Thoughts on Christianity, Nationalism, War, and Loving Your Neighbor

I’m in the middle of reading two books - Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and The Myth Of A Christian Religion by Greg Boyd. Both books are well-written and thought-provoking, and differ on a point on which I want to fully flesh out my ideas. Boyd is adamantly against nationalism and, particularly, the militant religious nationalism behind such movements as the manifest destiny and other displacing movements waged behind the mantra of “God gave us this nation” or “We are a holy, chosen people group.” Boyd feels that in this sense religion is a tool used to bolster man’s pride; an illegitimate way of validating one’s (most of the time) not-so-holy desires. I think that Boyd is correct here. In this way I think, also, that Boyd is very supportive of the separation of church and state, because the church should not use the state as a crutch to perpetuate its causes.

Boyd is also clear that he believes that allegiance should be pledged to God and God alone, not to some man-made nation or nation-state governed by men. It seems here that Boyd would not be supportive of Christian men and women in the military. Protecting our freedoms is all well and good, but protecting them at the cost of killing our enemies when Christ calls us to love our enemies seems to him to be disobeying God. Here Lewis disagrees. To quote from his book in chapter 17 on forgiveness (p.106-107)

“Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I still think so now that we are at peace. It is no good quoting 'Thou shaft not kill.' There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major- what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight - the Christian in arms for the defense of a good cause is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. (Bolding is mine, italics are his.)

I have no issue with Christian judges, though I think life in prison a better alternative to a death penalty. But should they feel the need for a death sentence, I think, and this might be a stretch, that they are simply obeying the law and, in a way, “giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s .” You might disagree with me on this. I understand. As far as Christians being in the military, I think that there is a place for army chaplains and every other Christian should refrain (in America, at least) as a conscientious objector. All killing may not be murder, but I believe that all killing is probably not in your enemies’ best interest and in saying so I disagree with Lewis quite strongly.

But going back now to the separation of church and state, I believe that allegiance to a nation especially if it is a Christian nation, is misguided. Christ didn’t come to earth to make a super awesome political nation state - he came to love people and save them by dying for them. Making a Christian nation just creates an “us and them” mentality that can only get in the way of loving our neighbor. Therefore I am not supportive of Christians in the military, nor am I supportive (at all) of flagpoles on church properties. I don’t see how a church aligning itself with a symbol that, at best, will only foster warm fuzzy feelings of patriotism and, at worst, will turn away people who have had bad experiences with Americans can further the spreading of Christ’s love. Because, really, spreading Christ’s love and proclaiming God’s glory and worth is what Christianity is all about.


_DZ

A Basic Mission Statement for Core::Minimalist

We’re living in an age of unprecedented growth of personal expression and mass communication. I sound all academic and annoying when making a blanketing and obvious statement like that, but it’s true - more ordinary people can talk to a teeming mass of others than ever before. The era of mass communication as a one-way toll road, from the media/advertiser to the consumer, is over.

Upon the completion of a telegraph line from Maine to Florida Thoreau wrote (and I’m paraphrasing), “There is now technology that lets Maine talk to Florida. But what if Maine has nothing to say to Florida?”

Nothing of importance to say, that is.

In his book Silicon Snake Oil, Cliff Stoll tells a story of an American elementary school in the 1980s pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into a computer infrastructure that let their kids e-mail kids in a Puerto Rican school. It was advanced, it was technological, it was expensive, and it was nice. What did the kids use it to write?

“What is Puerto Rico like?” “Do you listen to Michael Jackson?”

They could have sent that on a postcard for 32¢, Stoll quips.

The point here is that just because we have the technology to mass communicate doesn’t mean that we have anything substantial to say, despite what bloggers and YouTubers on the Internet want you to believe. Just because people can read what you write, listen to what you record, and watch what you film doesn’t mean that it is any good. Part of being educated means knowing what to think and, consequently, what not to think, a fact that people often forget. Having an audience does not translate into providing a service or even making a positive change in the world.

Now, as a blogger, I say this with caution. People can, and have, asked me similar questions in the vein of “What makes you think that people 'out there' will care about what you have to say?” and to this I have several answers.

Foremost, I am not in the blogosphere to be popular. I maintain a blog because I like to write and because being able to post publicly makes me work harder to try and write well. Blogging motivates me to get out my personal thoughts and feelings, as well as comment on current events, articles and books. If people happen to like reading what I write, awesome. But I have friends who have asked me, “So you have a blog? Cool. You think I should start one?”

My answer is almost always "no".

Starting a blog as a novelty or out of guilt or whatever reason will just result in an abandoned blog if there is no real motivation behind the decision. If writing is not how you express yourself, find another way to do so! I have entertained the idea of starting a YouTube channel numerous times, only to realize each time that A) I would only want to be on YouTube to have a shot at being an Internet celebrity (celebrity YouTubing is so often a lose/lose situation) and B) I would be a chronically boring video blogger. Really. I don’t think visually like that. I think in sentences.

So, then, what is the point of this blog? It is a two-pronged effort. The first goal is to further the idea of, as I call it, Reductional Minimalism. This is that idea that you can live with less, and can in fact be happier having less. It is the idea that becoming attached to material things can be detrimental to personal development, and funneling money that would be spent on accumulating possessions into enriching relationships and building social bonds instead results in a better world.

The second goal of the site is to reclaim to Internet as personal space. In a cyberspace where e-commerce and flashy entertainment sources abound, I aim to bring it back to a personal level. I am just a guy who writes stuff and puts it on a website. I want to you know who I am, what I do, my history, and how I think, so that you can get to know me better. Hopefully, then, I can get to know you better as well and can work together to decrease worldsuck.


_DZ

Don't Go That Way!

_DZ

#19

(click for larger image)

_DZ

A Tribute to The Missionary Van

Jesus tells his apostles in John 13 that, “the world will know you are my disciples by your love.” In the case of missionaries, the world will also know who you are by what you drive. Every mission field has its own missionary car - in African countries it may be a jeep, in Europe perhaps a pickup truck, but, in Japan, it is the missionary van.

When you’re a missionary kid in Japan, your family drives a van. There is no getting around this. And it’s not one of those cool vans, like the dubbers have in which they cruise the downtown. No, it’s one step away from a painters van. It’s like a grey metal bucket with seats. It will get you no girls. It is a Missionary Van.




We really couldn’t complain, though, because the vans were provided, insured and maintained by our respective missions. Plus, when you’re a missionary you’re always transporting people, a purpose at which such vans excel.

Nonetheless, we kids in the mid-‘nineties were dedicated to promoting our vans like they were our pets. We were always comparing vans, highlighting their features, praising their virtues, and trash-talking each others rides. Things could get crazy and kind of heated.

Kid A: “Dudes, my van is so cool. It seats eight and can fit three suitcases in the back!”

Kid B: “Man, but yours has a jumpseat. That’s so lame. My van has a full front bench seat and can fit seven comfortably. Plus it has sliding doors on both sides.”

Kid A: “Dual doors may be cool, but a jumpseat means that you can like flip the front seat around and face each other and play games and stuff!”

Kid B: “Yeah, and be riding backwards and barf! Your family has a barfmobile! Hah! PLUS my van has leather.”

Kid A: “Nuh-uh! No one barfs in my car! And leather is stupid. It gets too hot.”

Kid C: “Guys, both your vans are lame because they run on gas. My family’s runs on diesel, and diesel is awesome.

Kid A: “What’s diesel?”

Kid C: “It’s cheaper.”

Kid A: “Why is it cheaper?”

Kid C: “Because it’s BETTER.”

Kid B: “Really? What does it do?”

Kid C: “I don’t know, but my dad says that it is better. My van also has an automatic transmission.”

Kid A: “Man, your dad doesn’t know anything. And your van is a dumb color and seats six.”

Kid C: “Well at least my van doesn’t have stupid STRIPES all along the side of it! Hah!”

Kid A & B: “Stripes are dope.”

Kid C: “Oh, and two words. Sun. Roof.”

Kid A: “Sunroof is one word.”

“Nuh-uh!”

“Yah-huh!”

“Nuh-uh!”

“Yah-huh!”

Sunroof or no sunroof, these vans had very few worthwhile features to highlight. Like I said before though, they were functional - they moved people and cargo efficiently. Now that we’re older, missionary kids still have fond memories of their vans growing up, and it’s one of many points of solidarity that they can share with other missionary kids. My family went through (I think) three vans while I was growing up, each one a little better than the one before it. This influence may even be part of why my current vehicle is a van. I have a soft spot for vans, even if mine never did have dual sliding doors.




Dann writes from his home in Minnesota, where, in a nearby parking lot, sits his van that can seat three legally and (at least) ten illegally.

"The Hut", aka Pizza Hut, Is Now On Twitter!

It appears that Pizza Hut, in a bid to become hip-and-also-fresh, has opted to start some stores under the moniker of "The Hut."

Simply "The Hut."

Really, Pizza Hut? Was "pizza" too hard to remember for some folks? Won't this cause confusion among people who own actual huts?



But that's not the only questionable news. It turns out that Pizza Hut, back in April, started employing people whose job it is to update the public, via Twitter, on specials and deals at Pizza Huts. Pizza Hut calls these people "Twinterns", a name so demoralizing that it caused me to backwash some of my vanilla pudding. Bloop bloop bloop!

What's next? Twalesman? Twecretaries? Twactors?


'Cuz I don't know if I can handle a tractor that tweets.


::Bonus Question of the Day:: How would you describe your job position, say, on a resume, as a twintern in such a way so you could avoid using the actual term?


_DZ

Scandalous Ads For Shameless Publicity

In the news today, various websites and interest groups are outraged over a scandalous billboard recently posted by a major clothing brand (nameless for reasons explained later) in a prominent spot in New York. The billboard, plugging jeans, features a steamy scene portraying a girl and three guys in various stages of undress (though all are, conveniently, wearing jeans). The company in question has a history or provocative ad campaigns so, while this new one is no doubt more risqué, it is not really that shocking. I just see it as yet another publicity stunt to get people talking about their brand.

It’s kind of shameful, really, this growing trend of “as long as we make headlines we win” sort of publicity goal. I’ve talked about this before, and it is still no less true: in this age, as long as they are talking about you, you are doing something right. This blog post decries that sort of ad campaign, but still mentions the brand name in the headline, effectively nullifying its main point. If you mention the brand name, regardless of the spin you put on it, they win.

American Apparel did the same thing with the court case in which they were wrapped up. They lost the case, but the publicity that they garnered from it more than made up for the court costs - i.e. being in legal trouble has saved them money. This is not new either, as anyone who has studied Michael Jordan’s history with Nike will know.

All this presents an interesting conundrum, because the goal of “don’t talk about this because then the brand wins” argument is defeated by uttering that sentence alone. The prudent thing to do seems to be just to close the Internet tab and forget about it. But is that ignoring the problem? I’m assuming that most of the outcry over scandalous ads is aimed towards setting some standards of decency, but if those never manifest, then the targeted brand wins out. Should we give them publicity in an attempt to stifle them, or should we just ignore them and hope the campaign shrivels and dies, unnoticed?

_DZ