.

David you have taken the position that Jesus wants you to take on this moral test! I commend you.

The change in Christopher Hitchen's view of the Iraq war is just another bit of evidence that the "neo-conservatives" who got us into this disaster are terribly naive people who lack much in the way of real wisdom or values. This has been the consistent observation of the front line types (military, CIA, etc.). It is one thing to talk tough over brandy and cigars in the White House or other wealthy venues, or get on television and act like some global cowboy. It is another thing all together to actually face waterboarding and other torture, try to manage a prison filled with zealots, successfully occupy a country and engage in nation building.

These are the same people who scoffed at nation building and peace-keeping. What one does not think is a serious profession one is unlikely to be able to do when the time comes to do it. This same crowd made a monumental failure out of the relief efforts after Katrina for the same reason. They don't believe that relief work is a necessary or serious profession; they deride it and want to make all the experts unemployed. They put some political hack in charge of FEMA and then it costs lives.

Do we need any more evidence that this "neo-con" approach to life simply does not work? It is a total failure. These guys need to go back to First Grade and learn the basics of how to treat human beings, how to be a moral person, how to get the cooperation of others. I think that is what has happened to Hitchens. It will be interesting to see what he has to say over the coming years.

Tom, I think there must be some mistake here. I don't recall challenging you or disagreeing with you. In fact I see your connection with decrying torture and then preaching a God who tortures. As far as me declaring ministerial privilege, well that probably wouldn't get far coming from a stone mason.

Carrol, I have no doubt God loves a terrorist. I do believe if I am to define a terrorist be the dictionary as one who engages in terrorism, I will not choose to indentify with him.

David

I didn't connect torture and hell the Hollywood church did and you endorsed it.

I think the thin ice is on your side not mine.

I merely carried the thought to its obvious conclusion and got spanked for it. I don't for a moment think God is a torturer, yet the banner and your promotion would make it so.

Johnny sorry moral witness/ Final Judgment. Implied Hell.

Tom

Tom:

Maybe I'm slow, but I'm having trouble understanding where you are on this issue. How did the Hollywood Adventist Church connect torture to hell? I don't see the word "hell" on their sign. Do you disagree with the statement that "Torture is a moral issue," regardless of the position one takes on it?

I would not presume to spank someone old enough to be my grandfather. I respect your wisdom, and am trying to understand what you have to say on the issue of torture. Could you summarize your position is vis a vis the torture of suspected terrorists to acquire information they are not willing to share?

David

The issue is simple. The church, the Seventh-day Adventist church included is the greatest use of, advocate of, and encourager of torture of all man-kind. The Seventh-day Adventist Church follows the preaching of Johathan Edwards of man in the hands of an angry God. Ellen G. White is quite graphic about the tortures of hell, differing only in time frame from the Roman Catholic Church. For Spectrum to applaud the banner on Torture and Morality while at the same time being part of a million dollar evangelistic out-reach in which hell is a major component. When the power point comes to hell in Revelation don't tell me there is a subscript saying this is all symbolic. Jesus came to teach man about God not hell fire. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, not a peep out of Takoma Park. I will be glad to share with you my general lesson study at Reid Memorial Church prior to the Bush War on preemptive wars.

I have two issues: 1. Seventh-day Adventists promote fear as a major part of their evangelism. 2. They are Johnny come latelies on the Iraq war and its atrocities. Have you watched 60 minutes to learn of the fate of Christians in Iraq before and after Saddam?

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide--SDA let their moment pass--now they would play catch-up.

1.Where was the moral issue 5 years ago?
2.Why paint God as an instrument of torture?
3. Why run for cover when the ministry is at risk; and then call other cowards?

That is where I'm coming from!!!

In short, I am saying that banner doesn't come close to nailing a thesis to the door. Tom

Should the Church Support Preemptive War?
Reid Memorial Church November 17, 2002

Ten days ago Gene Norris called and asked me to teach today and gave me the topic—Unilateral Preemptive War and the Christian Response. This is not an easy assignment. I want to assure you of three things: I am not prophet, nor the son of a prophet. I am not a politician, nor the son of a politician, but my mother was a very fine lady. If your expect me to decide the issue you are going to be disappointed. If you want to learn how others have decided the issue you might not be disappointed. If you want to learn how to go about deciding the issue you might not be disappointed. If you want all the answers you have come to the wrong room.
Prayer: I don’t usually use a formal prayer but the first and third verses of a well known hymn seemed appropriate for the occasion. Let us pray:

God of our fathers, whose almighty hand
Leads forth in beauty all the starry band
Of shining worlds in splendor through the skies,
Our grateful songs before Thy throne arise.

From war’s alarms from deadly pestilence,
Be Thy strong arm our ever sure defense;
Thy true religion in our hearts increase,
Thy bounteous goodness nourish us in peace. Amen!

Scripture: Romans 13 NEV is the bed rock for Christian citizenship even under a totalitarian regime.
RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. [6] This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

Before anyone says Amen Brother! Let us remember that under this admonition there would have been no American Revolution. The church people in 1776 who believed Paul had to flee to Halifax. Boston would have looked like Toronto. Nor would anyone have fired on Fort Sumter.
Paul is writing to the Romans whose higher power was Nero. The power that eventually had Paul beheaded. Remember back in the early chapters of the Book of Acts, Paul took the law into his own hands and assisted in the assassination of Stephen and led a crusade against Christians as far north as Damascus. [What a different world view conversion makes!]
This lesson was prompted by Henry G. Brinton’s article in the Washington Post of September 29. Although Congress has made the issue more or less moot, we shall explore what prompted Brinton’s column. Reverend Brinton is senior pastor of the Fairfax Presbyterian Church. Pastor Brinton addresses the dilemma facing Christians—allegiance to God and country.
Pastor Brinton focuses on the narrow and specific issue of preemptive war. He lists a host of main-line Church organizations and leaders who have called upon President Bush to reconsider any unilateral preemptive war against Iraq. His list includes the National Capital Presbytery, The World Council of Churches, The Archbishop of Canterbury, The American Roman Catholic bishops, Pope John Paul II, and the Middle East Council of Churches; none of whom have a history of passivism. In fact, by the third century the Church had generally accepted the four principles of a just war outlined by Augustine: According to Augustine, a “just war” 1. Must be waged under the authority of the prince, [again no American Revolution nor the War between the States] 2. Must have as its objective to punish injustice, 3. Must restore peace, [few wars have been successful at this] 4. Must be conducted without vindictiveness or unnecessary violence. Today we would call it surgical.
Reverend Brinton also reported that one hundred Christian ethicists signed a petition saying that the president had failed to make a compelling moral case for a preemptive war. Since Brinton’s column, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has also issued a statement urging President Bush to rethink a unilateral preemptive war.

In the past, preemptive wars have been wars of aggression: Germany v. Poland, Germany v. Norway, Germany v. Russia, Pearl Harbor, and North Korea’s invasion of South Korea. The Six Day War might be the only exception. But by 1974 the Arab World turned the tables and became preemptive against Israel in the Yom Kipper War. In fact, much of the Middle East Crisis can be traced to the aftermath of the Six Day War
On Monday night President Bush outlined, in detail, the sins of Saddam Hussein and then asked the question: “Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how can we best achieve it?” He neglected to answer his question as he continued to expand on the litany of sins that justified swift action. He did open the door just a little to suggest a coalition and options prior to war only as the final option.
The issue of a unilateral preemptive war is compelling to the Church because of the mind set of church men who are urging President Bush to act preemptively and unilaterally. Men who represent the entire panoply of dispensational churches (The Note to be Left Behind” types) One or more emphatically declare that the credit card is to become the 666 of the Book of Revelation—some see a credit card economy as the first step in the creation of the cashless economy that they believe fulfills the biblical prophecy that no man can buy or sell except he have the mark of the beast in his forehead on in his hand or for that matter a credit card in his/her pocket. If you are using a credit card for consumer goods you stand a very good chance on being consumed by fire, unless of course, you would like to contribute by credit card to their ministry. Some see the credit card miniaturized to the size of a grain of rice and embedded in the forehead or palm of the right hand. We Presbyterians may have no idea what the number 666 means but we emphatically declare that the One who knows even the number of hairs in our heads is our Lord and our God.
Why the dichotomy between Christians? Certainly it is not because one group is more patriotic or more devoted than the other. It must have something to do with their differing world view, their differing eschatology, and their differing logic systems and their approaches to problem-solving.
First Let Us Consider a World View:
Iraq was created following the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. Essentially England, France, and Russia carved up the territory. Because of the Russian Revolution, Russia lost Istanbul and the Straits. France received Syria. England received Egypt, and Mesopotamia, and conjointly ruled Palestine with a vague promise to provide a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
England defeated the Turks[Ottomans] largely with the help of the Arabs, led in part by Lawrence of Arabia. Through Lawrence’s alliances, Britain promised independence to Arab tribal leaders each of whom had magnified private agenda for power. With their usual indifference to tribal, religious, and ethnic diversity the British carved up Mesopotamia into Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, et al.
The primary reason that Great Britain wanted the Mesopotamia basin was not simply the oil but also a land route to India. In the creation of Iraq, Britain joined three disparate religious and ethnic groups—the Kurds in the North, Sunni Muslims in the central plains, and largest group the Shiite Muslims in the South. By 1920 the Kurds revolted and 450 British troopers were killed. Worse yet, the Kurds refused to pay tax to the British [sounds a lot like Colonial Boston] so the R.A.F. bombed Kurdish villages, killing women and children. In frustration, Britain abandoned its protectorate over Iraq in 1930. Following the Second World War the United States and Russia played chess over the region. We lost Iran and they lost Afghanistan, Egypt, and Palestine.
During the Reagan years, Iraq invaded Iran. Iraq was getting whipped. So, the United States, under the principle that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, gave Iraq arms and weapons, including weapons of mass destruction—where upon, Saddam Hussein bombed the Kurds, who had taken the opportunity of the Iraq/Iran war to revolt. Hussein is charged with even using weapons of mass destruction given him by the United States—killing whomever the R.A.F. may have missed or their kin.
By 1990 the Middle East was of intense interest to the West because of their oil. Saddam Hussein overreached and a coalition of oil hungry nations pushed him out of Kuwait but then stood by while he turned on the Shiite Muslims in Basra who were friendly to their Iranian brethren and had the potential of unseating Saddam and installing a fundamentalist regime.

That indifference to the plight of the Shiite Muslims caused a persistent rancor among Muslim fundamentalists, a rancor heightened by the Palestinian/Israeli Jihad that has escalated during the Sharon years. It is small wonder then when either the United States or the United Kingdom says, “we’re here to help you” it has a very hollow sound beyond our borders.
Pastor Brinton’s group of church men find in all this the simple truth that sin continues to abound in much of international affairs. The other group find an advancing line of dispensational prophecy being unfolded.
Let Us Consider Dispensational Eschatology:
Modern dispensationalism divides history into seven periods or dispensations. The three key dispensations to the Church cover Hebrew history from Moses to the Second Coming of Jesus. The current dispensation is called the dispensation of Grace which is to be followed by a Millennial Kingdom.
Dispensationalists have an unshakable belief that the Books of Daniel and Revelation along with Matthew 24 and 25, and a few excerpts from Paul and the minor prophets contain a clear unequivocal literal blueprint of God’s plan for this world.
Reform churches find their hope in the Covenant and not in the apocalyptic literature. Thus Reform Churches find in Jesus Christ the new Israel and find themselves accepted as the adopted children of Israel. Reform churches find God’s final word in Jesus Christ, He is our end and well as our beginning. Reform churches accept the Creeds as a reliable outline of the Christian faith. Thus, their faith is not built upon an unshakable confidence in their unique understanding of Scripture but upon the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Dispensationalists not only reject the Creeds and the Reformation but boldly assert that God has one plan for the Church and another for Israel in which Israel as well as those of us who are “Left Behind” must suffer 7 years of tribulation before only 144,000 Jews will be finally “saved” along with a host of us previous apostates. That is why Middle East politics is of such keen interest to dispensationalists.
Dispensationalists are crystal clear on the following scenario:
• The Jews return to Palestine unconverted.
• The Nation of Israel is established.
• Europe unites in an attempt to restore the Roman Empire [Common Market—euro] European Union
• Increase in travel and flow of information
[The above are done deals] What follows, they say, is soon to occur.
• The Rapture [secret gathering of God’s saints in the air on their way to heaven] [Rapture not as in Happy but as in Greek for snatched away]
• One-world government/apostate church/business/language [Hebrew]
• Seven years of tribulation—suffered by those Left Behind and the Jews.
• Drying up of the Waters of the Euphrates/The Battle of Armageddon
• Christ Returns: Israel and some of those “left behind” are converted.
• Christ reigns for a thousand years on earth with Jerusalem as His capital.
• The eternal age begins.
Dispensationalists not only want to predict the future, they want to finesse the future. Now that they taste political power, they want to force God’s hand. They believe that they can protect Israel and help “dry up the Euphrates River [Baghdad]. By so doing they will hasten the Battle of Armageddon. So what, if it doesn’t turn out just right! The pre-tribulation Rapture will take them out of the mess and let the 7 years of tribulation fall upon the Jews, the World Council of Churches, liberals both in and out of the Church, Muslims, and pagans.
In order to keep the dispensational faith one must do at least the following:
• Ensure the stability of Israel.
• Fight coalitions particularly with Europe
• Fight any one world scheme, particularly the UN
• Fight unbelief everywhere.
• Stand firm with all true believers/reject any counsel from apostates
• Set in motion efforts to dry up the waters of the Euphrates River [Now it is Baghdad, before it was Russia.] Thus, to avowed dispensationalists unilateral preemptive war is not only moral it is necessary and any one who differs is on the side of the beast.

Logic Systems: [Group Think]Nietzsche is quoted as saying that madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups. Group madness is characterized by lack of vigilance accompanied by excessive risk-taking followed by collective panic, and violent acts of scapegoating.

The closer and tighter the group the more susceptible the group is to “Groupthink”. Groupthink is a mind set in which members of the group consider loyalty to the group the highest form of morality. Thus, they fail to consider all available options, neglect to analyze each option as to its risk, benefit, or potential for unintended consequences, refrain from raising controversial issues, fail to question weak arguments, or call a halt to softheaded thinking. Paradoxically, such “in groups” are generally extremely hardhearted toward any out-group’ of dissenters.
Generally such “in groups” foster overt optimism, display a lack of vigilance, and traffic in “sound bite slogans” rather engaging in analytical thinking. In theology, such group behavior is known as Triumphalism.
In passing it is interesting to note that George W. Bush’s father, an Episcopalian, fought in a real war, was Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the U.N. and Director of the CIA. His world view was open and rich in experience. No wonder that all of his senior advisors except Vice President Cheney support a U.N. centered coalition process rather than any unilateral preemptive act.
On the other hand, the President and his Attorney General are steeped in Southern Baptist Convention and Pentecostal Dispensationalism. While coalitions and counting heads and costs before the fact were second nature to the father, they are totally unnecessary to the son blessed with the biblical clarity of Dispensationalism. Our international problem is that Dispensationalism is basically an American phenomena. Therefore other nations see only a gross neo-imperialism emerging out of the vacuum of the lack of any opposing super power. Hopefully, political reality many yet temper his judgment. Certainly his rhetoric has softened since his September 12 U.N. speech that prompted Pastor Brinton and others.
Logic Systems: [The Conflict Model of Decision Making]
The Church men who are calling for restraint in unilateral preemptive war are concerned about unintended consequences to American moral power in the world community. Recall King David’s ineffective parenting after his affair with Bathsheba. What about Moses killing the Egyptian Overseer?
Good loyal Christian Americans are simply asking: “Have we properly considered all of the potential unintended consequences, such as:”
1. Unilateral action creates the potential for becoming the very pariah we are trying to eliminate.
2. Unilateral action creates the potential of unifying the entire Islamic world against us.
3. Unilateral action creates the potential for serving as a model for other nations to preempt their perceived enemies.
4. Unilateral action creates the potential for offending our trading partners.
5. What shall we do twenty years out when our military might becomes comparable to that of Saddam Hussein’s, while that of China become comparable to our present dominance? Will we want coalitions then?

Thus our church brethren are calling for broad consultation and some level of international consensus prior to irrevocable action.
One Logic Model that employs a full range of lateral and vertical thinking is known as the Conflict Theory Model of Decision Making. An algorithm that flows from un-conflicted adherence to the present course of action, through un-conflicted change if change is risk free to hyper vigilance (extreme action) if time or circumstances, prevent finding logical alternatives.) These courses of action are placed in contrast to vigilance (carefully reasoned decision-making from the gitgo~)
Pastor Brinton’s postulate is that the present political situation is filled with hyper vigilant action and reaction.
What do we do, if President Bush follows Group Think? If we follow the admonition of Paul: We won’t become a Jane Fonda, nor will we run to Canada, or burn our draft cards, nor call our troops “baby killers”. We will be good citizens, do our duty, pay our taxes, answer the call to service, and use our Freedom of Speech and Franchise to see the venture to a just conclusion. God has his timetable and it doesn’t depend upon anyone of us. God doesn’t need our help to tame the devil, or his beast, or the number of his name! Tom

Should the Church Support Preemptive War?
Reid Memorial Church November 17, 2002

Ten days ago Gene Norris called and asked me to teach today and gave me the topic—Unilateral Preemptive War and the Christian Response. This is not an easy assignment. I want to assure you of three things: I am not prophet, nor the son of a prophet. I am not a politician, nor the son of a politician, but my mother was a very fine lady. If your expect me to decide the issue you are going to be disappointed. If you want to learn how others have decided the issue you might not be disappointed. If you want to learn how to go about deciding the issue you might not be disappointed. If you want all the answers you have come to the wrong room.
Prayer: I don’t usually use a formal prayer but the first and third verses of a well known hymn seemed appropriate for the occasion. Let us pray:

God of our fathers, whose almighty hand
Leads forth in beauty all the starry band
Of shining worlds in splendor through the skies,
Our grateful songs before Thy throne arise.

From war’s alarms from deadly pestilence,
Be Thy strong arm our ever sure defense;
Thy true religion in our hearts increase,
Thy bounteous goodness nourish us in peace. Amen!

Scripture: Romans 13 NEV is the bed rock for Christian citizenship even under a totalitarian regime.
RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. [6] This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

Before anyone says Amen Brother! Let us remember that under this admonition there would have been no American Revolution. The church people in 1776 who believed Paul had to flee to Halifax. Boston would have looked like Toronto. Nor would anyone have fired on Fort Sumter.
Paul is writing to the Romans whose higher power was Nero. The power that eventually had Paul beheaded. Remember back in the early chapters of the Book of Acts, Paul took the law into his own hands and assisted in the assassination of Stephen and led a crusade against Christians as far north as Damascus. [What a different world view conversion makes!]
This lesson was prompted by Henry G. Brinton’s article in the Washington Post of September 29. Although Congress has made the issue more or less moot, we shall explore what prompted Brinton’s column. Reverend Brinton is senior pastor of the Fairfax Presbyterian Church. Pastor Brinton addresses the dilemma facing Christians—allegiance to God and country.
Pastor Brinton focuses on the narrow and specific issue of preemptive war. He lists a host of main-line Church organizations and leaders who have called upon President Bush to reconsider any unilateral preemptive war against Iraq. His list includes the National Capital Presbytery, The World Council of Churches, The Archbishop of Canterbury, The American Roman Catholic bishops, Pope John Paul II, and the Middle East Council of Churches; none of whom have a history of passivism. In fact, by the third century the Church had generally accepted the four principles of a just war outlined by Augustine: According to Augustine, a “just war” 1. Must be waged under the authority of the prince, [again no American Revolution nor the War between the States] 2. Must have as its objective to punish injustice, 3. Must restore peace, [few wars have been successful at this] 4. Must be conducted without vindictiveness or unnecessary violence. Today we would call it surgical.
Reverend Brinton also reported that one hundred Christian ethicists signed a petition saying that the president had failed to make a compelling moral case for a preemptive war. Since Brinton’s column, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has also issued a statement urging President Bush to rethink a unilateral preemptive war.

In the past, preemptive wars have been wars of aggression: Germany v. Poland, Germany v. Norway, Germany v. Russia, Pearl Harbor, and North Korea’s invasion of South Korea. The Six Day War might be the only exception. But by 1974 the Arab World turned the tables and became preemptive against Israel in the Yom Kipper War. In fact, much of the Middle East Crisis can be traced to the aftermath of the Six Day War
On Monday night President Bush outlined, in detail, the sins of Saddam Hussein and then asked the question: “Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how can we best achieve it?” He neglected to answer his question as he continued to expand on the litany of sins that justified swift action. He did open the door just a little to suggest a coalition and options prior to war only as the final option.
The issue of a unilateral preemptive war is compelling to the Church because of the mind set of church men who are urging President Bush to act preemptively and unilaterally. Men who represent the entire panoply of dispensational churches (The Note to be Left Behind” types) One or more emphatically declare that the credit card is to become the 666 of the Book of Revelation—some see a credit card economy as the first step in the creation of the cashless economy that they believe fulfills the biblical prophecy that no man can buy or sell except he have the mark of the beast in his forehead on in his hand or for that matter a credit card in his/her pocket. If you are using a credit card for consumer goods you stand a very good chance on being consumed by fire, unless of course, you would like to contribute by credit card to their ministry. Some see the credit card miniaturized to the size of a grain of rice and embedded in the forehead or palm of the right hand. We Presbyterians may have no idea what the number 666 means but we emphatically declare that the One who knows even the number of hairs in our heads is our Lord and our God.
Why the dichotomy between Christians? Certainly it is not because one group is more patriotic or more devoted than the other. It must have something to do with their differing world view, their differing eschatology, and their differing logic systems and their approaches to problem-solving.
First Let Us Consider a World View:
Iraq was created following the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. Essentially England, France, and Russia carved up the territory. Because of the Russian Revolution, Russia lost Istanbul and the Straits. France received Syria. England received Egypt, and Mesopotamia, and conjointly ruled Palestine with a vague promise to provide a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
England defeated the Turks[Ottomans] largely with the help of the Arabs, led in part by Lawrence of Arabia. Through Lawrence’s alliances, Britain promised independence to Arab tribal leaders each of whom had magnified private agenda for power. With their usual indifference to tribal, religious, and ethnic diversity the British carved up Mesopotamia into Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, et al.
The primary reason that Great Britain wanted the Mesopotamia basin was not simply the oil but also a land route to India. In the creation of Iraq, Britain joined three disparate religious and ethnic groups—the Kurds in the North, Sunni Muslims in the central plains, and largest group the Shiite Muslims in the South. By 1920 the Kurds revolted and 450 British troopers were killed. Worse yet, the Kurds refused to pay tax to the British [sounds a lot like Colonial Boston] so the R.A.F. bombed Kurdish villages, killing women and children. In frustration, Britain abandoned its protectorate over Iraq in 1930. Following the Second World War the United States and Russia played chess over the region. We lost Iran and they lost Afghanistan, Egypt, and Palestine.
During the Reagan years, Iraq invaded Iran. Iraq was getting whipped. So, the United States, under the principle that any enemy of my enemy is my friend, gave Iraq arms and weapons, including weapons of mass destruction—where upon, Saddam Hussein bombed the Kurds, who had taken the opportunity of the Iraq/Iran war to revolt. Hussein is charged with even using weapons of mass destruction given him by the United States—killing whomever the R.A.F. may have missed or their kin.
By 1990 the Middle East was of intense interest to the West because of their oil. Saddam Hussein overreached and a coalition of oil hungry nations pushed him out of Kuwait but then stood by while he turned on the Shiite Muslims in Basra who were friendly to their Iranian brethren and had the potential of unseating Saddam and installing a fundamentalist regime.

That indifference to the plight of the Shiite Muslims caused a persistent rancor among Muslim fundamentalists, a rancor heightened by the Palestinian/Israeli Jihad that has escalated during the Sharon years. It is small wonder then when either the United States or the United Kingdom says, “we’re here to help you” it has a very hollow sound beyond our borders.
Pastor Brinton’s group of church men find in all this the simple truth that sin continues to abound in much of international affairs. The other group find an advancing line of dispensational prophecy being unfolded.
Let Us Consider Dispensational Eschatology:
Modern dispensationalism divides history into seven periods or dispensations. The three key dispensations to the Church cover Hebrew history from Moses to the Second Coming of Jesus. The current dispensation is called the dispensation of Grace which is to be followed by a Millennial Kingdom.
Dispensationalists have an unshakable belief that the Books of Daniel and Revelation along with Matthew 24 and 25, and a few excerpts from Paul and the minor prophets contain a clear unequivocal literal blueprint of God’s plan for this world.
Reform churches find their hope in the Covenant and not in the apocalyptic literature. Thus Reform Churches find in Jesus Christ the new Israel and find themselves accepted as the adopted children of Israel. Reform churches find God’s final word in Jesus Christ, He is our end and well as our beginning. Reform churches accept the Creeds as a reliable outline of the Christian faith. Thus, their faith is not built upon an unshakable confidence in their unique understanding of Scripture but upon the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Dispensationalists not only reject the Creeds and the Reformation but boldly assert that God has one plan for the Church and another for Israel in which Israel as well as those of us who are “Left Behind” must suffer 7 years of tribulation before only 144,000 Jews will be finally “saved” along with a host of us previous apostates. That is why Middle East politics is of such keen interest to dispensationalists.
Dispensationalists are crystal clear on the following scenario:
• The Jews return to Palestine unconverted.
• The Nation of Israel is established.
• Europe unites in an attempt to restore the Roman Empire [Common Market—euro] European Union
• Increase in travel and flow of information
[The above are done deals] What follows, they say, is soon to occur.
• The Rapture [secret gathering of God’s saints in the air on their way to heaven] [Rapture not as in Happy but as in Greek for snatched away]
• One-world government/apostate church/business/language [Hebrew]
• Seven years of tribulation—suffered by those Left Behind and the Jews.
• Drying up of the Waters of the Euphrates/The Battle of Armageddon
• Christ Returns: Israel and some of those “left behind” are converted.
• Christ reigns for a thousand years on earth with Jerusalem as His capital.
• The eternal age begins.
Dispensationalists not only want to predict the future, they want to finesse the future. Now that they taste political power, they want to force God’s hand. They believe that they can protect Israel and help “dry up the Euphrates River [Baghdad]. By so doing they will hasten the Battle of Armageddon. So what, if it doesn’t turn out just right! The pre-tribulation Rapture will take them out of the mess and let the 7 years of tribulation fall upon the Jews, the World Council of Churches, liberals both in and out of the Church, Muslims, and pagans.
In order to keep the dispensational faith one must do at least the following:
• Ensure the stability of Israel.
• Fight coalitions particularly with Europe
• Fight any one world scheme, particularly the UN
• Fight unbelief everywhere.
• Stand firm with all true believers/reject any counsel from apostates
• Set in motion efforts to dry up the waters of the Euphrates River [Now it is Baghdad, before it was Russia.] Thus, to avowed dispensationalists unilateral preemptive war is not only moral it is necessary and any one who differs is on the side of the beast.

Logic Systems: [Group Think]Nietzsche is quoted as saying that madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups. Group madness is characterized by lack of vigilance accompanied by excessive risk-taking followed by collective panic, and violent acts of scapegoating.

The closer and tighter the group the more susceptible the group is to “Groupthink”. Groupthink is a mind set in which members of the group consider loyalty to the group the highest form of morality. Thus, they fail to consider all available options, neglect to analyze each option as to its risk, benefit, or potential for unintended consequences, refrain from raising controversial issues, fail to question weak arguments, or call a halt to softheaded thinking. Paradoxically, such “in groups” are generally extremely hardhearted toward any out-group’ of dissenters.
Generally such “in groups” foster over optimism, display a lack of vigilance, and traffic in “sound bite slogans” rather engaging in analytical thinking. In theology, such group behavior is known as Triumphalism.
In passing it is interesting to note that George W. Bush’s father, an Episcopalian, fought in a real war, was Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the U.N. and Director of the CIA. His world view was open and rich in experience. No wonder that all of his senior advisors except Vice President Cheney support a U.N. centered coalition process rather than any unilateral preemptive act.
On the other hand, the President and his Attorney General are steeped in Southern Baptist Convention and Pentecostal Dispensationalism. While coalitions and counting heads and costs before the fact were second nature to the father, they are totally unnecessary to the son blessed with the biblical clarity of Dispensationalism. Our international problem is that Dispensationalism is basically an American phenomena. Therefore other nations see only a gross neo-imperialism emerging out of the vacuum of the lack of any opposing super power. Hopefully, political reality many yet temper his judgment. Certainly his rhetoric has softened since his September 12 U.N. speech that prompted Pastor Brinton and others.
Logic Systems: [The Conflict Model of Decision Making]
The Church men who are calling for restraint in unilateral preemptive war are concerned about unintended consequences to American moral power in the world community. Recall King David’s ineffective parenting after his affair with Bathsheba. What about Moses killing the Egyptian Overseer?
Good loyal Christian Americans are simply asking: “Have we properly considered all of the potential unintended consequences, such as:”
1. Unilateral action creates the potential for becoming the very pariah we are trying to eliminate.
2. Unilateral action creates the potential of unifying the entire Islamic world against us.
3. Unilateral action creates the potential for serving as a model for other nations to preempt their perceived enemies.
4. Unilateral action creates the potential for offending our trading partners.
5. What shall we do twenty years out when our military might becomes comparable to that of Saddam Hussein’s, while that of China become comparable to our present dominance? Will we want coalitions then?

Thus our church brethren are calling for broad consultation and some level of international consensus prior to irrevocable action.
One Logic Model that employs a full range of lateral and vertical thinking is known as the Conflict Theory Model of Decision Making. An algorithm that flows from un-conflicted adherence to the present course of action, through un-conflicted change if change is risk free to hyper vigilance (extreme action) if time or circumstances, prevent finding logical alternatives.) These courses of action are placed in contrast to vigilance (carefully reasoned decision-making from the gitgo~)
Pastor Brinton’s postulate is that the present political situation is filled with hyper vigilant action and reaction.
What do we do, if President Bush follows Group Think? If we follow the admonition of Paul: We won’t become a Jane Fonda, nor will we run to Canada, or burn our draft cards, nor call our troops “baby killers”. We will be good citizens, do our duty, pay our taxes, answer the call to service, and use our Freedom of Speech and Franchise to see the venture to a just conclusion. God has his timetable and it doesn’t depend upon anyone of us. God doesn’t need our help to tame the devil, or his beast, or the number of his name! In the meantime we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Tom:

"1. Seventh-day Adventists promote fear as a major part of their evangelism."

This is often true, but is not necessarily so. Did you catch the recent Net series with Mike Tucker? That one was pure love motivation.

"2. They are Johnny come latelies on the Iraq war and its atrocities. Have you watched 60 minutes to learn of the fate of Christians in Iraq before and after Saddam?"

Agreed. That's why we're trying to do something about it.

"1.Where was the moral issue 5 years ago?"

The same place it is today.

2.Why paint God as an instrument of torture?

While popular Adventist theology may, SDA Fundamental Beliefs do not do so: "...fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth." It's the book of Revelation that mentions "torment".

3. Why run for cover when the ministry is at risk; and then call other cowards?

I don't know what situation you're referring to here. I you calling me a coward, or someone else?

Tom, I can respect your standing up to malpracticing Army doctor and to church officials. I can respect the fact that you took a stand against preemptive war. But I cannot respect what I perceive to be you standing on the sidelines, booing those of us who are trying to improve things in the Adventist Church. Please, use your passion and writing ability to give us some encouragement on this issue.

Thanks for an interesting post, David. Besides the enlightened self-interest issue (what comes around goes around), as Alex pointed out, study after study shows that information gotten under duress is almost entirely useless. When a human being is subjected to pain (physical or psychological) he/she will say whatever he/she perceives the captors want. Even John McCain has said that he would name off the names of his favorite baseball team when asked to name the men he had been serving with, just because he knew the names would stop the pain.

Did anyone see the 60 Minutes piece about Saddam's interrogation? We got mountains of good information from one man just sitting and talking to Saddam. Granted, he used some psychological tools like positioning his chair in front of the door to show he controlled access, but in general, he just got to know him--listened to his poetry, smoked cigars together. Humans usually need to talk, and by getting Saddam to trust him, he was able to glean all sorts of useful information that we're still able to use. It's a fascinating piece--read/watch it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

David

My reaction is to the Johnny come lately response. Where was the Hollywood Church in Sept. 2002? Where was Spectrum?

Years and years of the blatant use of eschatological terror and then five years into the disaster hang out a rag, please! The Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal includes James Russell Lowell's poem transposed as a hymn. It reads:
Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with false-hood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause,God's new Messiah,
Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the Choice goes by fore-ever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble
When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
And tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses,
While the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue
Of the faith they had denied.

My objection is where was the Review, where was the Hollywood Church when Rev. Brinton made his call?

Do you think it was easy to teach that lesson while the publisher of the Augusta paper was sitting on the front row with a strong editorial policy to go to war NOW?

Now we praise all those who had no part.

Politically the Seventh-day Adventist Church is still back in the days of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion of Al Smith's day.

Wake up its oil and dispensationalism today. Tom

Whatever happened to "Do unto others...."?

Our chickens will come home to roost; actually they have already begun. Our nation, in a large part because of its policy against "terrorists" has made the U.S.A. a hated and despised nation.
Not its people, but the nation's administration.

Where does the Seventh-day Adventist church stand on the death penalty? The question is seriously debated in both religious and political circles. Only recently has the Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment for some crimes--and the parade to the death chamber has begun anew.

We find these words in The Triumph of God's Love, a trade issue of the book Great Controvery. "They shall be as stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of host." quoting Mal. 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished 'according to their deeds'. The sins of the righteous having been transfered to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on." page 395.

The chapter closes with the subtitle: "The Triumph of God's Love".

Close, very close to an oxymoron! Adventism ends with a gloat. The very picture of Triumphalism. That is why, I take exception to the Hollywood Banner et al. Our mission is not to condemn but to heal. Let the Lord do the rebuking. Now the discussion turns to literality and symbolic. I have been burned both ways, neither is pleasant. Tom

Where does the church stand on the death penalty?

I have always understood Adventists to be non-combatants in war in response to 'Thou shalt not kill'. This would be our position in terms of civil justice.

Dante's inferno, Purgatory and Hell are concepts embedded in Christian history, and much abused. Quite how the Good Lord will ultimately cleanse and purify the earth remains to me a mystery. I accept by faith that this is the objective.
Adventists are not alone in their need for development in this idea.

When one observes the misery and torture in certain places in the world, saying that it could be worse has no power. One can only attempt to offer hope in Christ and an end to the wicked.

I am not offended by the message on the outside of the church. (Hollywood is in anycase a blight on the mountainside.) I would be more interested in how they carry this through on the inside. Who do they talk to? What is the curriculum?

Our church in Scotland did something similar when the G8 visited. They followed through featuring 'The Forgiveness Project' bringing together a former ANC activist and the Mother who lost her daughter, bombed by his action.

(PS - as a humorous aside. I discovered that the obese are cremated more quickly than the lean! Soy munchers burn longer!)

Great Comment Victor: "In case of cremation, I'll go fast but not as fast as a year ago---I'm now down to my fighting weight as my blogs recently indicate. I also want to know what is the curriculum. Thanks. Tom

"Torture destroys the souls
of the torturers and
of all who uphold them."

Quote by Jim Horning

WOW Tom,
I guess there is not alot of discussion in your class. More of a preaching essay kind of thing huh?