Son of Hamas gets asylum

I posted this afternoon on the trial awaiting Mosab Hassan Yousef, the "Son of Hamas." The answer is now out: he has been granted asylum:

Go here for a list of related news articles.

Pray for the Son of Hamas

If you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian faith then you will believe certain things. You will believe that the God of the universe condescends to hear the prayers of his people and not only hear but, in accordance with his will, to act thereupon. You will believe that a defining characteristic of this God is his חֶסֶד - covenant faithfulness to his people. Thus, if you pray for him to be faithful to those with whom he stands in covenant, will he not hear it?

Someone worthy of such prayer is Joseph, the son of the founder of Hamas and saver of hundreds of human lives: Israeli, Palestinian, American etc. For details on Joseph's life, further links and video interviews, go here. He currently stands, however, on the brink of being "betrayed" by the American government. Is betrayal too strong a word? If it isn't that, then it can only be an idiocy of such perversity that it makes George Bush's foreign policies look like case studies in cultural awareness.

Here's the situation, presented by Fox News:

For a later update, go here.

Interview excerpts with the Son of Hamas

Probably the most fascinating figure I have ever come across is Mosab Hassan Yousef, the eldest son of one of the founders of Hamas. After disillusion with Hamas' hypocrisy, Joseph (Yousef) went on a search for the truth ("who is my real enemy?" was his guiding question), and it led him to Christianity. The revolutionary moment for him was hearing from the lips of Jesus words he considered unthinkable: "Love your enemies as yourself." The story is long and I can't go into detail here (read his biography, which made it to the NY Times top 10; I've yet to get round to it). In short: he ended up spying for ten years for Israel's security body, Shin Bet, with the express intention of fulfilling Jesus' words: i.e. to save lives on both sides of the fence. He even negotiated with Shin Bet to have suicide bombers arrested rather than executed, risking his own life in the process. For me, one of the most fascinating and beautiful things about Joseph is the way he constantly emphasises the humanity of terrorists. In contrast to the simplistic and self-righteous attempt to explain them away by calling them "mad men," Joseph talks of them with love in his heart and a yearning for "their salvation," most of all salvation from their own ideology. In light of all this, the latest twist in his inspiring story is so perverse it could almost be in a comedy book rather than a tragedy: the US Inland Security wants him deported to the West Bank as a security threat. The reason: in his biography he describes how working for Shin Bet meant working within Hamas itself (seems obvious to me). Returning to Palestine would mean his execution of course, as conversion from Islam is a capital offence. The hearing, by the way, takes place to day. Pray for him.

For more info, John Hobbins has a round up of relevant sites and videos here. "Joseph's" Facebook page is constantly being updated with the latest news (for example, Inland Security in the States want him deported as a threat) and his website has various videos and information. He even personally authors a blog here.

Today I just want to share some of the latest video excerpts that I've come across in Youtube. They're taken from a Christian conference (I don't know which one) and give you an insight into what really does seem to be the motivating and sustaining factor behind everything that he is doing. If you think that his "political" work can be separated from his "personal faith" (a peculiarly modern dichotomy), than which this powerful interview with CNN's Amanpour. I get the impression that even this hardened interviewer was taken aback, even moved ... . Whatever you think of his opinions, I don't think his voice can be ignored.

So here are the most recent videos:

First, an account of his relationship to his father:

Here he answers the question: "who is my real enemy?:

Here are some comments on "how God is working the the Middle East":

Here he's talking about Jewish and Palestinian converts to Christianity:

Here's an anecdote about worshipping with an Israeli soldier:

Israel's contribution to the Euro-Vision song contest

I never got round to posting this on time. I'm not a fan of the Eurovision Song Contest - the music is just cheesy. But a friend sent me the link so I thought I'd share it here. I'm not sure where they finally came - 13th I think. The melody isn't up to much, but choice of language (Hebrew and Arabic, mainly) and the content of the main refrain ("there must be another way") are reasons enough for it to have won a vote from me.

A question just occurs to me: since when was Israel part of Europe?

Here's the website.

For another music video, on the same topic in the same languages, listen to In my heart.

Can the Pope Bring Peace to the Middle East?

John L. Allen Jr., the senior correspondent of The National Catholic Reporter, reckons that

If he plays his cards right, Benedict could move things forward in four ways.

Read his article in the New York Times to find out how.

I wonder what people think of this bit:

Historically, Arab Christians have promoted a pluralistic vision of society, standing between resurgent Islamic fundamentalism and ultranationalist strains in Judaism. If they disappear, prospects for peace become dimmer. The pope must assure these believers that global Christianity will not abandon them.

Israel vilified?

Another video to add to the confusion about what is actually going on in Israel/Palestine:

I have to agree, however, that comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto is an example of extreme historical distortion that I can only describe as sick and irresponsible. Though feel free to contradict me (just use reasonable arguments!).

Jewish radicalism in the IDF

I posted a while back on Hamas, an organization which I consider to be terrorist and therefore illegitimate. The Palestinian journalist Laila links to an Israeli newspaper article in Ha'aretz detailing examples of Jewish extremism within the ranks of the IDF: IDF Rabbinate Publication during Gaza war. I'm no fan of the Baruch Goldsteins of this world. Nevertheless, the challenge - for me at least - is to critically evaluate the information within the context of the "big picture." The big picture, however, seems to be a fairly amorphous concept, as each particular construal involves assumptions that go beyond the "mere" facts on the ground.

Read Laila's post for excerpts. She has also posted a list of ideas for how to support the Palestinians practically and spiritually.

For a Christian organisation whith humanitarian links to Gaza, go to the Mennonite Central Committee website. One of the suggestions they make is to fast for the Palestians. I actually did that in the middle of the conflict, using the Lutheran version of the Liturgy of the Hours as a template. I didn't know what to say, so I prayed the Psalms and texts as if I were there (watching videos like this or this helped). My idea was to pray "vicariously," letting the Psalmist's "Lord open my lips, and I shall proclaim your praise" become potentially that of a Palestinian believer, the Psalmist's praise, lament, and supplication become that of those living in the midst of destruction. I don't know if such kinds of prayer "work" with God, i.e. lead him to strengthen his people, but they certainly opened the texts up for me in a completely new dimension.

[HT for the link goes to Halden. In fact, his latest post - Morally Based Political Action - speaks to my last comments on prayer. He says: " the most morally basic political action is prayer–or more comprehensively, doxology."

The Middle East's forgotten Jewish refugees

For those who wish have a bit of perspective on the international plight of Jews worldwide, especially at the hands of seemingly relentless Muslim persecution, I highly recommend the informative blog Point of No Return: Information and Links about the Middle East's forgotten Jewish refugees. The author doesn't write polemics, he or she simply serves as a distributor of information. The latest article concerns the immanent relocation of Yemeni Jews.

And here's a fascinating looking video on the same subject. It's 40 minutes long, so I'll probably give it a look tomorrow (Sunday) if I find time. Here's the blurb:

In 1945 there were up to one million Jews living in the Middle East and North Africa outside the Palestine Mandate - many living in communities dating back more than three millennia. Today, there are several thousand. Who are these Jews? What precipitated their mass-exodus in the 20th century? Where did they go? And why don't we know their stories?

Oh, and on this issue, see Bernard Lewis' relevant article.

Mahmoud Darwish on Gaza

MAHMOUD DARWISH

"Gaza has no throat.
Its pores are the ones that speak in sweat, blood, and fires.
Hence the enemy hates it to death and fears it to criminality, and tries to sink it into the sea... And hence its relatives and friends love it with a coyness that amounts to jealousy and fear at times, because Gaza is the brutal lesson …and the shining example for enemies and friends alike. Gaza is not the most beautiful city.
Its shore is not bluer than the shores of Arab cities.
Its oranges are not the most beautiful in the Mediterranean basin.
Gaza is not the richest city.
It is not the most elegant or the biggest, but it equals the history of an entire homeland, because it is more ugly, impoverished, miserable, and vicious in the eyes of enemies.
Because it is the most capable, among us, of disturbing the enemy’s mood and his comfort. Because it is his nightmare. Because it is mined with oranges; children without a childhood; old men without old age; and women without desires. Because of all this it is the most beautiful, the purest and richest among us and the one most worthy of love."

For a song sung by an Israeli and Palestinian, with a few thoughts of my own, go to my post In my heart.

[Hat tip: Laila, of Raising Yousuf and Noor: diary of a Palestinian Mother]

How should Christians respond to the War on Terror?

This seems to be an appropriate time to repost an old book review I wrote. By posting in now it the current Gazan crisis I'm not condoning the invasion of Gaza by claiming it is nothing more than another episode in the war on terror. I do consider Hamas to be an illegitimate terror organisation, but I'm struggling to see how the mass destruction and traumatization that is going on in Gaza at the moment is a legitimate or morally defensible response to Hamas' evil. And I've become too cynical of polititians of any stripe to take anything said on the media seriously.

I also don't necessarily agree with every point made by Megoran (i.e. I don't think I'm a pascifist). Nevertheless, he raises important issues and throws light on the incredibly constructive work that believers in Jesus have done and still can do. It is also a helpful introduction to some basic Christian theology, for those who don't know too much about it.

Nick Solly Megoran, The War on Terror: How Should Christians Respond? (Downders Grove, Ill.: IVP Books), 2007
Conservative Evangelicals have in recent years acquired a reputation for being so individualistic and other-worldly that they have lost sight of the Church's obligation to be engaged in the pressing social and moral issues of the present. Whether true or not, Nick Solly Megoran can be seen as an example of a committed Evangelical, rooted in the tradition of Martin Lloyd-Jones and John Stott, for whom this is clearly not the case. His book is a plea to Christians to analyse their gospel and turn to their scriptures in order to face the most important challenge of our age: the War on Terror. His concern is not only to equip Christians to think about war, but also to build them up in their faith in Christ and enable them to witness to the gospel by talking sensibly to non-Christians in the context of discussions about war. This book has therefore a strong devotional and practical dimension. Each chapter opens with a discussion of a particular portion of the Bible and closes with concrete examples of how these biblical principles have been put into practice.

The War on Terror is divided into four sections with a final appendix. In Part one, Megoran gives an account of various responses to the War on Terror, both secular and Christian. The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism has been variously defined as either an “irrational evil” by those on the right or as the result of “government oppression” by those on the left. Both of the main protagonists, Bush and bin Laden, describe the war as one between good and evil. There is also diversity amongst Christians, depending in large part on whether they take up a pacifist or a “just war” position on violence in general. Megoran believes the former is the more biblical, which brings us to Part 2.

The chapters in Part 2 deal with the big questions raised by the war on terror. The first concerns the realism of Jesus' command that we should love our enemies (Mt. 5:9, 38-48). While not wanting to undermining the difficulty of this command, Megoran believes it is the only way to demonstrate the true nature of God and bring about genuine transformation. Just as God has reconciled to himself us who were once his enemies, so we are called to demonstrate the same grace to our enemies. We are liberated by the experience and empowered by the Spirit to do so. In other words, the key to the solution of war is the gospel of justification by faith (44). Reconciliation with God is good news for everyone: terrorists, superpowers, ourselves and the world.

The second question raised by the War on Terror is why God allows such violence to occur in the first place. Though the Bible gives us no answers, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 4.11-27) represented war as the undoing of God's creation and thus contrary to God's will. Jeremiah promised a new age in which the kingdom of God would be established and there would be no war. The reality of this future kingdom was initiated by Christ, who has reunited us with God. This reality is demonstrated today, in anticipation of its final consummation, wherever his kingdom of peace, justice and righteousness is proclaimed and lived out. This is the task of the church in an age of terror, as illustrated by the early church in Carthage.

Part 3 turns to the practical issue of how the church can concretely “proclaim and live out” Christ's rule. A key concept here is that of “citizenship” (Phil 3:12-21; Jer 29:1-23). Christians have to negotiate between two allegiences: to the state and to heaven. We are to seek the peace and prosperity of the state, which has the divinely instituted role of promoting virtue and preventing vice. On the other hand, the fact that God is our true king means that we are ultimately answerable to a different set of rules. It is these kinds of citizens that the world needs for true peace to reign. Examples are given of Christian responses to U.S. support of Nicaraguan terrorists in the 1980's and the French priest André Trocmé.

Indeed, the gospel as the creation of a community of divinely reconciled sinners creates the conditions for overcoming the idolatry of nationalism. This reconciliation between different peoples is the outworking of God's plan for history, as can be seen in Acts 10.1-23, in the work of post-war Polish and German Bishops and in the movement Reconciliation Walk.

Before we can work for unity in the world, however, we need to work for unity within the church. This is our proof to the world that we have been forgiven and have peace with God. Phil 4:2-9 provides us with five principles for conflict management within the church, which can also be applied to the international scene, as demonstrated by the work of MRA and the LWF in Guatemala.

A role model for being a “citizen of heaven” is ironically provided by Jos 5:13-6.27: the battle of Jericho. This violent story, however, has to be interpreted within the framework of God's big plan. The invasion of Canaan was the task of Israel under the old covenant, where citizenship was understood in earthly terms and so violence was necessary. When it is understood that we are now under a covenant of grace rather law, we are free to spiritualize the story and draw the correct principles. The goal of invasion was to create holiness, a land devoid of whatever is contrary to God. The means for doing so was faith. Examples of these principles in practice are provided by John Paton and Tom Skinner.

The final question concerns hope in the face of the threat of death. On the one hand, Ps 116 assures us that God actually works to save us from literal death in concrete situations, with the result that the church in general is strengthened. Megoran gives examples of deliverance from terrorists, brutal regimes and weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, often the saints do die (see v 15). Even then, their knowledge that death has lost its sting enables them to be witnesses to Christian hope, as the Evangelical church in Beslan has been able to do.

Part 4 brings the baisc theme together. Like Jeremiah, who bought a field despite immanent exile (Jer 32-33), we need to engage in prophetic acts, pointing people to a reality that transcends what is visible now. The work of FFRME and CPT are held up as varied examples. We need to follow Paul's example (Acts 27:17-31), who despite his hopeless situation in prison preached the kingdom and taught Jesus, held as he was by his vision of God's great plan (as Horatio Spafford and Rev. Mehdi Dibaj did). Ultimately, war is nothing new. It is the manifestation of sin, and so the only solution is the gospel, which justifies us and thus brings peace with God and with neighbour. As we wait for the consummation of Christ's kingdom, our task is to prayerfully read our scriptures, think about the issues raised by war and sin, praise God for what he has done and proclaim it to the world.

Megoran has not written an academic treatise. Though one may question at times his theological argument, that is hardly the point of the book. It is an introduction to the key issues that are a matter of life and death, and as such provides an invaluable reference point in a complex area. Most significantly, it is a call for action, and to that end I found the abundant examples of concrete Christian witness in action helpful, inspiring and at the same time shaming for my own inactivity.

Update: Old Testament Passion has posted an essay by a Christian Arab on the current crisis, along with his own views.

What's going on in Gaza?

It seems that wherever I look I get partial or contradictory information. The general position in the Western media is that Hamas has brought this invasion on Gaza upon itself because it broke the ceasefire. Israel waited long enough and finally its patience snapped. I noticed, however, as I briefly glanced into the The Economist, that there is another dimension to the issue: Hamas apperently had to break the truce with rocketfire because Israel didn't keeps its side of the deal, namely opening the boarders. In the meantime I read somewhere else that the return of Gilad Shalit was part of a deal, something also left unfulfilled.

Then there is the question of the proportionality of Israel's invasion. I subscribe to bitterlemons.org, a discussion forum consisting of Israeli and Palestinian political experts. According to one Israeli, the civilian deaths in such operations are relatively low. According to the Palestinians, on the other hand, it is an all out slaugher of women and children (the Palestinan commentator calls it a war on the Palestinian people and not just Hamas). CNN recently gave the latest figures: 100 of 500 Palestinan deaths are women and children. Is this proportional? But then the news reports cause me to ask other questions: how many were killed by Hamas themselves, in misfired rockets and dodgey tactics? The news reader from German agency Heute said today that militants purposefully seek out civilian areas in order to protect themselves and further their cause with images of dead children, something, she said, one could expect from an organisation that equipts children with suicide bombs. On the other hand, Palestinians hold the IDF to be a racist, terrorist organisation which simply wants to destroy Arabs (see this interesting exchange, hat tip Laila, who also claims in another post that the Israelis also use human shields).

Who do I believe and where's the most objective source of information? How do evaluate this shocking information, for example, (again from Laila)? For a blog posts that claims that the war is against the Palestinian people and not just Hamas, go here. For a post with information on the iniquity of Hamas that's new to me, go here.

Update: This interview with a Scandanavian doctor working in Gaza is worth listening to. I don't know too much about the facts, but I struggle to understand how this war is justifiable ... [HT.
The Heathlander]:



Update 2: In a comment on John Hobbin's post, a certain Adam has the following to say on the claim that Israel is using White Phosphorus as an incendiary weapon into Gaza:

The Israeli army is not firing White Phosphorus as an incendiary weapon into Gaza. Here is a post describing their use as a smoke producing agent essentially to provide cover, enhance the element of surprise etc.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/280740.php

Update 3: I showed a video unfavorable to Israel above. Hadassah adds one that is favourable. Israeli doctors work to save a Palestian girl evacuated from Gaza:

Oktoberfest im Westjordanland!

Kaum zu glauben, aber eine schöne geschichte.

The "martyr complex"

Halden's provides us with another fascinating quote:

“The pathology of a martyr complex is often a heavy-handed attempt to escape the vulnerability of speaking the turth without the means of convincing others that it is true. It signifies impatience with the freedom of others not to believe. It betrays an insecurity that cannot bear its own knowledge without compulsion for everyone else. In a word, it expresses doubt. Such doubt may explain why martyrdom is sometimes misconstrued and applied to the deaths of fighters. For the New Testament, martyrs do not die because they fight for what is right but precisely because they refuse to fight for what is true. A fighter fundamentally dubts whether his truth is true and anxiously grasps at it, preferring secure knowledge to uncertain promise made certain only through faith. Fighters do not stand by the truth of their convictions.”

~Craig Hovey, To Share in the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today’s Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 148.

Eine Fürbitte für die Christen im Irak

My Bible study group dedicated last night to learning about and praying for the Christians in Iraq (and I think we managed about a fifty/fifty balance of prayer and learning). Not only did we use the most recent articles on the topic, we also had the pastor of the arab congregation which meets on our premises. Eyes were opened (wide), emotions were stirred, souls searched, and horizons broadened. I hope and pray it wasn't a one off wonder, but that we will continue to bear our brothers in prayer and remember our responsibility to the larger church. The following is a litany I swiped from the EKD website:

Liturg: Gütiger und barmherziger Gott,
wir legen unsere Hände zusammen
und halten Fürbitte für die verfolgten Christen im Irak:

Sprecher I:
Gott, Ruhe und Sicherheit
gibt es noch immer nicht im Irak.
Die Situation ist so verworren, wie nie zuvor.
Die Bevölkerung lebt in großer Angst
und ihre Hoffnung wird kleiner
angesichts der vielen Anschläge und der vielen Toten.
So viele Menschen sind auf der Flucht -
Christen, Muslime, Yeziden,
Mandäer, Kurden, Araber, Turkmenen -
der ganze Irak scheint unterwegs zu sein.
Wo gibt es Sicherheit, wo Schutz, wo Geborgenheit
in diesem friedlosen und von Gewalt erschütterten Land?
Wann wird dieses geschundene Land
endlich im Frieden leben dürfen?

Höre unser gemeinsames Rufen: Kyrie eleison.

Sprecher II:
Gott, wir machen uns große Sorgen
um unsere christlichen Brüder und Schwestern -
grausame Nachrichten erreichen uns fast täglich,
sie müssen, um ihr Leben bangen.
Von fanatischen Islamisten werden sie gejagt und vertrieben.
Ihre Gotteshäuser sind Zielscheibe von Zerstörungen.

Höre unser gemeinsames Rufen: Kyrie eleison

Sprecher I:
Gott, wir können es nicht fassen,
dass Christen im Irak wegen ihres Glaubens
ermordet werden.
Stärke die Kraft ihres Glaubens;
halte deine Hand über alle,
die Angst haben;
gib ihnen Menschen zur Seite,
die sie schützen und für sie beten;

Höre unser gemeinsames Rufen: Kyrie eleison

Sprecher II:
Gott, wir denken an die vielen Flüchtlinge unter den Christen,
die aus Angst ihre Heimat verlassen haben,
deren Familien auseinander gerissen sind,
die um einen ihrer Lieben trauern.
Vor unseren Augen vollzieht sich gegenwärtig
der größte Exodus von Christen weltweit.
Wir denken an die Kinder,
die heimatlos geworden sind;
wir denken an die Eltern, die nicht wissen,
wie es mit ihnen in Jordanien und Syrien weitergeht;
Wir denken aber auch an die Menschen,
die sich um diese Flüchtlinge kümmern,
die sie begleiten und trösten.
Gib ihnen Kraft, barmherziger Gott,
und Mut für diesen wichtigen Dienst.

Höre unser gemeinsames Rufen: Kyrie eleison

Die unerträglichen Qualen der Christen im Irak

My Bible study group will be praying for Iraqi Christian refugees tomorrow night. For those who can read German, I've gathered some recent articles on the subject of their plight. Germany has decided to give Christians special attention in assigning refugee status, due to the severity of their situation (which reminds me of the EU's decision to give refugee status to Pakistani women on the basis that they are a persecuted minority).

- Eine Relgion in Todesgefahr
- Deutsche Freikirchen fordern von Politikern Soforthilfe für Irakische Flüchtlinge
- Die unerträglichen Qualen der Christen im Irak
- Irakische Flüchtlinge bitten Christen der Welt um Solidarität

Die Welt summarises the situation succinctly:

Die Liste der Gräueltaten gegen Christen im Irak ist lang: Schutzgelder werden erpresst, Läden geplündert, gebrandschatzt und enteignet, Kirchen in die Luft gesprengt, Mädchen vergewaltigt und zwangsislamisiert, Priester enthauptet oder gekreuzigt. Deutschland setzt sich in der EU für die Aufnahme von Flüchtlingen ein.

The Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) has typed up a Fürbitte für die Christen im Irak.

There is also an English language website dedicated to the Christians of Iraq.

The Passing of a Palestinian Poet: Mahmoud Darwish

Laila of Raising Yousuf and Noor informs us that the celebrated Palestinian poet passed away yesterday. I have often heard of this poet, but still haven't got round to reading his work - something I'd love to rectifiy. Lailia posts a poem, from which I recognised a line. It has been used by Edward Said as the title for an eloquent elegy (or is it a paen? I'm no good at poetry) for his beloved people, After the Last Sky. I should add that the blog Improvisations has posted an interesting review of his book Memory for Forgetfulness. And finally, related in theme, is this music video In my Heart.

The Earth is closing on us

pushing us through the last passage

and we tear off our limbs to pass through.

The Earth is squeezing us.

I wish we were its wheat

so we could die and live again.

I wish the Earth was our mother

so she'd be kind to us.

I wish we were pictures on the rocks

for our dreams to carry as mirrors.

We saw the faces of those who will throw

our children out of the window of this last space.

Our star will hang up mirrors.

Where should we go after the last frontiers?

Where should the birds fly after the last sky?

Where should the plants sleep after the last breath of air?

We will write our names with scarlet steam.

We will cut off the hand of the song to be finished by our flesh.

We will die here, here in the last passage.

Here and here our blood will plant its olive tree.

- Mahmoud Darwish

Interview with MOSAD on a Palestinian blog

I'm delighted to have discovered a fascinating blog by a Palestinian journalist and mother, Raising Yousuf and Noor: diary of a Palestinian mother. It's not always easy to find balanced opinions and reportage on this part of the world, so I'm delighted to find the blog of a professional with strong ties to the land. Her posts not only concern current developments, but details of daily life in the Gaza strip and the struggles her people face (such as her father's recent e-mail from Gaza, or another e-mail from Ramallah) Here's here self-description:

I am a Palestinian journalist who divides her time between Gaza and the United States, where Yousuf's father, a Palestinian refugee denied his right of return to Palestine, and thus OUR right as a family to live together, resides. This blog is about the trials of raising our son between Gaza and the US, while working as a journalist, and everything that entails from potty training to border crossings. Together, we endure a lot, and the personal becomes political. This is our story.

Of particular interest is an interview she held with "former MOSAD spy chief cum Labor politician Danny Yatom" for Al Jazeera. Here's an interesting section:

Would Israel assassinate Meshaal today?

The Israeli policy is that as long as there is terror, the terrorist must understand that anyone who executes terror will not enjoy immunity.

So Mossad carries out extra-judicial assassinations?

The way I will refer to it is that whoever deals with terror should not enjoy any immunity.

Without regard to international law?

With regard to what [former president] Bill Clinton said: there should be zero tolerance for terror.

Israel in 2040?

In April of this year, the Economist published a special report on Israel. You can read the online edition here. I enjoyed all the contributions and found them to be informative and fair. I particularly found a citation in the opening article helpful, in which Yehezkel Dror, an Israeli political scientist, sets out two contrasting visions of how his country might look in 32 years time. It is taken from his book "Epistle to an Israeli Jewish-Zionist Leader" and represents a secular Zionist point of view. I found the scenarios helpful for getting an overview on the current options facing Israelis and Palestinians, especially as I struggle to see how a strictly Zionist solution can offer any long term justice (the Arab-Israeli arguments for "multiculturalism" in the article just seem more reasonable. But I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise!).

So, how realistic are the following scenarios? And is the first the best solution for all?

In the first [scenario], [Israel] has some 50% more people, is home to two-thirds of the world's Jewry and, as today, is four-fifths Jewish itself. The other fifth, its Arab citizens, have accepted the state's Jewish identity, thanks to efforts to end discrimination against them and to the creation of a viable Palestinian state next door. The country enjoys a flourishing knowledge-based economy, a thriving cultural life and a just society, and has good relations and strong trade links with most of the Middle East. A serene balance of Zionist and humanist values infuses both state affairs and everyday life. Reforms have stabilised the political system. Fast public transport has minimised the country's already small distances, encouraging mobility, and many of its citizens happily divide their lives between Israel and other countries.

In the second scenario, Israel has only half the world's Jews, their majority in Israel itself is down to two-thirds and shrinking, and “Zionism” has become a term of ridicule among the young. Jews abroad see Israel as increasingly backward and irrelevant to them, and Jews of different streams within Israel are at loggerheads. Pressure is rising, both at home and abroad, for Israel to become a fully democratic, non-Zionist state and grant some form of autonomy to Arab-Israelis. The best and brightest have emigrated, leaving a waning economy. Government coalitions are fractious and short-lived. The different population groups are ghettoised; wealth gaps yawn. Israel is in conflict with a hostile Palestinian state that was declared unilaterally; Islamic fundamentalism in the region is on the rise; and any peace deals between Israel and its neighbours—some of which now have weapons of mass destruction—are looking shaky.

The War on Terror: How should Christians respond?

Halden posed the question recently, "What is the most pressing social issue of our time"? His massive response lists a number of concerns: torture, aimlessness, abortion, mammon, individualism, capatilism, paedaphilia, declining church, poverty, celebrity culture, ecological degradation ... I reckon pornography culture should get a mention.

Anyway, this provides me with the intro to the latest book review I posted on Chrisendom. Megoran clearly thinks it is the war on terror.

Nick Solly Megoran, The War on Terror: How Should Christians Respond? (Downders Grove, Ill.: IVP Books), 2007

Conservative Evangelicals have in recent years acquired a reputation for being so individualistic and other-worldly that they have lost sight of Church's obligation to be engaged in the pressing social and moral issues of the present. Whether true or not, Nick Solly Megoran can be seen as an example of a committed Evangelical, rooted in the tradition of Martin Lloyd-Jones and John Stott, for whom this is clearly not the case. His book is a plea to Christians to analyse their gospel and turn to their scriptures in order to face the most important challenge of our age: the War on Terror. His concern is not only to equip Christians to think about war, but also to build them up in their faith in Christ and enable them to witness to the gospel by talking sensibly to non-Christians in the context of discussions about war. This book has therefore a strong devotional and practical dimension. Each chapter opens with a discussion of a particular portion of the Bible and closes with concrete examples of how these biblical principles have been put into practice.

The War on Terror is divided into four sections with a final appendix. In Part one, Megoran gives an account of various responses to the War on Terror, both secular and Christian. The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism has been variously defined as either an “irrational evil” by those on the right or as the result of “government oppression” by those on the left. Both of the main protagonists, Bush and bin Laden, describe the war as one between good and evil. There is also diversity amongst Christians, depending in large part on whether they take up a pacifist or a “just war” position on violence in general. Megoran believes the former is the more biblical, which brings us to Part 2.

The chapters inPart 2 deal with the big questions raised by the war on terror. The first concerns the realism of Jesus' command that we should love our enemies (Mt. 5:9, 38-48). While not wanting to undermining the difficulty of this command, Megoran believes it is the only way to demonstrate the true nature of God and bring about genuine transformation. Just as God has reconciled to himself us who were once his enemies, so we are called to demonstrate the same grace to our enemies. We are liberated by the experience and empowered by the Spirit to do so. In other words, the key to the solution of war is the gospel of justification by faith (44). Reconciliation with God is good news for everyone: terrorists, superpowers, ourselves and the world.

The second question raised by the War on Terror is why God allows such violence to occur in the first place. Though the Bible gives us no answers, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 4.11-27) represented war as the undoing of God's creation and thus contrary to God's will. Jeremiah promised a new age in which the kingdom of God would be established and there would be no war. The reality of this future kingdom was initiated by Christ, who has reunited us with God. This reality is demonstrated today, in anticipation of its final consummation, wherever his kingdom of peace, justice and righteousness is proclaimed and lived out. This is the task of the church in an age of terror, as illustrated by the early church in Carthage.

Part 3 turns to the practical issue of how the church can concretely “proclaim and live out” Christ's rule. A key concept here is that of “citizenship” (Phil 3:12-21; Jer 29:1-23). Christians have to negotiate between two allegiences: to the state and to heaven. We are to seek the peace and prosperity of the state, which has the divinely instituted role of promoting virtue and preventing vice. On the other hand, the fact that God is our true king means that we are ultimately answerable to a different set of rules. It is these kinds of citizens that the world needs for true peace to reign. Examples are given of Christian responses to U.S. support of Nicaraguan terrorists in the 1980's and the French priest André Trocmé.

Indeed, the gospel as the creation of a community of divinely reconciled sinners creates the conditions for overcoming the idolatry of nationalism. This reconciliation between different peoples is the outworking of God's plan for history, as can be seen in Acts 10.1-23, in the work of post-war Polish and German Bishops and in the movement Reconciliation Walk.

Before we can work for unity in the world, however, we need to work for unity within the church. This is our proof to the world that we have been forgiven and have peace with God. Phil 4:2-9 provides us with five principles for conflict management within the church, which can also be applied to the international scene, as demonstrated by the work of MRA and the LWF in Guatemala.

A role model for being a “citizen of heaven” is ironically provided by Jos 5:13-6.27: the battle of Jericho. This violent story, however, has to be interpreted within the framework of God's big plan. The invasion of Canaan was the task of Israel under the old covenant, where citizenship was understood in earthly terms and so violence was necessary. When it is understood that we are now under a covenant of grace rather law, we are free to spiritualize the story and draw the correct principles. The goal of invasion was to create holiness, a land devoid of whatever is contrary to God. The means for doing so was faith. Examples of these principles in practice are provided by John Paton and Tom Skinner.

The final question concerns hope in the face of the threat of death. On the one hand, Ps 116 assures us that God actually works to save us from literal death in concrete situations, with the result that the church in general is strengthened. Megoran gives examples of deliverance from terrorists, brutal regimes and weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, often the saints do die (see v 15). Even then, their knowledge that death has lost its sting enables them to be witnesses to Christian hope, as the Evangelical church in Beslan has been able to do.

Part 4 brings the baisc theme together. Like Jeremiah, who bought a field despite immanent exile (Jer 32-33), we need to engage in prophetic acts, pointing people to a reality that transcends what is visible now. The work of FFRME and CPT are held up as varied examples. We need to follow Paul's example (Acts 27:17-31), who despite his hopeless situation in prison preached the kingdom and taught Jesus, held as he was by his vision of God's great plan (as Horatio Spafford and Rev. Mehdi Dibaj did). Ultimately, war is nothing new. It is the manifestation of sin, and so the only solution is the gospel, which justifies us and thus brings peace with God and with neighbour. As we wait for the consummation of Christ's kingdom, our task is to prayerfully read our scriptures, think about the issues raised by war and sin, praise God for what he has done and proclaim it to the world.

Megoran has not written an academic treatise. Though one may question at times his theological argument, that is hardly the point of the book. It is an introduction to the key issues that are a matter of life and death, and as such provides an invaluable reference point in a complex area. Most significantly, it is a call for action, and to that end I found the abundant examples of concrete Christian witness in action helpful, inspiring and at the same time shaming for my own inactivity.

Is religion a primary cause of war?

Many thanks to Chris Tilling for the following book. My review was first published on his blog here. Details: Meich Pearse, The Gods of War: Is Religion the Primary Cause of Violent Conflict? (Nottingham: IVP), 2007.

The current spout of religious warfare has generated a more vigorous secular critique of the religious worldview as inherently violent. Pearse reports that an opinion poll in Britain in late 2006 indicated that 82 % of adults “see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16 % disagree” (14). This is a sentiment expressed both in the media and amongst Western intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins, Anthony Grayling, and Sam Harris. In response to this misrepresentation, Meic Pearse has taken it upon himself to demonstrate historically that wars are multi-causal and complex, and are motivated by all ideologies, secularist as well as religious. His book attempts to substantiate four main arguments:

1.Irreligion has produced wars far worse and far bloodier than religion.
2.We must distinguish between belligerent and non-belligerent religion.
3.Cultures enshrine religion, and wars fought for one often appear as being fought for the other.
4.The global secularist campaign against religion and traditional cultures (as supposedly violent) is already and will continue to be productive of the most ferocious violence.

The first chapter opens with the truism that the 20th Century was the bloodiest century of all. The key question is whether this massive bloodshed was simply a result of more developed technology or whether it is connected with the prevailing secular ideologies of the time. Pearse illustrates how within the ideologies of the key thinkers of Communism, Fascism and the French Revolution, human life was considered expendable for the sake of the attainment of a particular abstract ideal, an understanding of “the grand scheme of things.” Within these secular creeds, the end not only justified the means of its attainment, it defined what it meant to be human. “People” had no intrinsic value grounded in the imago dei, rather they were a theoretical construct to which the “facts” must conform. This attitude, combined with technology, has had catastrophic consequences.

Not that religion can be excused. Chapter two looks at the question of religion as a cause of war. Religion is defined as “an interconnected system of beliefs and/or practices rooted in the numinous or spiritual world that gives meaning to the lives of those who embrace them or have been reared in them” (22). Yet when we try to analyse concrete historical examples, we are faced with the complexity of their causes. Were the Jewish revolts of the first century religious or political? How about the druids in Roman Britain? Christianity was peaceful for the first 300 years of its existence, and then became bloody from 330 A.D. An overview of the wars of the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Mongols, French and Americans indicates that more mundane factors such as greed, security, booty, glory, territory and nationalism were the predominant factors rather than religion.

More clear cut cases are the subject of chapter three. Islam, in contrast to Christianity, was “cradled in war.” Pearce outlines its history of violence and notes that it shares a teleology or dynamic with communism: universal, this-wordly rule. In dividing the world between dar al harb (“sphere of war,” i.e. the non-Muslim world) and dar al Islam (“sphere of Islam”), the price of peace becomes submission to Islam. Christianity, on the other hand, had a different beginning and ideology. It has no equivalent of the Muslim ummah, the believers whose life must be expressed as a political entity. Though the Crusades were no less violent, Pearce argues that their causes are more “mixed.” Indeed, the undefined frontier of Europe has always been a source of war, regardless of the religious affiliation of each side. In a sense, war between East and West seems inevitable.

Chapter four offers an historical analysis of wars in which the situation is far more ambiguous. The English and American civil wars, the conquests of South America, the conflicts between the Orthodox church and the Ottoman empire. Often cultural identities are enshrined by a religion, so that a challenge to this identity leads to an increase in religious intensity. Often, religion functions as a morally convenient cloak for another cause. In the end, religion in inseparable from cultural, social and political issues.

The following two chapters look in detail and a particularly insidious mix of politics and religion: religious-national myths. In the cases of Serbia, Russia and England, the nation is deified and rendered immune to criticism.

So what causes war? Chapter seven offers a historical overview. In ancient times religion was hardly significant. The key issue was was access to property in the form of livestock, food, slaves, land and women. When religion was present, it often functioned as a restraint on war, as the fall of the Roman Empire, the medieval papacy and the Islamic umma indicate. For Pearse, it wasn't until the rise of popular rule that religion became a major factor in creating conflict. When loyalty to an absolute ruler is not enough to acquire popular support for a conflict, reference to an abstract principle that generates both group identity and enthusiasm is necessary. Religion becomes a handy framework of meaning to meet these needs.

This is, more or less, what Marxists have always said, and so Pearce draws on their arguments in chapter 8. Though for the first 300 years Christianity was spread by persuasion, the moment it was adopted as the meta-narrative of the state, the sanctification of that state's wars is inevitable. Marx helps us uncover the real aspirations that undergird a state's use of religious language: namely economics and politics. This can be seen in the transformation that Christian doctrine underwent from the time of Eusebius onwards, through the Middle Ages and into the Reformation, as various states adopted varieties of the religion for its own purposes. The same pattern, claims Pearse, can be seen in other religions.

Chapter 9 furthers these arguments by demonstrating that both historically and theologically the church was never intended to form the basis of a political order. When that has occurred, the church has strayed from its roots and a belligerent form of Christianity is the result. It wasn't until the Anabaptists, with their insistence on the split between the state and church, that a situation similar to that of the early church was rediscovered after the “Constantinian” development. In addition to this, the pluralistic political developments in the modern era have helped create a situation in which the church can stop trying to do that for which it was not designed—running society—and get back to it's original function: guiding individual lives. Today, though there is still an inner-ecclesial debate concerning pacifism, it is universally agreed upon that when war is waged, it cannot be fought to spread the faith.

So, can a Christian fight at all? Pearce doesn't provide an easy answer, as to do so is to sanitize war. War is an insoluble dilemma and neither pacifism nor theories of just war can adequately deal with it. Both arguments are analysed for their strengths and weaknesses, and Martin Luther King and Bonhoeffer are drawn on as role models. The solution: in war there is none, neither in theory or practice. The best we can do is take moral responsibility for our own actions and to keep those decisions conscious. No general or king can do that for us.

Pearse ends with a glance at our contemporary situation. In his final chapter, “The War Against Faith and Meaning,” he points out that apart from greed a principle cause of war is conflict over the shape of society. The principled irreligion of the West, spread through globalization, in which meaning itself is held to be the problem and thus must be banished, is an “absolutizing relativism” that is itself a cause of violence. Rather than being a universal pancea, the attempt to eliminate difference both inside and outside the West is just another unattainable utopianism which produces violence through its intolerance. The only real solution to world peace is genuine tolerance, which can accept different kinds of polity and the cultural spaces that make them possible. “And to that end, Christians, who know from Scripture and from their own painful, error ridden past that their faith is not a basis for governing society as a whole but a private choice and a transcendent calling, have far, far more to contribute than most” (207).

I thoroughly enjoyed this read and can recommend it to all. Whether one agrees with his construal of Christianity or not, this informative and eloquent book provides us with important categories for entering an important debate.

Update: Halden has posted a book review on a similar topic: Ramachandra's Subverting Global Myths. Looks well worth checking out. Here's an interesting quote:

“Consider the following analogy. Given the universality of sexual experience, it is hardly surprising that this powerful human drive should also be the site of rape, pedophilia, bestiality, genital mutilation and other grotesque acts. most of us woudl regard these acts as twisted perversions of a healthy and important part of our human identity and flourishing. (Indeed, we have been taught by feminists that rape is primarily about power, not sexual pleasure.) Why not apply the same reasoning to religious faiths? Given the universality of religious experience, it is hardly surprising that certain acts of grotesque violence should not only occur in religious communities but be imbued with religious meanings and justification.” (p. 79)