dave dack

I’d like to see our country dismantle its nuclear arsenal - entirely - and vow never to make or use nuclear weapons again.

What’s the main reason for keeping them?  Well, it’s a huge leverage point.  If you nuke us or piss us off enough, we can literally wipe your country off the face of the planet.  “Pssst!  Don’t nuke the U.S.!”  But I don’t believe our WMD capabilities are actually as persuasive as we might think.  Having nukes doesn’t actually make us safer.  Missiles sitting in a warehouse don’t do anything, and intimidation can only go so far.

I’ve tried to think of scenarios where it might become desirable or necessary to use nukes in the interest of preserving America.  Such scenarios certainly exist, and could maybe happen.

Then there’s Jesus and the Good News.  If I am a Christian, then preserving America, democracy, even (dare I say it!) freedom must take a back seat to living out the Gospel.  Killing, even when justified or noble, is always ugly.  Nuclear weapons are something I can’t support.

“But nuclear disarmament won’t work - it won’t create peace, and it won’t encourage other countries to do the same.”  Maybe, but God asks me to care more about peace then about what works.  Whether it is effective is irrelevant - it is the way of the cross, and I am called to follow.

Is America a Christian nation, and therefore compelled to disarm it’s nuclear weapons in light of the Gospel?  No, actually.  But I feel compelled to push for it, and I believe the Church must push for it.

Christians are in a frenzy over The Golden Compass, apparently because the author of the books created the story intentionally as a sort of anti-Narnia series, expressing atheist sentiments rather than Christian ones. I’ve done some reading around about all of this, and the author of the books, Philip Pullman, is apparently out to “kill God in the hearts of children.” He did say in a 2003 interview that his books were about killing God, but that quote can easily be taken out of context. He means what he said, but I doubt he said it with a snarl and a vow. He also said in the same interview, “What I am against is organized religion of the sort which persecutes people who don’t believe. I’m against religious intolerance.”

He describes himself as someone who doesn’t believe in God, but he also argues that no one can prove God’s existence either way, and that he’s really an agnostic. If you visit his site, you’ll find that he’s more cynical than anything else.

It’s probably true that the books have a fairly overt anti-God agenda, and for that reason I understand that some Christian parents would keep their kids from watching the movies or reading the books. Young children are impressionable. But I’m also a bit worried about how excitable Christians are when it comes to movies with the least bit of magic or anti-God sentiment. Is it really that big a deal? Frankly, the kind of religion that Pullman wants to kill probably should be killed, at least to a degree. I think bad Christianity is more dangerous by far than a fantastical story promoting atheism. I don’t think kids’ faith will hinge on the watching or reading of one such story.

I’m not worried about the movie or the books, but I’m also sympathetic toward those who would say “watch out!” I just don’t think we should get our undies in a bunch over it.

Reverend Fred Phelps’ church was ordered to pay almost $11 million for protesting military funerals (read here). I hope they stop.

In response to Notes On 2 Timothy 1:8, Micah asks:

“How do you see the role of people who do the very actions you speak of without any Christian, let alone religious, compunction?”

This has proved to be a real doosey. At the end of the day I’ll have to go with, “I’m not entirely sure,” but I’ll share a bit of my thought process to make it more interesting.

I think it’s an issue of misplaced hope. Let me try to explain what I mean…

One the one hand you have a Christian who works hard at bringing healing and hope to others. She feeds the hungry, brings medicine to the sick, etc. But her hope is not ultimately in these things. She doesn’t try to end hunger, for example, only for the sake of ending hunger. She tries to please Christ and follow after Him, which necessarily leads her to such efforts. Her hope is in Christ whom she understands to be the fulfillment of everything, of God’s kingdom. The end of hunger and sickness and violence is found in Christ alone. She keeps in mind the direction in which God’s redemptive plan for all creation is moving. She works for healing because it is part of what happens at the end of the Story.

On the other hand you have a not-even-religious person doing the exact same things with at least the same level of sincere compassion for others. Even if he is realistic enough to admit that humans might never be able to end such things as hunger, he still strives for it. Health, peace, happiness, etc. are the things he is after for others, and that is where his hope is. His hope is in compassion, love, acts of healing toward others, or whatever. But all the things he is after can only be found, can only be realized, in Christ. He is suffering to end bad news but not as a witness to the Good News. His hope is in the medicine, not in the doctor.

That said, the non-Christian’s works are wonderful! Do I want him to stop if he’s not doing it for the sake of the Gospel? No! But I want his hope to be in the right place so that he and God might both receive greater pleasure in his works. But I’m still left with the question, what is his role? Where does he fit into God’s work in the world? I don’t know. Do his good works bring him closer to God than a non-Christian who doesn’t do good things? Maybe, but I really don’t know.

Tell me what you think?