Would I survive in the wild????

Well, of course I would!

Would you survive in the wild? Your Result: Yesiree!....   You could live in the wild if you wanted to! You know what to eat, do, and stay away from! You could get shelter, food, water fast and easy-and the right treatments to injuries, snake bites etc...You know the outdoors like the back of your hand!!
Wouldn't last 2 minutes!.....
Not to sure...
Most likely you'll survive....
Maybe........
Would you survive in the wild? Quizzes for MySpace

The Apathetic Prophet

Jonah 1:4-10

And Yahweh hurled a great wind upon the sea and there was a great storm on the sea and the ship threatened to break apart. And the sailors were intensely afraid and each man cried out to his own god and they hurled the cargo that was in the ship into the sea to lighten the ship.

But Jonah had descended to the lowest recesses of the ship, laid down and fallen fast asleep. And the captain approached him and said, "How are you sleeping so soundly!? Get up! Cry out to your god! Perhaps your god will be concerned for us and we will not die."

Then each man said to the other, "Let us cast lots to know which one of us is responsible for this evil that has struck!" And when they cast lots the lot fell to Jonah. So they said to him, "Tell us! Who is responsible for bringing this evil upon us?! What is your occupation? And from where do you come? What is your country? And from what people are you?

So he replied to them, "I am a Hebrew, and I fear Yahweh, God of heaven who made the sea and the dry land."

Then the men were griped with fear and they said to Jonah, "What have you done?!" For now the men knew Jonah was running from the presence of Yahweh, for Jonah had told them.


Guess whos living here
With the great undead
This paint by numbers life is fucking with my head
Once again

Life is good and I feel great
cause mother says I was
A great mistake

Novocaine for the soul
You better give me something
To fill the hole
Before I sputter out

Eels
"Novocaine for the soul"
Beautiful Freak
1996


The storm is wicked! The waves and breakers are tossing the ship about as though it were a play toy in the hands of a restless and rambunctious little boy. The superstitious sailors are desperately and passionately pleading to their gods for salvation from the vicious elements. All hope seems lost. But in the midst of the chaos steps a prophet of Yahweh - the god of heaven and dry land, the God of gods. This prophet of the true God is the savior. Like Superman to the rescue...well, not exactly.....

Jonah is not the superhero prophet that he could have been. In fact, he is asleep in the bottom of the boat. How is he in such a deep sleep? Good question. Stuart suggests depression as the cause (457-58). That Jonah would have suffered some state of depression seems entirely consistent with the previous events. He has resigned his post as prophet of Yahweh. He has left his family and friends and possessions and has hoped a ship to who-knows-where; anywhere but Nineveh. He has denied his calling, disobeyed his God, and fled the presence and face of Yahweh. Any surprise that depression would set in?

Maybe this is a depression from self-pity. Or maybe it is just a depression brought on by his isolation. Or perhaps there is a spiritual isolation. Jonah has fled the presence of God, he has cut off his line of fellowship with God. As such he seems to have retreated farther and farther inward. He announces to the sailors that he "fears" the God of heaven, but what does that mean? For the jittery sailors it throws them into even more of a state of terror than they thought possible. There is an irony at work here, I think. The sailors are the ones who seem to be truly afraid of Yahweh. They fear for their lives! But Jonah's declaration strikes me as simply apathetic and routine. He has just been awakened from a deep sleep. Probably a sleep brought on by a depressive state. He has renounced his calling and his God. And yet he announces the superiority of Yahweh and declares his "fear." (See Wolff 111-12, 116)

The contrast between Jonah and the sailors is stark, and it is important. The narrative is contrasting a prophet who should have feared Yahweh, but in reality is fleeing his presence with the heathen sailors who actually do fear Yahweh. These are superstitious sailors who belong to a polytheistic and syncretistic culture. A culture not entirely unlike our own in its relativistic and pluralistic approach to religion and spirituality. On September 11, 2001 we heard a similar call as those made by the sailors: "Everyone cry out to your own god!"

In the time of distress Jonah sleeps. He is apathetic, lonely, depressed, and asleep. The narrative reveals sailors that are desperate, fervent, and feverishly working for their salvation. Wolff puts it this way:

Here Jonah's fear is far removed from the acknowledgment of the sailors in v. 5: there is no trace here of that elemental dread of destruction. He certainly "fears" Yahweh, but without any of the reverence which repents of the attempt at flight, and acknowledges his guilt before his God. He has still turned away from Yahweh's face, in spite of what he knows about God - indeed in spite of his experience of helplessness on his flight. (Wolff 116)

Sasson puts Jonah's situation very simply: "Heathens remind him of his mission, of the land and of the people he left behind in his rush to avoid his duty" (Sasson 126)

God's storm and the frenzy of the heathen sailors jolt Jonah out of his apathy. Or at least it should. We will see in the verses to follow how Jonah responds.

What does it look like when we flee from the presence of God? Are we reduced to a sleep-like, spiritual existence? Do we take on isolation, unconcerned with the world around us? Are we apathetic even to our own survival and welfare?

Do we miss our calling and our impact in the world around us? Do we, like Jonah, find ourselves in the ironic position of bringing the true God to those who do not know him while we, ourselves want nothing to do with him? Affirm him to the world and denying him as a reality in our own soul.

Super Bowl Thoughts

A few miscellaneous items as the super bowl approaches:

First, if you are the Colts and you win the toss do you elect to receive or to kick off? The Super Bowl is the biggest single sporting event on the planet - well, with the exception perhaps being the World Cup....But nonetheless the point is that as big as this event is there is bound to be a great deal of nerves and jitters on the opening drive, right? The first offense to take the field has to deal with a lot of nervous energy. So, perhaps kicking off would be best. Then the Colts get the ball to start the second half. Taking the second half kickoff will allow them to begin to execute their second half game plan.

The only downside I see here is if the Bears take the opening kickoff and establish a solid running game effectively keeping Peyton Manning out of the game for a while. If they were to establish the run and get an opening score I think this would go a long way to getting Rex Grossman's confidence going. And what if the Bears' dangerous special teams unit managed to run back the opening kick for a touchdown??? Hhhhmmmm.....probably best to kick it deep into the endzone, then, eh???

Ok, second note - and certainly the most important decision of the superbowl: What is the super bowl spread looking like this year? I don't mean the Vegas betting line (Colts -7), I'm talking about the food....What to eat, what to eat....That's still a work in progress for me....These kind of decisions cannot be rushed.

Greg Koukl on Truth

Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason came to our neck o' the woods tonight. He had a lecture at Grace College and Seminary (I attend the Seminary) on the topic of postmodernism and the emergent/emerging church.

Much of Koukl's presentation was based on truth. He was particularly concerned to defend the correspondence theory of truth. There were a few points at which he came very close to saying that the correspondence theory of truth is the only biblical theory of truth. He didn't actually say that, but came very close. Doug Groothuis, however, states this view quite poignantly in his book Truth Decay that:
"The correspondence view of truth is not simply one of many options for Christians. It is the only biblically and logically grounded view of truth available and allowable." (110)

This view is something that has particularly bothered me for quite some time. The view that the correspondence theory of truth is the only biblical view spurred me on to do serious biblical exegetical research on the concept of truth. I am certainly intrigued by the philosophical questions raised by discussions on truth, but for me what is most concerning is whether or not the correspondence theory is, in fact, "the only" biblical position available.

Towards the end of Greg's lecture tonight there was a Question-and-Answer session. So, I questioned Greg about the issue of whether or not the correspondence theory is really and actually the only biblical theory available. His response was interesting. Although Greg acknowledged that there were different nuances to the biblical view of truth he nevertheless seemed to side with Groothuis. Furthermore, he also stated that the correspondence theory of truth was presupposed even when it was not explicitly stated. (I believe this is also a position of Groothuis.)

Greg and I had a brief and cordial exchange and that was the end of it. He was very gracious to entertain my challenges and I appreciated the opportunity to bring this issue to the forefront of discussion.

Yet a few of my concerns remain:

1) Is there really one and only one "biblical view" of truth?
From my study of the Gospel of John I find a very developed and thoughtful view of truth. Aletheia for John is a very key concept that is tied in with some very important theological themes. But the way that John uses this term differs from the way that Paul uses aletheia. Furthermore, the use of emeth in the Hebrew conception of truth is also different from the above two Scripture writers. So, I wonder if it is even wise to speak of one, biblical view. The topic is misguided from the start. We must clarify more specifically in which context a biblical writer is using this term, otherwise we risk talking over each other's heads.

2) Could there be more than one form of truth?
In digging around in the Gospel of John one finds that truth has many diverse and rich nuances. While it is certainly the case that at some times the correspondence view of truth is clearly in view (e.g. the Samaritan woman of chapter four) there are other times where aletheia definitely takes on a form that hardly resembles the correspondence theory of truth. For example, in chapter three we read about those who "do truth." Can truth be an action? In chapter eight we find that for the devil "there is no truth in him." But the devil certainly had knowledge of some truth propositions. So, in a propositional sense he had truth. But because the devil stands in such stark opposition to God, the author of truth, no matter how many true propositions the devil may know he still "has no truth in him."

I am a staunch believer in the need to stand firmly for a correspondence theory of truth. (Philosophically speaking I tend to find a lot of common ground with Common Sense Realism.) But the above two examples, amongst a few others, have caused me to lean towards thinking that truth may take on more forms than just the correspondence theory. The correspondence theory is necessary on biblical ground, but is it sufficient to capture all that we mean when we as Christians talk about truth.

3) Do Greg Koukl and Doug Groothuis take too narrow of a view on truth?
In the Gospel of John I find something truly compelling: A holistic call of commitment. There is a call to surrender the whole person. John's development of aletheia leaves no part of the person untouched: Truth is correspondence with reality, but it is also a life of truth. Truth is a proposition but it is also a situation: Truth is how we stand in relationship to Christ. (14:6) John's Gospel is Christological, and how we react to the Son determines where we stand in relationship to truth.

While some may be uneasy in speaking of "many forms" of truth it is important to qualify that for John these forms all collide upon the person of Christ. Hence to speak of many forms of truth does not imply a free-for-all or any kind of a relativism. The Christ demands something from us - complete surrender. This does not allow us the option to determine truth for ourselves. Only when we come to Christ in desperation and obedience can we begin to open up all that truth and life has to offer. I think that this is one of the primary messages of the Fourth Gospel: What will you do with Jesus? It's an all or nothing demand. A high calling. Higher than anything we could cook up in and of our own selves.

The above are a few questions I had in walking away from tonight's session. As always I am interested in hearing your thoughts and comments.

For further reading:
If you are interested in a very detailed essay on my view of aletheia in the Gospel of John see "The Use of Aletheia in the Gospel of John." This essay focuses on exegesis and meaning of John's formulation of aletheia and explains more about what it means that truth takes many forms ("polymorphous"):
http://theosproject.blogspot.com/2006/07/use-of-aletheia-in-gospel-of-john.html

I tackled the issue of the correspondence theory of truth in relationship to the Gospel of John in "Aletheia and the Correspondence Theory of Truth." In this essay I define the correspondence theory of truth and find that it is necessary but not sufficient to capture John's development of truth:
http://theosproject.blogspot.com/2006/01/aletheia-and-correspondence-theory-of.html

There are more essays and thoughts on truth in my Aletheia Project:
http://theosproject.blogspot.com/2006/07/aletheia-project.html

Thankfully, my knees haven't gotten too sore!

So, I'm running along last night a mere 3/4 of a mile into a regular old run-of-the-mill run with my ipod playing some Soundgarden or some other such music that came from the early nineties "Seattle Grunge" movement and I am perfectly content with my nice and easy pace for a nice and easy 4 miles.

But then I spot the trails.

I must admit that I could not resist the temptation to run through the trails in Winona Lake. The thing is, that it is night, so I can't see very well. And also there is snow covering the trails. So, I am subject to some kind of threatening terrain. I had a blast running through the trails in the white snow in the woods. Lots of fun. Trail running is good times.

I did take a few bad steps, however - stepped on my ankle once. However, I am happy to report that the next day I do not appear to have any major joint issues. Thankfully, my knees haven't gotten too sore!

State of the Union 2007

What did I think of last night's speech? In a word: irrelevant. That's just my initial, gut reaction.

On domestic issues President Bush talked about the usual suspects: Balanced budget, Social Security/Medicare, Better education, Health insurance woes, and Energy. But these things have been talked about for years since Bush came into office and nothing has really been done about them. What has been done mostly has gone against the Conservative core, i.e. letting Ted Kennedy take the reigns on education and screw things up even more! To be honest, if Washington is grid-locked on the above domestic issues it might just be the best thing.

Regarding the war in Iraq I think the speech was also somewhat irrelevant. President Bush will do what he wants (after all he is the Commander in Chief - that's what he is suppossed to do!), and if it succeeds then he will be the hero and we will finish the job, which I believe will result in a more stabilized Iraq and a more stabilized middle east. If he does not succeed then I think that the Congress will probably start fighting to pull out troops. Of course by that time President Bush will be in his final months as a lame duck and most people will be focussed on the next Presidential candidates and what they will do if elected.

Perhaps the war talk was not entirely irrelevant, however, because it gives the President one last push in Iraq and builds a now-or-never attitude towards Iraq. We either go forward or go backward. I'm not sure that's the best move, but it is a good one for the psychology of the country - it makes us feel like we are moving in a direction.

Here are a few key paragraphs from the speech on the war issue. They basically reiterate the President's ideology and position on the war that he has had since the beginning:

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country – and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military – so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Taken from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6970491

Man on the run

Jonah 1:1-3
And the word of Yahweh came to Jonah, son of Amittai saying, “Go, immediately to the great city, Ninevah, and cry out against it; because their wickedness has come up before me.” But Jonah rose up to flee to the sea from the presence of Yahweh and he went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to sea and paid the fare and went down into it to go with them to the sea - away from the presence of Yahweh.

The first three verses are simple and to the point: God tells Jonah to go, and Jonah says, "No." Well, he doesn't speak the words, of course. Rather, he just turns around and heads the other direction effectively ending his career as a prophet. This isn't the gig for Jonah. Not anymore.

What was so threatening about God's call? Jonah is called to the "great" city of Nineveh. Great because of size and/or because of importance. Most of our modern day prophets would jump at the chance to hold some revival meetings at the prominent city of the day. Think of the high-status of the converts! Think of the cash flow! This is Jonah's shot at the big time.

God isn't asking Jonah to do anything except preach and rail against the city. The text literally reads that Jonah is to "cry out against" Nineveh. Sounds like street preaching. It also sounds like it might be right up Jonah's alley. As we continue on in our drama we will see that Jonah has some pent up bitterness against the Assyrians - against Nineveh, and for good reason. So, why not take that negative energy and channel it into some hell-fire-and-brimstone preachin'? Who better to proclaim the doom of Nineveh than a prophet with a chip on his shoulder?

But Jonah is not just any old prophet with attitude. He has some very deeply rooted anger. And this, of course, is one of the central issues of the book which leads to a showdown with God later on. But notice that for Jonah to skip town implies to me that he is ready to effectively resign his post as a prophet. (Stuart WBC 452-53) He is ready to hang it all up because this is a task that he is not up for.

And think of the things that God's prophets have had to do throughout the years? Hosea, for example, had to marry a whore to illustrate in a vivid way the spiritual adultery that his nation had committed against God. And then when his whore wife left him to go back to prostitution Hosea had to humiliate himself by purchasing his wife from her pimp. Given the choice between Jonah and Hosea's situation I think I would opt with Jonah's job description.

God had given his prophets some absolutely absurd tasks - some difficult messages to preach, but consider: None of them said no. They might agonize, debate or otherwise grumble - but they didn't flat out run. Jonah ran. Jonah effectively slapped the face of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The mighty Elohim. (Stuart 453)

In the opening verses of Jonah it is easy to read through them quickly and miss the critical significance of Jonah's action. He is saying no to Yahweh, and this is no light thing. There is no precedence for it. What compels Jonah to act in this extreme? What drives him to resign his prophetic post and flee from his land and people and God? What is it about Jonah and his calling that makes it a worse fate than Hosea?

Stuart puts it this way:
Jonah represents an anomaly. He actually disobeyed God's word, so deep was his hatred for a nation whom God loved, and his resentment that God would do something good for a people who had done so much that was bad. (453)

What we are introduced to in this passage is Jonah's hate. But also catch the subtle point here in these first three verses. Even though God had called Jonah to "cry out against" the city of Nineveh there was an implication that God would show mercy and forgiveness if the city of Nineveh turns to Yahweh for forgiveness. God sent a prophet to warn the city. This warning was an extension of God's hand of mercy. A plea to turn or to face destruction. And it is this act of love that Jonah could have no part of. Send another prophet! There were plenty of others around. This was a golden age for prophets. (Stuart 453) But don't send me.

Jonah was on the run. Out to sea. Anywhere to get away from this call. Did he feel safe when he boarded the outgoing vessel? Did he have a second thought? A sentimental longing to stay in his homeland? For the ones that he loved? Or perhaps he was so driven by hate that a cold, harsh sea journey with cold and hardened seamen was a welcomed relief. Did he feel a sense of relief? Perhaps a bit of peace in knowing that he had eluded this task. As much as he may have feared the unknown, his trepidation was nothing compared to the dread of holding out the possibility of salvation to the city of Nineveh.

We end in verse 3 with the focus on Jonah and Yahweh. This book is, after all, a showdown between the two. Jonah is fleeing from the presence of Yahweh. The calling is too much to bear - so much so that Jonah would sacrifice the presence of his God to get away. The split has occurred. The relationship is fractured. Anger and hate of this kind must be protected and nurtured, at any cost. For Jonah the cost was literally everything he had.

Tagged

Ok, fine. I am begrudgingly playing the tag game even though I am diametrically opposed to the whole tagging game!

1. What’s the most fun work you’ve ever done, and why? (two sentences max)

My brother works for Google, which was recently ranked the #1 best place to work in the whole wide world. My point to him was this: If you're having fun, then it ain't work.

2. Name one thing you did in the past that you no longer do but wish you did? (one sentence max)

Honestly. I'm blankin' here.

3. Name one thing you’ve always wanted to do but keep putting it off? (one sentence max)

Travel abroad for an extended stay...but I've got France in my sites...(Watch out, Doyle, here I come!)

4. What two things would you most like to learn or be better at, and why? (two sentences max)

I continue to work on developing my intuition.

5. If you could take a class/workshop/apprentice from anyone in the world living or dead, who would it be and what would you hope to learn? (two more sentences, max)

I think at this point I would want to hang out with Qohelet - the Teacher from the book of Ecclesiastes. (I would say, "Jesus!" like any good Christian, however, Jesus has a way of just completely breaking people down, disrupting their paradigm, and driving them out of their comfort zone....and I don't need any of that in my life!)

6. What three words might your best friends or family use to describe you?

Funny but not.

7. Now list two more words you wish described you…

Lovable fuzzball.

8. What are your top three passions? (can be current or past, work, hobbies, or causes– three sentences max)

Biblical studies, blogging, and love.

9. Write–and answer–one more question that YOU would ask someone (with answer in three sentences max)

Question:
Are you sure about that?

How I would answer:
Hhhhmmmmmmm, well now that you mention it.....


So, I get to tag two people:
Ktismatics
Melody

Jonah - A biography

The person of Jonah and his personal experience are central to the message of the book that bears his name, as contrasted to, for example, Samuel or Amos; the book is written about Jonah biographically, rather than reflecting primarily the message he preached. (Stuart WBC 431)

The book of Jonah is a biography. It is a drama about a man and his deeply rooted resentment of a people, a race of people and a nation of people. The drama explores the spiritual and psychological being of a man whose resentment and thirst for vengeance cannot be quenched. Amazingly, this man is a prophet. A spokesman for God. Delivered from the wrath of the ocean he nonetheless cannot accept the fact that Yahweh would similarly deliver Ninevah. Hence, we have a drama about the Other - the ones who deserve resentment.

When one considers the grand event surrounding the drama it is amazing that any one person's gripes and complaints should be entertained. Consider. The preaching of a prophet brings about the repentance of an entire city. And not an ordinary city, but a great city. A prominent city. An important city. The prophets of our day and age would surely find a way to capitalize on such success! A marketing and fund raising campaign would result in bankrolling the prophet and his successors for generations to come. Followers would flock for decades if only to walk in the footsteps of a genuine revival - never mind the fact that Yahweh had long abandoned the premises.

But maybe that is part of the intrigue. Despite such a large-scale work of God we are drawn into a personal show-down between Yahweh and His prophet. We explore the resentment that fuels vengeance that has only blood as its object. But isn't God a just God? And isn't Israel God's chosen people? There is not apology or repentance that can satisfy Jonah. And so we witness the stand off.

The prophet doesn't budge.

Will we budge?

Should we budge?

What does it mean to budge?

Let's blog through the drama of Jonah. No. Better yet, let's slog through it. Take our time and explore.

Weekend NFL Predictions

Firstly, the game of highest interest to me:

Colts finally get over the hump and make it to the super bowl.

I'm scared because I think that Tom Brady is going to have an incredible game. Brady is a gamer and I predict that he comes ready to play and that this week the Colts defense will not fair as well as last week. I think they play well, but I think Brady has a great game.

But look for Peyton to also have a good game. He has the most to prove.

I predict that Peyton and Brady both play well and that it ends up being an offensive shoot out. In the end Peyton and Brady play to a virtual draw and the Colts win on a field goal by Adam Vinatieri - a poetic end to the jinx that has been on the Colts and ushering in a new era in the rivalry between the Colts and Pats.

Final Score: 40-38



In the other conference I am going to go against conventional wisdom and the media pundits and pick the Bears to win. And I'm going to pick the Bears to win big - by two touchdowns. Final score: 34-20.

If the Colts and Bears both win it is going to be mega excitment level in my neck of the woods. I live almost two and a half hours from both Chicago and Indianapolis - right in the middle. So, there are many Bears and Colts fans in these here parts. It would make for a really energetic super bowl sunday!

War mongering

If you are interested on some of my current thoughts on the war in Iraq or if you want to join an interesting discussion between someone who supports the war (myself) and someone who, well, doesn't support it all that much here is a link:
http://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/the-combination-is-lethal/
(And, yes, we are all playing nice. It is a civil discussion....at least so far...)

War - What is it good for?

The war in Iraq.

The nation is polarized into two camps: Pro-war and Anti-war. Should we continue the war in Iraq and maintain a presence or should we pull out? If we continue should we escalate? If we pull out how soon should we leave? But the heart of the question just might go to the justness of the war: Is it a just war or is it an unjust war?

What is a "just war"? This is a moral statement. It is about right and wrong. In a given situation if a nation has the "right" reasons to go to war then the war is just. I guess a good example of this is if some bully nation decides to pick on you and wants to take your land, your women and all your stuff. You defend yourself and fight back. Bingo! You have all the right reasons. Hence you have a just war. We might even say that you have a righteous war.

But that's for a nation on the defensive. Are there just reasons to go on the offensive and take the initiative for war? In World War II the Japanese bombed the bageezees out of us at Pearl Harbor. So, we declare war and send some of our boys over to the French beaches. That seems like another rather simple scenario. The US was threatened by the Axis alliance so they threw their lot in with Brittain & Co. and kept Europe from becoming a German speaking continent. Simple, right. Well, it is only simple if the simple scenario holds. If things are really that clear cut then the moral choice is certainly easier. But the question always centers on whether or not things are as they seem because there are things that we are told and there are things that are actually happening.

Here's the difference: The government puts out their story on why they are going to war. 10 times out of 10 the story they put out is a pretty good one. It inspires us to a greater good. It moves us to action. We want to fight because we want to make the world a better place. Average Johnny American will go to war and support a war if it is for a higher calling. We can endure a great deal of suffering, pain, and sacrifice if we are doing it to protect our families or to set someone free or for the greater glory of God, etc. So, a nations leadership has a vested interest in inspiring its people for the greater good. That's what they are going to sell. The question is this: Are they selling the real deal?

The information we receive is filtered. I listen to Rush Limbaugh. He's funny and, by and large, we share the same point of view. I know my info. is going to be filtered, so why not get it filtered through someone I like and agree with? You like the New York Times - fine. You just choose a different filter. But we both probably try to get our news from a variety of sources just to try to get the whole picture. But that's the question: Can we ever really get the whole picture??? How do we ever know if our nation's motives in going to war are just? How do we know that our leadership is pure as the wind driven snow? Unspotted and untainted by evil? Isn't there always things going on behind the scenes? Aren't there always invisible hands moving and manipulating events? Do we ever know the full story? Do we ever see all the cards?

Here's the point: We can conceive of a just war. We can talk theoretically of the right reasons to fight. However, it seems to me that a realistic person will acknowledge that a just war is really only a theory. There may be some completely just wars throughout human history, and there may be some completely unjust wars. But most wars seem to be some sort of mixture of the two - some good motivations and some bad. Some just reasons and some unjust reasons. Most war seems to fall between the two extremes of "righteous" and "unrighteous."

So, what do we know about Iraq? Well, by this point you probably know most of what I know, and I know most of what you know. Is it just, unjust, or somewhere in between? Well, as you probably can imagine by now I think it is somewhere in the middle. Where it falls exactly is what we debate. How do we debate? Well, we take the facts. We do our homework. But where do we get our facts? We choose our filters wisely. Do we ever know the whole story? Probably not. But the Johnny and Janie Americans do the best we can with the information we have. And then we hash things out at the coffee shops, in the classrooms, and on the blogs.

War.

What is it good for?

Good question. Let's talk.