Nathan Key

Aside from the fact that it's one of the longest sentences I've ever read, I wanted to open today's post with the following quote from John Locke because in it he expresses (better than I could) the reasons why I disagree with Preemptive War:

"THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power."

- John Locke, (the philosopher not the LOST character)

* * *

IN 2001, my brother brought home a new edition of the game Civilization, by Sid Meier. We were both entranced by the original Civilization game, and this new one, Civ 3, turned out to be even better than anything that had come before. The basic gist of the game is this:

You start out with a small tribe of people who need to build an entire civilization by establishing cities, trading with other nations, learning about technology, and defending/invading borders.

At the beginning of the game, you get to choose which tribe you'll start out as and how many other tribes are integrated into the game. Each tribe has different abilities and intentions (some are industrious, some are militaristic, some are religious, some are expansionist). As a player, a good strategy is to pick a tribe that matches your mentality and also understand the other tribes who are playing with/against you in the world. For instance, if I'm interested in playing an aggressive game where I take all other nations by force- it's a good idea to play as a militaristic tribe because they will automatically generate more advanced military technology.

I've gotta admit, even though my personal preference is to play as an expansionist tribe- one who explores and settles new areas rather than taking them by force- there are times when I'm playing against a militaristic tribe and I understand that I'm going to have to build up my military pretty quick and either defend my cities by arming them with a vast amount of forces- or I'll need to launch a military campaign and blast an opponent back into the stone age so that I can continue learning and expanding without their forces invading my space all the time.

In other words, when I'm dealing with a military minded opponent- the only way to keep my civilization safe is by scaring the other tribes into submission. And even then, sometimes, they attack me because they're not real people. They're computer programs that are designed to attack and invade.

One of the advantages of playing in the video game world is that immediately, one can tell what the intentions and actions of an opposing nation will be. After playing the game a few times, I understand that those "militaristic" nations WILL attack me and anyone else on the map if they have an opportunity. It's not a matter of chance or whether or not I get on their good side. If they have a bigger military or if they see a city that's not very well defended they will swarm to it and destroy it. It's in their programming. They're designed to do so by the people who created the game. If they didn't attack and went along with the trading, learning, peaceful tribes, we'd say there was a flaw in the game- that the programmers made some sort of mistake.

In fact, this sense of conquest is so ingrained into the programming of militaristic tribes that sometimes I choose NOT to play against them because I'm not really in the mood to play a defend and invade sort of game. I'd rather play a trade and learn game (OK, I admit that sometimes I still invade these peaceful tribes because I know I can establish dominance... *insert evil laugh here*).

* * *

But let's step back into the real world for a moment. When we think about our recent involvement in the middle east- especially Iraq (and Afghanistan to some degree)- I imagine that the Bush Doctrine of Preventative War is based on the idea that these people in other countries are programmed or born with an intent toward evil, destruction, and military oppression.

How else can you explain an ideology that says, we'll strike you before you have a chance to strike us?

In order to rationalize any sort of unprovoked military campaign against another country, one has to assume that the other country or people group are bent on our destruction and WILL act on their anger against us. That's the only way.

Iraq claims to have WMDs? We'll just blow them to Kingdom Come.

Iran works on a Nuclear Program? We'll threaten to do the same to them  if they don't stop right now.

The truth of the matter is, there were no WMDs in Iraq. We invaded their country and took over under the assumption that they were bent on our destruction and had the capability to do so. We put Saddam Hussein and Iraqis into a dialogue box, reducing them to computer drones programmed toward evil and destruction, with no will of their own save the destruction of others by force.

The reason I began with Locke's quote is that he makes the case than when retaliating against an attack, the innocent party has the right- nay, the obligation- to destroy the one who waged war against him just as one would have the right and obligation to destroy a lion who viciously attacked him. But notice that Locke doesn't say that we have the right to kill all lions because the MIGHT someday attack us.

In doing so, we are the war-wagers and those we attack are the innocent. Whether or not they harbored ill-will toward us in the first place, when we arm ourselves and attack another person or state (unless it's defense or retaliation) we're in the wrong (just as they'd be in the wrong to attack us).

But unlike video games, we don't get to start over if things don't go our way. We're dealing with real human lives here. And we cannot rationalize preemptive war under the theory that they'd strike us first if they had the chance.

* * *

I'll leave you with this frame from a Civ 3 dialogue box. I think it pretty much sums up how most people in the world see American "Preventative War" ideology (otherwise known as the Bush Doctrine):

** Just for fun, I've added two "fake comments" from D.H. Rumsfeld and GW Bush. **

Today, I noticed a VERY heavy increase in traffic to my site and was soon excited to see that I'm being featured on Weebly today (Weebly is the program I use to edit my website content).

SO, welcome visitors from the Weebly community!

I'd really love to hear your thoughts on what I post here... (keep it clean if you can) and I'd also welcome any tricks and tips you'd use to make my page layout even better.

Thanks for stopping by. Please comment or leave me messages with links to your site, cause I'd love to see what you're creating, too!

* * *

UPDATE:

Usually, I get about 12-40 visits, daily.
Being featured on Weebly definitely makes a difference!

A quick note to help readers understand this blog a bit better:

It should be noted that there is a very big difference between what philosophy considers ETHICS and what most religions, governments, and people groups consider ETHICS.

Ethics, in philosophy is the examination of "the good life" and what it means to participate in said life.

Ethics, to most others simply means a set of moral behavior that doesn't violate civil conduct. This would be better defined as Morality, but we're stuck using the word ethics because of universal usage.

But when we speak of business restraints, human rights, or the role of government, we're going to come to much different conclusions about what is ethical depending on whether we're coming at the issue from a philosophical, religious, or legal perspective.

That's why it's important to check your lens whenever you approach an issue. One thing I've done to help me check my own lens is to tag my own posts with the viewpoint I'm taking (What's written in this blog is often tagged with philosophy, politics, or religion- sometimes all three). There is an intersection between these, but it doesn't mean that they are always (or even) in agreement.

This is also why I can argue for government intervention one day and then for government restraint the next. Each lens calls for a different perspective and a different attitude toward what's ethical, moral, or appropriate.

It doesn't mean I'm being contradictory.

One of my favorite Philosophical / Political theories is the famous Original Position thought experiment by John Rawls. In his book A Theory of Justice, Rawls postulates that if we were able to remove ourselves from time for a moment and create a perfect society- we'd have to place ourselves under a veil of ignorance where those of us creating the society would not know what role we would end up playing in the society that was being formed.

His point is this: If we didn't know what role we'd eventually play in society, in an effort to protect ourselves from poverty or oppression, we'd want to incorporate basic human dignity and civil rights into all levels of humankind- just in case we ended up at the bottom, as the poorest of the poor.

And since we don't live with the ability to actually go through with that sort of thought experiment, the next best thing is to pretend that it were possibly and then extend to those at the bottom of the totem pole those rights and privileges that we'd bestow on ourselves if we were in their place.

Some questions to consider:

1. What are the rights & privileges that you think all people deserve, no matter what position they're in?

2. Do you think some people are entitled to (or allowed) more than other people in society? Why or why not?

Yesterday, my new friend Guilherme posted some rather vulnerable (but good) thoughts about accountability and exhortation on his blog. You can read them HERE.

As I was reading, a flash of scripture popped into my head and suddenly, I saw the words of Christ from a different perspective than I had previously. Thanks Gui, for providing an opportunity for me to gather up a fuller understanding of the following passage.

* * *

"...how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

* * *

So say you're spending some time with one of your friends and you notice something sitting there in the corner of her eye.

It's a little speck of lint.

Concerned, you lean over and say: "Hey, hold still. You've got something in your eye! Let me help you get it out."

At first, she backs away and tries to bat at it herself, but finally she relents- because she trusts you- and allows you to fish it out yourself.

Carefully, you reach over while she holds her eyelids open with two fingers and you gently pluck out the offending irritant.

* * *

Now, you wouldn't try this maneuver with sunglasses on, right? And you wouldn't try this blindfolded or while you were texting someone on your phone, would you? And surely, you wouldn't be rough and violent with their eyeball either?

The intent when helping a friend with a speck in their eye is careful, focused attention. And it should be the same when we're coaching their behavior.

* * *

When we're coaching someone's behavior, I believe we should abide by the same rules that reflect the care that we'd give if we were literally removing a speck from their eye.

1. Carefulness is imperative
You would be careful and cautious when dealing with a literal speck in someone's eye. If you aren't demonstrating the same care and caution when dealing with someone's heart- then you need to do a motive check.

2. Remove all distractions
Jesus called this "removing the plank from your own eye." In the same way you'd remove a blindfold or sunglasses before dealing with a speck in someone's eye- you need to remove all the distractions from your own life, too when dealing with their heart and behaviors. First, this means dealing with your own sin and being in communication with God to the point where you aren't simply following your own ideas, but Christ's will. But it also means making the other person your focus during the time of coaching. You can't be torn in multiple directions, trying to manage a hundred different relationships. Focused care is important.

3. Work Gently
No one works on the eyeball with violence, and neither should you address someone's actions or behaviors in such a way. Kindness and affirmation are important parts of coaching. Don't go for the jugular- work with ease and care so that you don't do any additional damage while your working to help the person overcome a potentially damaging situation.

4. Be Confident and Sure
Shaky hands will damage a person's eye just as easily as a piece of lint. So it is with addressing someone's actions. It can't be done with a hemming and hawing discussion where you aren't really sure what's going on. It's OK to be gentle AND direct. It does the other person NO good if you're so nervous that you either miss the problem or back off just before getting to the heart of it. Just as you can't leave a piece of dust in someone's eye, you can't start to address a behavior issue and then leave it half done.

* * *

Jesus didn't say that we should overlook the problems in a brother's life and He didn't ask us to leave friends to deal with their own problems. He told us to treat the sin and behavior in their lives as we would treat a speck of dust in their eye- with carefulness and consideration, never with carelessness or condemnation.

My sister had a baby girl last night.
Her name is Elsa.

Welcome to the world, Elsa.
It's good to have you here!

There's a current mutilation of egalitarianism that's being overlooked by many people today. In some ways, we're unfortunately moving beyond equality to embrace conformity as well. And often, it's male attributes that are now being uprooted or smoothed over. To put it another way- in an attempt to ensure equality among the sexes, an unfortunate side effect has been the emasculation of male traits that are seen to be disruptive, violent, or gross.

Now, I'm not going to argue that men should be rulers over women or that women should "submit" to men. On the contrary, I've come to believe that mutual submission is a critical step toward embracing a fuller, more abundant life and I shutter at the long history of female enslavement and oppression. At the same time, however, it's important to value those attributes that make men masculine even as we esteem femininity and embrace those things that are unique and extraordinary about women.

For instance- Apparently all the little boys in the United States really need to be medicated with Methylphenidate (Ritalin). But perhaps their ADHD isn't really a disorder, but rather the side effect of trying to get them to learn in a classroom setting that's geared toward little girls (yes, I believe that the education system is geared toward girls). They are much better at sitting still in their seats and staying on topic until recess, and their disruptive counterparts are seen as a problem for society.

For instance- Facial hair (which was at one point in time an honor among men) is now seen as wild and improper. A man who shows up to an interview with a beard is much less likely to get a job than the one who comes in clean shaven (smooth, almost feminine). I decided to grow a beard last year and was called Grizzly Adams by a few of my family members. They were teasing- but they didn't really approve of my new look. Needless to say, it's gone now.

There are a number of other examples I could get into, but suffice to say, I believe that we'll miss out on a full experience of life if we don't permit men to be men. We cannot take away the core ruggedness of men without losing something of what it means to be female, too. And although equality is a good thing, a wonderful thing that we should be celebrating and pressing onward- androgyny is not.

We need to push equality as far as it will go- but we must never sacrifice maleness or femaleness in the process.

Some of my top prayer requests over the past 5 years have been (in no particular order):

- To get a job/better job/more satisfying job
- To recover from illness, pain, depression
- To have relationship healing
- To be a good father/husband
- To have a wife/family of my own
- To avoid conflict
- That someone in my circle of friends would love Jesus more
- That my brother would be safe in the middle of war

The other night at STATUS, Josh Loveless, the pastor of our community brought up a great point. He reminded us that Jesus had some prayers requests, too. Prayers that are rarely even mentioned by us. Prayers that almost never even make it into the top 100 on our list of important matters.

Here are Jesus' prayers for us:

"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."
- JESUS (as quoted by John 17:20-26)

* * *

Hmmm... Unity in the Church, visions of the glory of Christ, and the fullness of God's love dwelling in us...  I think that if Jesus wanted these things for us, then they'd better become a part of our prayers, too.

Now, this isn't to say that it's wrong to pray for jobs, relationships, injuries, and other matters that are pressing on our hearts. But it's sort of sad that the things Jesus prayed for rarely make it into our own desires.

I don't know that we can say that we're seeking after His heart, when the things that are important to Him aren't becoming increasingly important to us, too.

One of my good friends called me a few moments ago to vent about job problems. He's being overlooked and overworked. Others on his team are getting promoted and he's stuck working doubles to make up for the labor shortages.

* * *

The pastor of the community I'm a part of had to pick up a second job a few months ago. His wife's pregnant and they need a little extra income so that they can make ends meet.

* * *

Then there's my own situation- the company I was working for in Seattle started losing money over the Summer and had to let go almost all of the creative team. I moved out there for a dream job and ended up without any job.

* * *

Why do all these things happen?

I don't know that there's an easy answer to that question. For most of my life, I used to throw out a verse or two like "all things work together for the good..." but those phrases aren't much comfort to the down and out. Most of the time, the seem like faux-catharsis.

Then the other day, Beth said something that made a lot more sense. She reminded me that we're living in a fallen world and sometime bad things happen, not because of some incredible divine mandate that's orchestrating our lives toward heaven, but because this place is broken.

Surely sometimes there's meaning and significance, but other times, bad things happen simply because they happen. The humanity within us longs to makes something meaningful of each event, because somehow we feel that it will lessen the blow of the reality that we live in a broken, fallen world. And in some ways I think we figure that if bad circumstances push us on to something good, then they weren't "bad" in the first place.

I don't think this mean that circumstances are random, however. I don't mean that they are out of control and completely devoid of meaning in the way Nietzsche argued in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

     "On mine honour, my friend," answered Zarathustra, "there is nothing ofall that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hell. Thy soulwill be dead even sooner than thy body: fear, therefore, nothing anymore!"

     The man looked up distrustfully. "If thou speakest the truth," said he,"I lose nothing when I lose my life. I am not much more than an animalwhich hath been taught to dance by blows and scanty fare."

This is not how I see life, or any event within it.

But at the same time, I think that we rob ourselves of sorrow and grief when we only look for "the positive things" about a situation and don't allow ourselves to morn. We need to morn this world we're in where bad things happen to good and bad people alike. We need to grieve over the brokenness that came from the fall.

When bad things happen, we need to allow ourselves to feel bad about it. We need to get upset that things aren't perfect. For every time this broken world reveals itself for what it is, we get a better picture of reality and a firmer realization that THIS IS NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

Then, and only then will we have eyes to see and ears to hear what God might have for us within each circumstance.

From Guest Blogger, Christopher Cocca

I heard today that consumer spending on retail rose 1 percent in the latest metric, despite projections of a .8 percent decrease for whatever period was being measured. People are still buying stuff. Decreased (on the whole) gas prices certainly help.

I got $50 from my grandmother for my birthday and tried really hard to spend it last night. It's still in my pocket. It's not that I'm cheap, it's just that lately, I'm finding it harder and harder to find things I actually want to buy. I'm not a consumer of art in the way some people are. I listen to new music for free on the radio (or on YouTube or seeqpod or Pandora or Facebook or Last) and I've never been one to hoard albums or books as artifacts or totems. Remember those 35 bones I had to spend on iTunes? I still have 15 left. I'm not against spending, but in the economy of gift money, the only thing worse than spending on food or bills is spending arbitrarily. You're supposed to put some thought into it. I put so much thought into it that the money usually ends up floating into the general account where it eventually becomes burger and wings money.

I blame my junior high religiosity (yes) for this: one year I gave up buying baseball cards for Lent because of how obsessed I'd become with them. When it was over, the collector's impulse was gone. I'd been going strong with sports cards and trading cards and comic books till then (oh, 90s foil-embossed, laser-eyed comics boom, how I do still miss you), but I never really got back into the discipline that enthusiast collecting requires. The bottoming out of the boom (next month: 11 variant covers!), my lack of funds, and the baseball strike also helped.

I don't need to buy music.I also don't need to buy books. There are libraries and, let's be honest, blogs. Wikipedia. Project Gutenberg. This guy. I don't need collectibles, and even though I like them, they're more fun if you're not buying them yourself. (The exceptions here are vintage, middle-grade comic books, like "Batman and The Outsiders #1" or other things from the 70s and 80s that don't cost a lot but look cool in your office). I already own "Watchmen" and "Heart of Darkness" and "Leaves of Grass" and 3/4s of the so-you-wanna-be-a-writer cannon. The truth is that I have a lot of stuff, but not because I enjoy collecting or even because all of these things are worth having. I've had a lot of birthdays and Christmases and interests and buy-one-get-one-half-off-at-Borders trips. I stopped buying movies a long time ago.

I'm thinking of writing a craiglist's post. "Wanted: a good, legal way to spend 50 bucks. Best offer of stuff for my half-bill wins." Nathan's readers, you have first crack.

Is my consumerist anxiety heightened by the economic crisis? Not really. It's more a poverty of enthusiasm for music or art or literature as products or for their creators as those with access to some sublime aesthetic I'm otherwise cut off from. Maybe I'm getting arrogant. Maybe I'm getting older. I think the more we practice our crafts, the less mystical these become and the less mystified we are with their processes. In the move from fanboy to artist, we lose things. If we're growing, the tastes and agendas and priorities of our heroes become more like those of our parents (our hipper, more famous parents) as we stake our own claims.

50 bucks. Seriously. Make me an offer.

* * *

From Nathan: "My good friend Christopher Cocca was nice enough to let me borrow his words today so I can concentrate on another job interview. He's an amazing writer / thinker and you should be reading his blogs daily (if you're not already). Send him some love by visiting one or all of his websites:

www.christophercocca.net
christophercocca.wordpress.com
christophercocca.mlblogs.com/

"Thanks Chris! I owe you one!"