See No Evil

See No Evil chronicles the twenty-five years of Robert Baer’s career as a field operative for the CIA. Bob spent many years on the ground collecting intelligence in the Middle East and is privy to much of what went on behind the scene in this volatile area. Much of the book is more fascinating than a Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum spy novel, especially because it records real events. The people Bob dealt with and the situations he got himself into, and out of, are more colorful than any fiction author could have imagined and put down on paper.

In addition to being entertaining, it is very informative. It is one of the best books I have read on the Middle East and terrorism so far. Bob has first hand knowledge of many of the key players in the Middle East and he traces all the connections with great detail. In fact, there is so much detail it is impossible to keep all the people, places, dates and facts straight.

As a case officer, Bob recruited and ran hundreds of agents, collecting information on terrorists vital to the security of our country. He paints a vivid picture of what life is like as a real secret agent, not some James Bond fantasy. His descriptions are so realistic they draw you into the action so you feel as if you are there experiencing everything with him.

Bob has a clear purpose for writing this book, and it isn’t merely to entertain people or to boost his image. He is serious about the degeneration of America’s intelligence agencies and their increasing inability to collect valuable intelligence on our enemies. Bob clearly saw the decline of the CIA from the inside, and its devolution into near complete incompetence led him to resign. When America’s intelligence officers become more concerned with protecting their careers than in gathering intelligence, it is the beginning of the end. It was shocking to see how so many within the CIA and other intelligence agencies were not collecting intelligence and actually preventing those in the field from collecting any worthwhile intelligence.

As a result, America is blind and deaf and has no clue what is happening around the world, especially in Islamic countries. At the beginning of the Iraq war, there was not a single agent within Iraq collecting intelligence for the U.S. There are no human intelligence resources in any Muslim nation, nor has anyone penetrated any terrorist organization. It is no wonder that we were taken by surprise on 9/11.

Another problem is the politicization of the intelligence agencies. More often than not, presidents and elected officials are more concerned with their public image and getting reelected than they are in dealing realistically with terrorism. Terrorism is messy and it is easier to sweep the information under the rug than to deal with it. For example, the CIA had clear intelligence that gave them the exact date and time that the U.S. Embassy in Beirut would be bombed, but the information was never acted upon. The CIA knew from the very beginning that Iran was behind the bombing and was using the Islamic Jihadist Organization as a front to cover their tracks. But instead of punishing Iran, the U.S. chose to ignore Iran’s terrorist activities and let it get away with many more terrorist strikes. In fact, the U.S. knew that a high ranking Iranian government official was the leader of the IJO attacks, yet chose to pin their hopes on building a relationship with him in order to normalize relationships with Iran.

In the 1990s there was clear evidence that Osama bin Laden had networked with the IJO and was being backed by Iran. In fact, bin Laden had a hand in many of the IJO’s bombings. Bin Laden went to Iran and convinced them to stop trying to undermine the Central Asian states and to join him in attacking America. Bin Laden also networked with Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood, forming the most formidable terrorist alliance in history. These three organizations, IJO, IB, and Al Qaeda are all working together to destroy the West, and they are not only determined, they are trained and equipped to carry out their goal. The attacks of 9/11 were not carried out solely by Al Qaeda, but by this new terrorist alliance. The problem is much larger than the U.S. government has let on.

The CIA and the U.S. government knew of the connections of Iran and Saudi Arabia to radical Islamic terrorist organizations yet chose to remain silent. They felt it is better to “See no evil” than to deal with the growing threat. It is easier to sweep the bad news under the rug and leave it for the next administration to deal with. Getting reelected was much more important than stopping global terrorism, especially since any effective action would be politically damaging. All the presidents in the last 15 years have glossed over the problems, kept the truth from the public, and pretended that they were doing all they could to fight terrorism, all the while refusing to act on the truth. This is why we are in such a mess today. Terrorism has grown into one of the most pernicious problems because our government didn’t have the backbone to do what is necessary to stop it while it was still a localized problem.

America’s response to 9/11 was misguided since it failed to deal with the source of terrorism. Even if we killed Osama bin Laden or captured him and paraded him down the streets of Manhattan, all we would do would be to make a martyr out of him around which millions of young Islamic men would rally. By attacking Saddam Hussein, we have only done what is easy and not what is needed. By attacking Iraq we have only infuriated all the Islamic states and given them a chance to give us a black eye.

One of the most startling revelations Bob gives is the failed attempt by the Iraqi military to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi general behind the plot begged for American assistance but the U.S. waited until the last day to tell the general that we would not help. By then it was too late since the key players were already committed and couldn’t back out. The end result was the capture and execution of all the coupe leaders, except the general who escaped to Belgium. The U.S. could have had Saddam ousted without a single American life lost, but because Clinton didn’t have the guts to do what was right, we are stuck in Iraq today.

The key is to gather intelligence on the terrorists. We need to infiltrate their networks, and get agents on the ground who can tell us what the terrorists are planning so we can stop them. As long as we trust in satellites and high tech gadgets and refuse to employ human intelligence, we will lose the war. We also have to do what is necessary to stop the terrorists before they can strike.

Terrorists do not have bureaucracies to slow them down, bureaucrats interested in protecting their careers, calcified channels of command and do-nothing politicians. Instead, they are highly motivated, highly trained, focused and agile, forming networks when needed, and then dismantling those networks when they are finished. They are quick, intelligent, and won’t stop until they succeed. We can’t afford to play games and sweep the truth under the rug any longer.

After retiring from the CIA, Robert Baer became a consultant. He moved to Beirut and renewed old networks. In August of 2001, one of his contacts gave him a list of all the operatives in Al Qaeda along with information that they were planning something “big.” This information, along with other crucial intelligence on bin Laden, was sent to the CIA, but no response was ever given. Bob then met with a high Saudi government official who refused to even look at the list. They, too, like America, wanted to keep their head in the sand and “see no evil.”


Here are some helpful links:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/12_baer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baer

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,631433,00.html

http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=100339

What is Man

What is man? Is he merely a higher form of animal or is he something different in kind from the animals? Does man have a non-material nature, or is his “soul” merely the complex relationships in his brain?

These questions have been asked for millennia, and there is no simple answer. Much of theology has been tainted by Greek philosophy on this matter, so that many Christians view the soul as a separate part of man that will live on after the body dies. I don’t have time to go into all the biblical data, but I think that the Bible sees man holistically, having a body, soul and spirit integrally tied together into a cohesive unity.

That is why the resurrection is a fundamental Christian doctrine; the physical resurrection of the body is essential to a biblical view of man. Man will live for eternity in bodily form, having a new body that is imperishable. Man will not be floating around on clouds as disembodied spirits.

This is a Greek notion, not a biblical one. That is why the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill in Acts 17 laughed at Paul when we started talking about the resurrection of the body. To the Greeks, living forever in the body was a terrible notion since they sought freedom from the body to live on in a mental, spiritual world after death. However, Christianity rejects that notion and clearly sees man as a physical and spiritual being that cannot be separated.

Man, then, is more than an animal, since he has an immaterial soul that animates him. Yet he has a body and is tied to the physical creation. He is different in kind from the animals, yet he is like them in many ways. Man is also like the angels in some ways, but of a completely different kind.

The following quote from Pascal got me thinking on this subject:

“Man is a nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between nothing and everything. Since he is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of thing, and their beginning are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret: he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up.”

“Man must not think that he is on a level either with the brutes or with: the angels, nor must he be ignorant of both sides of his nature; but he must know both. In recognizing both lies his Wretchedness and grandeur. Man knows that he is wretched. He is therefore wretched, because he is so; but he is really greater because he knows it."

Women Intellectuals

Rosalie de Roseset, a professor at Moody Bible Institute, wrote a very interesting article, “Minding Your Mind,” in Christianity Today, posted online at: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/giftedforleadership/2007/02/minding_your_mind.html

She challenges women to get beyond the touchy-feely and learn to discipline their mind in order to become healthy, mature Christians. Women need to spend time in serious Bible study and reading deep, profound books. This is not a very popular topic today, especially for women, but it is right on.

Here is her conclusion:

“When people—in this case, women—neglect the use of their minds, they may get caught up in idle activities, too many activities, silly reading and leisure habits which lead, finally, to a shallow understanding of what it means to live the Christian life. Their faith may also be too thin to sustain them in the hardships that invariably accompany the average existence.

Their Christian understanding, undeepened by knowledge, may become boring whether they admit it or not. As J.I. Packer says in his popular book Knowing God, “The world becomes a strange, mad, painful place, and life in it a disappointing and unpleasant business for those who do not know about God. Disregard the study of God, and you sentence yourself to stumble and blunder through life, blindfold, as it were, with no sense of direction, and understanding of what surrounds you. This way you can waste your life, and lose your soul” (pp. 14-15).”

Modern Slave Trade

“Twenty-seven million slaves exist in our world today. Girls and boys, women and men of all ages are forced to toil in the rug loom sheds of Nepal, sell their bodies in the brothels of Rome, break rocks in the quarries of Pakistan, and fight wars in the jungles of Africa. Go behind the façade in any major town or city in the world today and you are likely to find a thriving commerce in human beings. You may even find slavery in your own backyard.”

I was shocked to find out that:

• 800,000 are trafficked across international borders annually

• 17,500 new victims are trafficked across our borders each year

• 30,000 additional slaves are trans-ported through the U.S. on their way to other international destinations

• Of the 27 million people worldwide held captive and exploited for profit today, the Free the Slaves organization estimates that at least 15 million are bonded slaves in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal.

• The slave trade generates $9.5 billion in revenue each year


Kevin Bales, a pioneer in the fight against modern slavery, expresses well those commercial connections: "Slaves in Pakistan may have made the shoes you are wearing and the carpet you stand on. Slaves in the Caribbean may have put sugar in your kitchen and toys in the hands of your children. In India they may have sewn the shirt on your back and polished the ring on your finger."

Read the story of a modern day abolitionist, Kru Nam at http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0703&article=07031.

Father Attempts to Hack Son’s Brain

A father is using computers and programming to fix a problem with his son’s brain. Caleb, a six-year-old boy, has Sensory Processing Disorder that makes it difficult for him to hear, see and feel properly. The father is trying to reprogram Caleb’s brain so that he will be able to function normally. Read the article on Wired at: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,72810-0.html?tw=rss.tech

George Bush: Pro & Con

“The Leadership of George W. Bush: Con & Pro,” by Joseph Bottum / Michael Novak in First Things, March, 2007.

Many people are criticizing president Bush these days, and some of it is deserved, while some is not. I thought this article was very helpful because it was written by two men, one who fairly criticizes Bush and the other who fairly supports him. I am including some of the points that I thought were most pertinent, but you might want to read the whole article for yourself at http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5444.

Joseph Bottum—Con:

“The problem isn’t his lack of conservatism. The problem is his lack of competence.”

“The consequences of American defeat in Iraq are likely to be similar. Around the globe, the Jihadists will be inspired to greater and greater violence—as the “lesson of Iraq” keeps any U.S. government, Democrat or Republican, from committing troops to a foreign struggle. The weaker opponents of radical Islam will quickly become even more vulnerable. Can southern Sudan hold without at least the distant intimidation of American military intervention? Can Nigeria? Can Indonesia? Terrorism, too, will surely expand as a chastened United States finds it cannot realistically threaten such nations as Syria, Iran, and North Korea with military consequences for supporting terrorist organizations.”

“Conservatives voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because they expected him to be the opposite of Bill Clinton-and so, unfortunately, he has proved. Where Clinton seemed a man of enormous political competence and no principle, Bush has been a man of principle and very little political competence.”

“Again and again, he has done the right thing in the wrong way, until, at last, his wrongness has overwhelmed his rightness.”


Michael Novak—Pro:

“Ronald Reagan taught us that the perceptions promoted by the liberal media do not, in fact, control the way Americans think. As Clare Boothe Luce once explained, from his experience as a B-movie actor Reagan learned the difference between the box office and the critics. If you win over the first, you can be awfully sweet-tempered to the second. He showed that the hostility of all the liberal media could not, finally, drown out common-sense reality.”

“A long-established lesson is that, even in the best of times, government is mightily incompetent—and the bigger government gets, the more incompetent it becomes.”

“This is why President Kennedy used to joke that he would send out executive orders, and they would sit in offices, and be pondered and discussed, until no action could be taken. He learned quickly how powerless a president is every time he must go through a bureaucracy. And I seem to recall how incompetent Lincoln’s first series of generals were—together with the Department of War, the Department of Justice, and practically everything else. Lincoln himself was frequently charged with incompetence, bumbling, and simplemindedness.”

“Besides, despite enormous blows to our banking, investment, and transportation systems, the decisive steps President Bush took allowed our economy not only to recoup the dreadful financial losses of September 11 but also to climb unparalleled heights.”

“The single most dominant issue we face remains the threat from Jihadism. The ugly words broadcast by the Jihadists may seem mad, but they are matched by steady actions upon a worldwide front. Their stated aim is forcibly to convert us to Islam or to exterminate us until the caliphate stretches around the world: one religion, one polity. President Bush addressed this threat with the greatest simplicity and power he has ever brought to the subject. A great many do not see the danger as President Bush does. They certainly do not recognize what bin Laden and his lieutenants have often declared-that Iraq is today the front line in that jihad. Some in America seem ready to withdraw U.S. troops. They seem willing to prove bin Laden’s maxim that in any protracted fight, the United States is the weak horse, and the Jihadists are the strong horse, which is the only one that people respect.”

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5444

Chemical Reactions

Neil Gussman, in Books & Culture, January/February 2007, pages 30-31, reviews two books on the history of chemical warfare, War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda, by Jonathan B. Tucker, and Chemical Warfare: A Study in Restraints, by Frederic J. Brown. If you are interested in chemical warfare, then this article is a great introduction to these two books. I found the explanation interesting of why chemical weapons were not used in World War II like they were in World War I and why those reasons don’t apply to terrorists today. The restraint military leaders have shown since WWI are not shared by global terrorists, making a chemical terrorist attack much more likely than a military chemical attack. We need to find a new way to prevent the use of chemical and nuclear weapons since restraint or Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) does not exist for terrorists.

You can read the whole article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/20.30.html

Madama Butterfly

I went to see Madama Butterfly performed by the Elgin Opera. The singing was excellent but the low budget left the stage sparse. The Elgin Opera has been in operation for five years and did a commendable job, especially the orchestra composed of two violins, a viola, a cello and a piano.

The story is about a U.S. Navy officer, Pinkerton, who marries a fifteen-year-old Japanese girl while his ship is anchored in Nagasaki. Pinkerton is warned by Sharpless, the U.S. Consul that such a marriage will only end in disaster, since the young girl will be devastated when he leaves. Pinkerton shrugs off the warning and declares that he has intentions of marrying a “real wife” when he gets back to the states. As the marriage proceeds, the villagers and family members denounce Cio-Cio-San, whom Pinkerton calls Madama Butterfly because of her innocent beauty, because she has rejected the local gods for Pinkerton’s God. Even though she is hurt by the denunciations, she is happy to be married to Pinkerton.

Three years later Cio-Cio-San is still waiting for Pinkerton to return as he has promised her. Everyone says she is foolish since they know Pinkerton has no intention of returning. Undaunted by their unbelief, she is so steadfast in her faith that he will return she turns down marriage proposals from wealthy suitors. Every day she searches the port for any sign of Pinkerton’s ship.

Finally, after three long years, she sees his ship coming into port. She is so elated that she stays up all night waiting for him to come home, yet he doesn’t appear. Finally, the next morning Pinkerton arrives with his American wife to break the news to Cio-Cio-San, but she is asleep. When he realizes that she has been faithfully waiting for him to return, he is stricken with grief over the pain he has caused her. He cowardly runs away, unable to tell her the news himself, leaving his wife to be found by Cio-Cio-San when she wakes up. Cio-Cio-San is devastated and realizes the Pinkerton has come not for her but for their three-year-old son. She tells her son to look closely at her face so he will remember her and then tells him to go and play. As he leaves to play, she kills herself with the same dagger that her father used to commit suicide. As she is dying, Pinkerton comes to retrieve his son, finding her too late. As he bends over her dead body, the curtain closes.


This is a powerful tragedy that illustrates the pain and suffering caused by military personnel stationed overseas who get involved with local women. The U.S. military has had a dark history in this matter, but it is not alone. Every major nation that has troops stationed on foreign soil is guilty of the same crime. While the U.S. military discourages such marriages, it does not prohibit them. Commanders and chaplains should be better trained to deal with this issue.

But the morale is limited to international marriages of convenience. Many men play fast and loose with women, leaving a trail of broken hearts behind them. It is hard not to find a woman who has not been mistreated by shallow professions of love only to find themselves used and abandoned when the relationship is no longer convenient. Modern pop culture tends to support this behavior through movies, TV shows, and music while at the same time lamenting the pain of such broken relationships. Parents, teachers and other leaders need to educate young women and guard them from predatory males intent on using women and then throwing them away.

King John

The Life and Death of King John, written by William Shakespeare before 1596, but first published in 1623, chronicles the struggle for the English crown during the War of the Roses. Unlike his earlier historical plays, Shakespeare doesn’t give any fundamental importance to King John’s reign and tends to depict the events as unpredictable and not having any ultimate end. John’s rival to the throne, Arthur, son of John’s elder brother, was backed by King Philip of France, and had the stronger right to the throne since he was the son of the older child. John ordered Arthur’s death while trying to distance himself from it, lending him some degree of deniability.

The play begins with King Philip’s threat of war if John does not step down from the throne and allow Arthur to take his rightful place. John refuses, so France threatens to attacks the English-held town of Angers if it doesn’t swear allegiance to Arthur. John arrives with his army and asks the town which king they support. The citizens say they support the “rightful heir to the throne” but don’t say whether it is John or Arthur. The two armies fight, but since they are equally matched neither side wins. The two armies decide to join forces to attack the town and then fight each other. However, the citizens talk them out of it and suggest that Philip’s son Louis marry John’s niece Blanche in order to seal a peace treaty. Both armies agree and an ambassador from the Pope comes to marry the couple. The ambassador ends up excommunicating John because he refused to obey the Pope, and then charges Philip with the duty of overthrowing John.

More fighting ensues and John’s army captures Arthur. John sends Hubert to kill Arthur, but Arthur, tearfully pleading with his uncle, talks him out of it. Hubert orders Arthur to hide and then tells John that Arthur is dead. When the people of England become angry with King John for ordering Arthur’s death, along with robbing the monasteries to pay for the war, Hubert reveals that Arthur is still alive. However, Arthur tries to escape by leaping off the castle wall and falls to his death. The nobles find Arthur’s mangled body and accuse Hubert of severe brutality. In anger, they leave to join forces with Louis’ army.

John apologizes to the Pope and asks for the Pope to turn back the French army. During the battle a wounded French lord tells the English nobles that Louis plans to kill them after the battle, so they defect and return to John. Louis’ reinforcements are lost at sea and he realizes that he cannot win. Meanwhile, King John is poisoned by some monks and falls ill on the battlefield. John’s son Henry is declared king and a peace treaty is made with Louis.


The most impressive part of this play was the emotionally charged pleading of Arthur for his uncle Hubert to spare his life:

ARTHUR
Have you the heart? When your head did but ache,
I knit my handercher about your brows,
The best I had, a princess wrought it me,
And I did never ask it you again;
And with my hand at midnight held your head,
And like the watchful minutes to the hour,
Still and anon cheer'd up the heavy time,
Saying, 'What lack you?' and 'Where lies your grief?'
Or 'What good love may I perform for you?'
Many a poor man's son would have lien still
And ne'er have spoke a loving word to you;
But you at your sick service had a prince.
Nay, you may think my love was crafty love
And call it cunning: do, an if you will:
If heaven be pleased that you must use me ill,
Why then you must. Will you put out mine eyes?
These eyes that never did nor never shall
So much as frown on you.

HUBERT
I have sworn to do it;
And with hot irons must I burn them out.

ARTHUR
Ah, none but in this iron age would do it!
The iron of itself, though heat red-hot,
Approaching near these eyes, would drink my tears
And quench his fiery indignation
Even in the matter of mine innocence;
Nay, after that, consume away in rust
But for containing fire to harm mine eye.
Are you more stubborn-hard than hammer'd iron?
An if an angel should have come to me
And told me Hubert should put out mine eyes,
I would not have believed him,--no tongue but Hubert's.

ARTHUR
Hubert, the utterance of a brace of tongues
Must needs want pleading for a pair of eyes:
Let me not hold my tongue, let me not, Hubert;
Or, Hubert, if you will, cut out my tongue,
So I may keep mine eyes: O, spare mine eyes.
Though to no use but still to look on you!
Lo, by my truth, the instrument is cold
And would not harm me.

HUBERT
I can heat it, boy.

ARTHUR
No, in good sooth: the fire is dead with grief,
Being create for comfort, to be used
In undeserved extremes: see else yourself;
There is no malice in this burning coal;
The breath of heaven has blown his spirit out
And strew'd repentent ashes on his head.

HUBERT
But with my breath I can revive it, boy.

ARTHUR
An if you do, you will but make it blush
And glow with shame of your proceedings, Hubert:
Nay, it perchance will sparkle in your eyes;
And like a dog that is compell'd to fight,
Snatch at his master that doth tarre him on.
All things that you should use to do me wrong
Deny their office: only you do lack
That mercy which fierce fire and iron extends,
Creatures of note for mercy-lacking uses.

HUBERT
Well, see to live; I will not touch thine eye
For all the treasure that thine uncle owes:
Yet am I sworn and I did purpose, boy,
With this same very iron to burn them out.

ARTHUR
O, now you look like Hubert! all this while
You were disguised.

Andromache

In Andromache, Euripides dramatizes how the bitter jealousy of Hermione spurs her to seek the death of her rival, Andromache. Hermione is the wife of Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, killed by Paris at Troy, and Andromache is the widow of Hector, brother of Paris, killed by Achilles at Troy. Andromache was given to Neoptolemus as the prize of war won by his father. The presence of Andromache infuriates Hermione, and becomes utterly unbearable when Andromache has a son by Neoptolemus while she remains barren. Her jealousy causes her to plot the death of Andromache and her son.

In order to carry out her plot, she summons her father, Menelaus, king of Sparta. He comes and is about to carry out the murders when he is confronted by Peleus, Achilles’ father, Neoptolemus’ grandfather. Peleus shames Menelaus for attempting to commit such a heinous crime, and he returns to Sparta, leaving Hermione alone. Hermione repents of her attempted murders and seeks to commit suicide before her husband returns and sends her away.

While Hermione is in a suicidal rage, Orestes, son of Agamemnon, brother of Menelaus, comes and stops her. He agrees to murder Neoptolemus and marry Hermione, so they run off together to Delphi to carry out the deed. Orestes lies, telling the residents of Delphi that Neoptolemus is going to rob the temple of Apollo. Arousing their anger, he gets them to kill Neoptolemus.

Peleus is distraught, having seen both the death of his son and his grandson. However, his wife, Thetis, the sea goddess who bore Achilles, predicts that Andromache’s son will move to Molosia, where his descendants will become an unbroken line of mighty kings.

Jealousy, untimely death, murder, and misfortune all tend to disrupt the plans of men, yet the gods also open up unexpected opportunities through these tragedies. The play ends with the chorus singing: “Many are the shapes of Heaven's denizens, and many a thing they bring to pass contrary to our expectation; that which we thought would be is not accomplished, while for the unexpected God finds out a way. E'en such hath been the issue of this matter.”


Here are several quotes from the play that I found interesting:

Adromache laments the cruelty of women when jealousy embitters them: “How strange it is, that though some god hath devised cures for mortals against the venom of reptiles, no man ever yet hath discovered aught to cure a woman's venom, which is far worse than viper's sting or scorching flame; so terrible a curse are we to mankind.”

The Chorus sings the bitterness that arises from jealousy when two women are married to the same man: “Never, oh! never will I commend rival wives or sons of different mothers, a cause of strife, of bitterness, and grief in every house. would have a husband content with one wife whose rights he shareth with no other. Not even in states is dual monarchy better to bear than undivided rule; it only doubles burdens and causes faction amongst the citizens. Often too will the Muse sow strife 'twixt rivals in the art of minstrelsy. Again, when strong winds are drifting mariners, the divided counsel of the wise does not best avail for steering, and their collective wisdom has less weight than the inferior mind of the single man who has sole authority; for this is the essence of power alike in house and state, whene'er men care to find the proper moment. This Spartan, the daughter of the great chief Menelaus, proves this; for she hath kindled hot fury against a rival, and is bent on slaying the hapless Trojan maid and her child to further her bitter quarrel. 'Tis a murder gods and laws and kindness all forbid. Ah! lady, retribution for this deed will yet visit thee.”

PELEUS: Surely after this every prudent man will seek to marry a wife of noble stock and give his daughter to a husband good and true, never setting his heart on a worthless woman, not even though she bring a sumptuous dowry to his house. So would men ne'er suffer ill at heaven's hand.

Slippery Slopes, the Blogosphere, and Women

Susan Wise Bauer, in her article “On Slippery Slopes, the Blogosphere, and (oh, yes) Women,” takes a brave step when she reviews John Stackhouse’s book, Finally Feminist, in Books & Culture, January/February 2007, pages 28-29. Stackhouse has thoroughly researched the issue of women and their role in the church and tries to present a balanced view, neither feminist nor patriarchal. In doing so he has opened himself up to severe criticism from both sides, but especially from conservative Christians. The biggest fear patriarchal Christians have is that by giving in to the feminists not only does Stackhouse reject biblical authority but also opens the door for homosexuals, sending the church down a “slippery slope”. Bauer takes issue with this fear in her review and clearly demonstrates that such fears are unfounded and counterproductive. She feels that Stackhouse does not give in to feminists, nor does he open up the door for homosexuals. Instead, by offering a biblically sound argument for a centrist position, Stackhouse has laid a solid foundation for the study and application of biblical truth to the role of women in the church.

Stackhouse’s main argument is that God revealed himself to man within particular cultural contexts. While not condoning sinful or unjust social practices or institutions, God often let them be and allowed the revealed truth to work and transform those practices and institutions over time. Some examples would be polygamy and slavery. While Christianity today clearly teaches that these two cultural practices are wrong, God allowed men in the past to practice both without any condemnation. However, as the truth permeated the culture, these practices were slowly abandoned.

The New Testament clearly teaches that slaves should obey their masters, not run away or seek to be free. However, the New Testament also teaches that masters should treat their slaves with respect and justice. When the abolitionist movement began using Scripture to condemn slavery, there were many Christians who defended slavery with Scripture. However, the sinful and unjust institution of slavery was abandoned in favor of equality and freedom. Few Christians today would argue for a return to slavery and defend their position with Scripture.

In the same way, Stackhouse sees patriarchal cultural institutions and practices in the same way. There are verses in the New Testament that teach that women should remain silent and not have authority over men. However, the New Testament also teaches that women have a valuable role to play in the church and includes many women who taught and held positions of authority. Just as slavery has been abandoned because its basic premises are unbiblical, so too, Stackhouse holds, patriarchal attitudes and practices should be abandoned because its basic premises are also unbiblical.

Here are some quotes from the article that I found helpful:

“But while the church is striving not to cause unnecessary offense to the unbelievers around it, another dynamic is unfolding, at least within Christian homes and the church: "kingdom values at work overcoming oppression, eliminating inequality, binding disparate people together in love and mutual respect, and the like." And this, of course, is central to Stackhouse's understanding of the "difficult passages" having to do with gender. There is tension between the message of the gospel and the particular commands to the churches. "Paul means just what he says about gender," Stackhouse writes, "everything he says about gender, not just the favorite passages cited by one side or another… . He believes that women should keep silent in church and that they should pray and prophesy. How can they do both? By being silent at the right times, and by praying and prophesying at the right times."”

“Many evangelicals are clinging to patriarchy as God's perfect plan for his people, rather than recognizing it as a sinful and temporary cultural phenomenon. In this way, Stackhouse suggests, we are doing exactly what Paul was trying to prevent: we are hindering the gospel, driving away unbelievers who might otherwise hear the truth of Christ's deliverance and be redeemed.”

“Let me be clear: I am not accusing complementarians of being racists. I am criticizing the slippery slope argument itself, not the motivations of those who make it. The theologians who insist that the commands restricting women are obvious and universal—and if you don't think so, that's your problem—have to do some fancy footwork if they're going to assert that the equally "clear" passages on slavery suddenly became no longer applicable sometime in the 19th century.”

“Stackhouse finds, in the church's changing attitude toward slavery, a proper model for the church's changing attitude toward women. He points out that while women and homosexuals are never linked in the restrictive passages of the New Testament, women and slaves are. Women and slaves in the early church, freed in Christ, were nevertheless encouraged to observe cultural norms to keep the gospel from disrepute.”

“The abolition model is much more useful than the slippery slope. "Slippery slope" is actually the name of a logical fallacy, described by Aristotle, in which a series of events is traced back to an earlier event without any proven causation. I can't possibly be the only evangelical who thinks that it's odd that a logical fallacy should become the chosen metaphor of evangelicals whose primary concern is to see the world as God sees not, not as "the culture" sees it.”


You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/8.28.html.

The Innocent Man

The Innocent Man, by John Grisham, is an excellent book based on a true story. This is Grisham’s first non-fiction work, and it is on the same level as his novels. I have greatly enjoyed every Grisham novel I have read, and this true life tale is no exception. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the criminal justice system in general and the death penalty in particular. Grisham has done extensive research and it shows on every page.

The Innocent Man chronicles the life and trial of Ron Williamson, accused of raping and murdering a young woman in Ada, Oklahoma. Ron signed with the Oakland A’s in 1971 and dreamed of making it in the big leagues. But an arm injury and bad habits destroyed his dreams and he returned home to live with his mother in Ada, depressed and isolated. His life consisted of drinking, bar-hopping, womanizing and sleeping twenty hours a day.

When Debra Sue Carter was raped in murdered in 1982, the police eventually put Ron on the top of their suspect list. For five years they looked for evidence against Ron and his friend Dennis Fritz, and ended up putting together a case against them based on bad forensic science, lazy police work, forced confessions, and questionable testimony from jailhouse snitches. Since Ron and Dennis were poor, they could not afford counsel and were assigned public defenders who were incompetent, overworked, underpaid, and unconcerned. As a result, Dennis received life in prison and Ron was given the death sentence.

Ron constantly professed his innocence and couldn’t understand why the police and the prosecutor were out to get him. Hard drinking, drugs and the stress of the trial and life on death row slowly eroded Ron’s sanity and his health. Just days before his execution he received a stay of execution and a new trial. His and Dennis’ convictions were overturned based upon new DNA evidence that clearly excluded them from the crime. The real criminal was finally brought to justice nearly twenty years after the crime.

Ron lost over a decade of his life by being falsely accused and condemned, along with his sanity and health. After being exonerated, Ron was so scarred that it was nearly impossible for him to live a normal life. He finally died in 2004.

This book challenged me in several ways. First, it made the problems in our judicial system real and tangible. It is one thing to see corruption and incompetence portrayed in movies and on TV, but it is quite another to see it in real life. It makes me pause and consider how widespread corruption and incompetence have infiltrated our judicial system. While I believe there are a lot of good people in the system doing incredible work, there needs to be some major changes made to weed out the bad and repair the damaged systems that do exist.

Second, one statement made in the book summarizes one of these problems: “Once a poor person gets sucked into the judicial system, it is almost impossible for him to get out.” [Not an exact quote.] Wealthy people rarely get the death penalty, and race probably has a large influence, though this book didn’t address it since most of the characters were white. The main factor is poverty, since those who can’t afford a lawyer tend are at the mercy of the system, which has very little mercy. When police and prosecutors are pressured to “solve” high profile cases, the poor often can’t defend themselves against false accusations and bad police work. And once a poor person is “marked” as a criminal, he will always be a criminal in the law’s eyes.

Third, the problems with the death penalty are powerfully portrayed in this story and they must be dealt with. Many death row inmates are mistreated, as Ron was, often in the form of taunting from guards, denial of medical services, and poor living conditions. One might have little sympathy for the suffering of hardened criminals, most of them murderers, but when innocent people get sent to death row, then it becomes massive injustice. Christians should be deeply concerned about these issues and not let prejudice and fear keep us from seeking and demanding justice.

Finally, some of the key characters in this real life story relied upon their Christian faith to make it through this ordeal. While many view “jailhouse conversions” with suspicion, we can’t rule out all professions of faith as spurious. While Ron’s faith was weak and insincere in his early life, the testing of his faith made it real and sincere. The faith of his sisters was also instrumental in their ability to weather the many ordeals and continue to be a source of help and support for Ron. Ron also had support from other Christians and he was able to help and support other prisoners as well. When Ron was exonerated, the church in which he grew up refused to acknowledge and support him. While it is understandable that many in the community and the church still felt Ron was guilty, it was unchristian to snub him and refuse to support him.

I highly recommend that you read this book and think about its implications. You can also check out a lot of this information on the web by searching for “Ron Williamson”, “The Innocence Project”, and “Dennis Fritz”. Check out this website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/.

Breach

The movie “Breach” was well made and Chris Cooper put on one of his best performances ever. It is based on the true events of the greatest security breach in American history. Robert Hanssen had been selling vital U.S. secrets to the Soviets and other enemies for nearly 25 years, causing untold damage to our national security and the lives of agents and informants around the world. The story centers around Hanssen’s capture, aided significantly by rookie FBI agent Eric O’Niell. O’Niell has been assigned to Hanssen as an aide in order to spy on him and help catch his boss in the act of passing on secret documents. O’Niell is a rookie with very little field experience and he must outwit the smartest and trickiest spy in U.S. history. The movie was edited superbly in order to maintain the tension even when the ultimate outcome is known.

Several things struck me as I watched this movie. First, it revealed how the public image of a man can be totally opposite of his private image. Hanssen was so good at projecting a righteous, loving and patriotic image, that O’Niell initially was so fooled that he actually admired Hanssen. This is a reminder that all men are fallen and hide behind masks, including ourselves. Integrity is living in such a way so that your public image is the same as your private image. Beware of power, because it often tempts you present an image that is not your true self, especially when your power is threatened.

Second, others will exploit your weaknesses in order to control you. The movie didn’t spell this out, but it is likely that Hanssen was turned by the Soviets not only by money but also because they exploited his sexually deviant behavior. Hanssen videotaped his sexual encounters with his wife and sold them to an internet site without his wife’s knowledge. The Soviets most likely threatened Hanssen with exposure if he didn’t cooperate with him. Men will do almost anything in order to keep their secret lives hidden lest their careers, families and social status be destroyed.

Third, O’Neill realized the price he would have to pay in order to become a successful FBI agent and chose not to pay that price. He saw how his assignment to spy on Hanssen nearly destroyed his marriage and decided that becoming an FBI agent cost too much. He also saw how the price the other agents had to pay to become successful and he realized that he wasn’t willing to give up the things that mattered the most to him. So after being an integral part of capturing the biggest spy in U.S. history, he had the integrity to walk away from fame and success in order to build a strong marriage with the woman he loved.

Forth, the movie clearly portrayed the guilt and shame that Hanssen had to deal with because of the choices he had made. While in public Hanssen put on a religious front that had everyone convinced he was a sincere, devout Catholic. He went to church every morning to pray, attended mass every week, and studied Catholic doctrine. Yet in the end Hanssen is tormented by guilt at confession, revealing the true inner struggle he was going through. The last scene in the movie powerfully shows O’Niell just about to enter the elevator until he sees Hanssen in it with a guard on each side. Hanssen is clearly dejected and beaten, and the movie ends as the elevator doors close as Hanssen asks O’Niell, “Please pray for me.” This is a powerful reminder that we need to pray for each other and to build strong, transparent relationships in order to help people escape their prison of guilt and find freedom from sin before it is too late.

Loving the Good

St. Augustine said, "The good man is not he who knows what is good, but loves it." And when one truly loves what is good, he does what is good out of desire not duty. Only this kind of love is able to overcome the errors of human love.

When we love God, not for what he has done for us, but for who he is, holy, righteous, merciful, kind, etc., and we love our neighbor with this divine love, we will do what is right. St. Augustine said, "Love and do what you will." When we love in this way our will is conformed to the will of God, so that all we will to do is according to God's will. In this way, the law is fulfilled in us.

History with a Smirk

If you enjoy history, then you might be interested in this article in Books & Culture, January/February 2007, pages 25-27, entitled “History with a Smirk,” by Allen C. Guelzo, a review of David S. Brown’s biography Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography. Hofstadter was a prominent leftist historian who bucked the current trend towards intensively researched histories. He tended to write more in an essay style, commenting on ideas and ideologies, shunning the minute details of the daily lives of the historical period in question.

Hofstadter was sympathetic towards Communism and leftist ideology throughout his life, and ridiculed and sought to undercut democratic and conservative values and ideals. He was so arrogant he refused to believe that anyone on the Right could be an intellectual. He despised the middle class American values and thought the majority of Americans were mindless boobs, clueless and deceived.

Here are a few paragraphs from the article that I found most interesting:

Brown tends to see the resurgence of the Right as an intellectual movement largely through Hofstadter's eyes, as alarming in volume but philosophically insignificant by unit. This underestimation of the hitting power of Right intellectuals has been one of the chronic failures of the American Left; and as Hofstadter's own attitude demonstrates, there is no real cure for this failure, since the logic of Left politics actually requires that intellectuals on the Right be defined, ipso facto, as an impossibility. Brown remarks pretty sharply that whether it was "out of fear, anger or fantasy, the Far Right inspired Hofstadter to write some of the most original studies of American political culture ever produced." But "the Left never provoked such a productive reaction." Hofstadter preferred "to instruct radicals, not—as he had conservatives—to diagnose their mental tics."

So, despite the fact that Hofstadter lived his entire life "in an era dominated by liberal politics," he insisted on describing himself as "politically alienated." And from what, exactly? Born to the modest privileges of the urban upper-middle-class, he treated peace, plenty, and truth as the normal setting of human life, and intolerance, hypocrisy, and inequality as intolerable aberrations, when the norm of human history has been exactly the other way around. While making a university subsidized apartment on the upper East Side his home and a place on Cape Cod his summer retreat, and bathing in book contracts worth $1.3 million dollars at the time of death, Hofstadter nonetheless had never a good word to say about the nation, the politics, or the economic system which guaranteed his entitlements to these things. And despite the Andes of corpses which "a more severe brand of Marxism" piled up around the world in the 20th century, it was not the abominations of Stalin but the infelicities of Abraham Lincoln's prose which summoned forth his most vivid malediction. The vital power of Richard Hofstadter's oeuvre lay in the grace and color of his writing. But it was an almost entirely negative power, in the service of a freedom he wanted for himself, but not necessarily for anyone else.

You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/14.25.html

Don't Know Much About Mythology

Written by Kenneth C. Davis, who also wrote the popular book Don't Know Much About History. If you are looking for a good overview of mythology, this is one of the best I have seen. It covers all of the important themes, writings and gods. It covers the myths of Egypt, Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Canaan, Greece, Rome, Europe, India, China, Japan, Africa, the Americas, and the South Pacific. Each region receives an historical backround to put the myths in their historical as well as their cultural perspective.

Davis gives and excellent overview of myths and gods, with a helpful descriptions of primitive creation and flood stories. While he doesn't come from a Christian perspective, most of what he says is extremely helpful. The opening chapter also tries to explain the importance of mythology and how it relates to us today. One other helpful feature is a "Who's who" after every section, giving helpful explanations of each of the major gods in that region.

Spirituality

In his article, “The Wild West: Studying Christian spirituality,” Bruce Hindmarsh reviews two new books on the study of spirituality: Minding the Spirit, edited by Elizabeth A Dreyer and Mark S. Burrows, and New Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality edited by Philip Sheldrake. This article is helpful in defining some of the issues at stake in the methodology used to study spirituality.

One of the biggest problems with the study of spirituality is defining what it is. Hindmarsh points out that the words we use are often devoid of any concrete meaning, making intelligent discussion and study difficult. He quotes Uwe Poerksen, author of Plastic Words, to illustrate how words lose their meanings. Words have denotation, the concrete meaning, and connotation, feelings, associations and valuations the word evokes. It is like a rock thrown into a pond that causes ripples. The denotation is the rock and the connotations are the ripples. “Plastic words” are words that have only connotations since the denotation has been lost, much like having the outer ripples on the pond without the rock. Such words sound like they are full of meaning, backed by scientific research and study, but actually are devoid of any concrete meaning.

“Spirituality” is such a word, full of connotation but lacking denotation. When someone uses this word, we think we know what he means, and assume it has scholarly and scientific support, but it actually is vacuous and empty of meaning. It is more meaningful, therefore, to talk about prayer, which is concrete and has denotation, instead of spirituality, which lacks denotation.

Another problem in the study of spirituality is the methodology. How does one study spirituality? There are three basic approaches given by Dreyer: historical, theological, and anthropological. The historical approach studies spirituality as it has developed throughout history. The theological approach studies spirituality according to the biblical and theological norms of a particular denomination. The anthropological approach studies spirituality from the natural human quest for that which is beyond the material, and would include Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, and all other forms of spirituality and not just Christian spirituality. While it is helpful to note these distinctions, Hindmarsh feels that this approach obscures some fundamental questions.

This brings us to the third problem: spirituality cannot be studied merely from the outside, but must be studied from within the practice and experience the worshipper. This will distort one’s findings, making it difficult to do objective historical and theological research. On the other hand, if one is totally objective, then one’s study is also distorted and leaves out the most vital elements. Knowledge requires participation in the event, not just observation of the event.

Here are a few quotes that I found summed up this dilemma:

Each believer making his or her own that engagement with the questioning at the heart of faith which is so evident in the classical documents of Christian belief." Once again, we are back to spiritual theology as a self-implicating enterprise. This sort of sensitive historical approach to the study of Christian spirituality demands that we see Christianity as a lived faith. Knowledge here requires participation and not just observation.

To separate the study of Christian spirituality from Christology in a purely anthropological way, seems to me, at minimum, to engage in a different sort of discourse with a different sort of ecclesia. I think it remains important for Christian spirituality to be studied first and foremost within the context of Christological confession, ecclesial participation, Scriptural authority and classical credo. Such study would still be interdisciplinary and public, rooted in theology and history, and focused on experience, but confessional commitment would not need to be smuggled in as contraband.

The critical mode of reflection upon Christian spirituality must be unique, since the sources we work with assume participation. One can stand outside of prayer and study it, but then that really is a different discourse. I am more interested in the sort of discourse where one studies prayer, even in a fully interdisciplinary way, but without ceasing to pray.


You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/9.22.html

South Sea Tales

Jack London is one of the best writers of the twentieth century. In his collection of short stories, South Sea Tales, he is at his best, weaving compelling stories with incredible detailed descriptions of the life and geography of the South Pacific in the late 1800’s. Here are the titles of the short stories:

    The House Of Mapuhi
    The Whale Tooth
    Mauki
    Yah! Yah! Yah!
    The Heathen
    The Terrible Solomons
    The Inevitable White Man
    The Seed Of McCoy


Each short story is a masterpiece. While reading them I felt as if I were actually there, living among the cannibals and other natives. London spells out the tenuous relationship between the white man and the black man, revealing much of western man’s arrogance and ignorance while also revealing the savagery of both the blacks and whites. London paints the beauty of the islands with his words, but also the horrors of living through a hurricane, shark attacks, and being chased, killed and eaten by cannibals.

In the story, “The Heathen,” the narrator, Charley, saves Otoo’s life, a native of Bora-bora, during a shipwreck and he is in turn nursed back to health by the Otoo after they wash up on shore. As is the native’s custom, they become blood brothers by taking each other’s name. Charley is a young man, and his character and life are changed as he and Otoo spend the next 17 years together. He says:

“I never had a brother; but from what I have seen of other men's brothers, I doubt if any man ever had a brother that was to him what Otoo was to me. He was brother and father and mother as well. And this I know: I lived a straighter and better man because of Otoo. I cared little for other men, but I had to live straight in Otoo's eyes. Because of him I dared not tarnish myself. He made me his ideal, compounding me, I fear, chiefly out of his own love and worship and there were times when I stood close to the steep pitch of hell, and would have taken the plunge had not the thought of Otoo restrained me. His pride in me entered into me, until it became one of the major rules in my personal code to do nothing that would diminish that pride of his.”

This story caused me to think of two things: first, how important friendships are and how having the right friend can change your life for the better. It is rare to have a friend like Otoo who would willingly give his life for you, and who constantly looks out for your best interest, even when you don’t.

The second is, how Christ has bound himself to man in much the same way through the cross. By becoming a man, the Son identified with us and took our name upon himself, bearing our sin to the cross. In exchange, he has given us his name, calling us brothers, so that we partake in the divine nature and share in all of his heavenly blessings. When we appropriate this relationship through faith, we realize that we dare not tarnish his name, and realizing that he loves us and is looking out for our best interest, we can be motivated to live in a way that is pleasing to him.

In the story, “The House Of Mapuhi” we see how greed can destroy lives as several white traders take advantage of Mapuhi, a pearl diver, who has just found the largest, most perfect pearl ever. In “The Whale Tooth” London points out the ignorance and folly of a missionary who failed to learn the culture of the South Pacific islanders and ended up being killed and eaten by the people he was trying to convert. In “Mauki” we meet a young man forced into slavery, who is severely treated after many escape attempts. He finally escapes with the head of his master and returns to his island to rule as chief. The head of the most feared white man gives him power over all the other tribes who fear him. In “Yah! Yah! Yah!” London explains why the natives now feared the white man even though they outnumbered them and had successfully killed them in the past. In “The Seed of McCoy” we meet the great-grandson of the leader of the mutiny of the Bounty. Each tale is a treasure in itself and all taken together paint a compelling picture of life in the South Pacific.

Hades Factor

I enjoy Robert Ludlum’s books as much, if not more, than Tom Clancy’s books. Tom Clancy focuses more on the analysis of intelligence while Ludlum focuses on the gathering of intelligence. Ludlum likes to add a lot of twists and turns to his stories, so you are guessing all the way to the end who is behind the plot and which agent, or agents, are double crossing the hero. In The Hades Factor, Ludlum is true to form and weaves a story that hardly ever slows down to let you take a breath. And all the while reading the book you are keenly aware that there are terrorists right now trying to do exactly what he is describing.

I read the book last year but watched the movie last week. It was a made for TV movie that was three hours long, giving it plenty of time to add a lot of detail from the book. The movie was well made, but the last five to ten minutes just fell apart. I think they wanted to end with a big action sequence but the end was unbelievable and unrealistic. For most of the movie the script was realistic and plausible, but the end left Ludlum’s realism behind, ruining the ending.

The story is about Lt. Colonel Jon Smith, a U.S. Army doctor at USAMRID, specializing in contagious diseases. In the past he has also worked for Covert One, a highly secretive intelligence agency that answers directly to the president and has no official existence. Smith has left the agency but finds himself being drug back in when he starts following the trail of a highly contagious and lethal virus released by terrorists. The terrorists are planning a multi-pronged attack on U.S. targets, including Dulles International Airport and the Hubert H. Humphrey building.

The bio-weapon is a virus that was developed by the U.S. military and was stolen and sold to terrorists. The terrorists have infected their own men in order to transport the virus undetected into the U.S. where they collect the blood samples and make timed aerosol spray “bombs”. The events that play out in the movie and book could easily become tomorrow’s headlines. Early in the movie at a conference on infectious diseases, Smith answers a question about the possibility of terrorists using biological weapons with a chilling reply that there is no way that we can prevent such attacks from occurring. A biological attack of this sort could be far more devastating and widespread than the 9/11 attacks, with tens of thousands killed. It is imperative that our intelligence, military and police agencies work together to minimize the possibility of such attacks.

Helen

Most people are familiar with the story of Helen and how her running off with Paris to Troy started the Trojan War depicted in Homer’s Iliad. However, I was surprised to discover that there is an alternate tradition that exonerates Helen by placing her in Egypt while the war was supposed to have taken place. Even Herodotus writes in his history that Egyptian priests reported a tradition that Helen stayed in Egypt. Euripides picks up on this tradition in his play Helen, which was most likely influenced by a sixth century BC poet Stesichorus.

According to Euripides’ play, Helen was not guilty of running off with Paris because she had been whisked away to Egypt while a wraith was put in her place to mislead Paris and start the war. The play opens with Helen in Egypt living in a temple. The king, Theoclymenus is determined to marry Helen, but she repeatedly refuses because she believes her husband, Menelaus, will come rescue her. After the ten year long war ends in the fall of Troy, Menelaus is tossed about at sea for seven years until his ship is wrecked and he is washed ashore at Egypt.

Theoclymenus hears of the Greek shipwreck and searches for survivors in order to kill them. Menelaus escapes capture and discovers Helen, who has to work hard to convince him she is the real Helen. When word comes that the wraith Helen has vanished, Menelaus believes the real Helen and they plan their escape. Menelaus is no longer angry at Helen, since he now knows that it wasn’t her at all who left him for Paris.

Helen deceives Theoclymenus by telling him that her husband was killed in the shipwreck and she agrees to marry him after a proper Greek ceremony is performed at sea. Theoclymenus thinks that Menelaus is merely a lowly sailor from the shipwreck, so he agrees to let Helen and the stranger carry out the ceremony. Helen, Menelaus and a small band of Greek sailors who survived the wreck board the ship supplied by Theoclymenus. As they get far enough from shore the Greeks overpower the Egyptian sailors, capture the ship, and sail for Greece.

It shows the love that Helen has for her husband and how she has remained chaste for seventeen years while waiting for him to rescue her. This is in stark contrast to the view of Helen in the Iliad, who is complicit in seducing Paris and leaving her husband for him. About the only other interesting thing about this play is the vivid description of the Greek’s battle to capture the ship from the Egyptians.

God' Politics

Jim Wallis, founder to Sojourners magazine and national Christian speaker has written a powerful call to American Christians to evaluate their position on social issues in his book, God's Politics: Why the right gets it wrong and and left doesn't get it.

The way the church can be the most effective is to not be ideologically partisan or tied to one political party. When we raise issues of moral rights and justice we will challenge both parties. Religion is not rooted in rights but in the image of God.

A biblical understanding of evil and the fallenness of man will make us wary of concentrated political or economic power. The abuse of such power is something we should speak out against.

Our faith should exude compassion and justice. These are values that should drive the education of our children as well.

Our religious congregations are not meant to be social organizations that merely reflect the wider culture's values, but dynamic counter-cultural communities whose purpose is to reshape both lives and societies.

In recent history there has been a rise in secular fundamentalism in response to the growth on religious fundamentalism. But both religious and secular fundamentalism are dangerous they deny the foundations of a democratic society. Religious fundamentalists try to force a theocracy on everyone else while secular fundamentalists try to eradicate morals and values from public life, destroying the very foundation of democracy.

"No one gets to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor." How you treat the poor determines the genuineness of your faith. Jesus himself said he would judge the world based on their treatment of the poor, hungry, homeless, imprisoned and needy.

How should Christians respond to the terrorist attacks of 9/11? What do Jesus' words, "Bless those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute you" have to do with our response to terrorism? To say that THEY are evil while WE are good is both bad theology and leads to dangerous foreign policy. Loving your enemies does not mean submitting to their terrorism or hostile intentions. But it does mean we must treat them as human beings who have been created in the image of God. The threat of terrorism does not overthrow Christian ethics. We must respond biblically and not give in to anger, revenge or expediency. The "Myth of Redemptive Violence" has taken over much of our political discourse. We actually believe that violence can save us. As Christians, we cannot buy into this ideology.

Evangelical Christians then to be selective on their moral and ethical issues, picking and choosing those issues which are helpful for our political agenda while ignoring those that harmful for our political ends. Sexual and family issues are only one part of morality and ethics; there is also the issues of social justice that need to be taken into account. Questioning the religious right does not make you a religious leftist.

We cannot change our society by merely replacing one politician who is swayed by the wind of public opinion by another politician who also is swayed by the wind of public opinion. We can change society, not by changing the politicians, but by changing the wind. We need to change the social context in which political decisions are being made. Societies have been changed by movements with a spiritual foundation.

Poverty and social unrest is the result of a lack of vision. Where there is no vision, the people perish because they cast off restraint. Until we have a clear vision of social justice we will never defeat poverty and social injustice.

God is personal but never private. Private religion tries to avoid the consequences of public faith. Affluent nations tend to mainly Christians who have only a private faith because the public expression of faith would put the rich person in a dangerous social and economic position.

Today, religion serves to silence the politics of God than to announce it to the nations. In the Old Testament, however, the prophets publicly announced the Word of the Lord to the nation. What was the content of their message? Quite secular topics really. Land, labor, capital, wages, debt, equity, taxes, homes,courts, prisons, immigrants, other races and peoples, economic divisions, social justice, war and peace. This is the stuff of politics. To whom were the prophets often speaking? Usually to rulers, kings, judges, employers, landlords, owners of property and wealth, and religious leaders. The powerful were most often the prophets' target audience. The prophets most often spoke on behalf of the dispossessed, the poor, the widows, the orphans, the homeless and the helpless.

God does not call for class warfare, but only desires the common good, equality and justice.

God is personal, and without a personal God there is no personal dimension to faith, and thus, no spiritual transformation. However, this personal God is never private. God is very public, and to deny the public God is to deny biblical faith itself. Exclusively private faith degenerates into a very narrow religion, and its adherents become obsessed with sexual morality to the exclusion of public social justice. Private faith then becomes merely a cultural religion focusing almost exclusively on assurance of self-righteousness.

Week after week we pass by the poor and needy, yet in our congregations and fail to offer a searing indictment of our society which has become a nation of endangered souls that is governed by values that are quite foreign to our religious convictions. We are failing to be a prophetic voice in our nation and have fallen far short of what God intends for us to be, no matter how religious we like to think we are. We merely have a religiosity that is characterized by privatized belief systems, void of the prophetic and social witness of Jesus and the prophets, offering nothing more than small "s" spirituality, that is really no more than ad hoc wish-fulfillment or a collection of self-help techniques we use to take the edge off our materialistic lives. What if we made the values expressed by Jesus and the prophets a litmus test for our political candidates, social agendas, and foreign policy? A personal God demands public justice as an act of worship.

Protests are not enough. We must offer a better alternative. Protests must be instructive to succeed. They must illuminate and educate society about the ills one is protesting. Protests must not be destructive but constructive, not merely complaining but offering creative alternatives. Protests should not only denounce what is but open the way for change by offering constructive and useful alternatives. When protest is both instructive and constructive society must deal with it.

We must not underestimate the power of evil and the brutality of evil people. When the peace movement is soft on the problems it will be seen as weak. To avoid war we must have realistic plans to deal with the real problems and solve the underlying issues. These peaceful alternatives must be more effective than war.

Just decrying the facts of poverty is not enough to end poverty. In a global economy it is easy to overlook the poor because we really don't need them. But God calls us to care for the poor because they are made in his image. The question is not whether faith should influence society but how faith should influence society.

For a social movement to succeed it must be spiritually based and politically independent. It will attempt to change political structures while not being tied to one political party or system. The focus needs to be on grassroots outside the political system and working towards the inside instead of trying to get political power and work from the inside out. We need to persuade the general public by moral argument that is lived out instead of trying to force a political agenda from the top down.

Many politicians use scripture and biblical phrases to gain support from Christians. But it is dangerous to use biblical prooftexting to support a political ideology. Don't ask if God is on your side but if you are on God's side.

Much of religion today is driven by fear, especially fear of losing the faith. Much rhetoric coming from religious leaders is histrionic and tries to motivate Christians to support a particular political agenda out of fear. However, the best response to bad religion is not to get rid of religion or secularism but to replace it with good religion. While there are many bad interpretations of the Bible, the answer is not to get rid of the Bible but to promote better interpretations.

Not only are there religious fundamentalists in America, but now there is a growing number of secular fundamentalists. Biblical faith is not merely to comfort believers but to transform the world. Such transformation must always be done in a way that enhances democracy and personal freedom. Religious faith should serve the common good.

Biblical Christianity has always had difficulty with the concept of empire. Until the time of Constantine, the church was persecuted by the empire and the church critiqued and sought to change the empire. However, when the church became equated with the empire Christianity changed and became the persecutor and resistant to critique and change. Today, as we once again embrace the concept of empire, it is easy to vilify the enemy and claim to be on the side of good, but repentance is much better.

Blessed are the peace-MAKERS not the peace-LOVERS. Christians need to develop new and creative systems of non-violent resistance patterned after those which have proven to be effective in the past. Humility is essential for peacemaking, while self-righteousness is politically destructive.

Is there a Christian alternative to empire? Peace and security are not found in military supremacy and economic dominance. The prophet Isaiah proclaimed that peace and security come from social justice and economic fairness. If you want peace, work for justice. There is no global security apart from local and common security. No one will be secure until everyone is secure. There is no national security without global security and there is no individual security apart from collective security. Fear leads to violence; take away the fear and you will take away the violence.

Taking care of the poor and needy is central to the Bible. As Christians, we must be committed to helping the poor and downtrodden.

Politicians find a problem and publicize it, then they make the public afraid of it, blame the problem on their opponent, then use it to win an election. After they get elected, they ignore the problem and do nothing about it.

Poverty is a spiritual and religious issue, not a left-wing political issue. Economic poverty is often associated with spiritual poverty. However, affluence often masks moral and spiritual poverty. This is clearly demonstrated in the many school shootings around our country where white, suburban,middle class students from two parent homes perpetrated horrible violence against their peers. So, the problems of poverty are not just political but also spiritual and religious.

Ignoring the poor has distorted the theology of the church in affluent nations. This neglect and distortion has made any prophetic role for these churches impossible.

Budgets are moral documents.

Bill Gates Sr. said, "I believe that one's obligation to society grows in proportion to how much one has benefitted."

We have the knowledge, expertise, technology and resources to solve the problems of poverty and poor health of the world; the problem is that we simply don't want to. The political will does not exist. In the nineteenth century you could argue that it was inadequate science, knowledge, technology and resources, but that is not true of today. The real barrier is indifference.

Racism isn't natural; it must be taught. Racism serves a purpose; it keeps certain people down so other people can succeed, and it also is an effective way to blame one's social and economic problems on a different group. While racism originally had an economic motive it touches every part of our lives and society.

As Christians, we must be separate from our culture. If the culture around you doesn't work, don't buy it; create your own.

Change is a real prospect. We can experience change in our lives, families, communities, nations, and the world. That's the promise of faith, and that's what makes change possible.

The prophets always start out with condemnation and social critique but end with hope. Hope is not a feeling but a choice. Hope is a decision that is based on your deepest beliefs. Hope is not a naive wish but a choice with your eyes wide open.

It is important to remember to enjoy the world while you are out changing it. God has given us life as a gift and he wants us to enjoy it and help others enjoy it. That is what drives us to bring social change to to the world.

Machiavelli on Love

Machiavelli, in documenting the lives of great men who achieved great worldly success, who were lovers of riches, fame, and power, demonstrates how this triad seduces men and alienates their affections for truth, beauty, and goodness.

What you love reveals your character. If you love the world, you cannot love God. If you serve money you cannot serve Christ. To be friends with the world means you are an enemy of God. To love sin is to hate holiness. Conversely, to love holiness is to hate sin; to love God is to hate the world; to love Christ is to abandon riches, fame, and power.

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul? What would a man give in exchange for his soul? What do you love more than God? What are you pursuing more than Christ? Loving riches, fame, and power precludes you from loving truth, beauty, and goodness.

If Death is No Barrier

If you are interest in “spiritualism” and its history in the United States, then you need to read this article, “If Death is No Barrier” in Books & Culture, January/February 2007, pages 16-21 is a must-read. In this article Jason Byassee reviews the following books:

Ann Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America, 2nd ed. (Indiana Univ. Press, 2001).

Robert Cox, Body and Soul: A Sympathetic History of American Spiritualism (Univ. of Virginia Press, 2003).

John Kucich, Ghostly Communion: Cross-Cultural Spiritualism in Nineteenth-Century American Literature (Dartmouth College Press, 2004).

Philip Charles Lucas et al., eds., Cassadaga: The South's Oldest Spiritual Community (Univ. Press of Florida, 2000).

Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, Three Spiritualist Novels (Univ. of Illinois Press, 2000).
Mary Roach, Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife (Norton, 2005).

Barbara Weisberg, Talking to the Dead: Kate and Maggie Fox and the Rise of Spiritualism (HarperSanFrancisco, 2004).

Christine Wicker, Lily Dale: The True Story of the Town that Talks to the Dead (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).


In the nineteenth century spiritualism became popular mainly because of the Fox sisters, who claimed they were able to communicate with the dead by getting them to make a series of clicks to communicate with the living. One of the sisters confessed later on that they were able to make the sounds by cracking their toes and other joints unnoticed. So the whole movement was inspired by a fraud.

Many prominent Americans, including politicians, writers, and preachers were taken in by this movement. Much of our understanding of the spirit world is influenced by this movement. Unfortunately most of these ideas are unbiblical, based on lies, and some are even harmful. Even our views of heaven, the afterlife, and salvation have been corrupted by these ideas. It was enlightening to read this article to see where many of these ideas came from and how they were based upon the fraud of the Fox sisters.


You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/3.16.html

Day of the Dead

If you are interested in Mexico’s annual celebration of the Day of the Dead, the article “Dead Again” in Books & Culture, January/February 2007, pages 21-22, reviews the book, Skulls to the Living, Bread to the Dead by Stanley Brandes. Stanley Brandes is an experienced ethnographer who studied the Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico for over a decade.

I found several points interesting:

Even though Mexicans may be macho and act as if death is no big deal, they grieve just like everyone else at the death of a loved one.

Even Mexicans take economic advantage of this annual celebration by selling candy, crafts and other goods during the festival.

“However, something of the sterner Protestant understanding of what it is to be Christian emerges in Brandes' extensive discussion of the dissemination and appropriation of the Day of the Dead in North America, in particular as part of the multicultural agenda promoted in the schools. Whereas religion in schools may be banned as divisive and contrary to the separation of Church and state, "culture" may be promoted as part of a proper acquaintance with other ways of life. The result is the appearance in schools of a cultural mélange offensive to Protestants, and especially to evangelicals who take their religion seriously.”


You can read the article at: http://www.ctlibrary.com/40570

The Illusionist

The Illusionist was a well made, well performed movie with a stirring ending. It was a romantic story, with a near epic struggle between a man of ignoble birth, Eisenheim, and the crown prince, Leopold, for the love of a duchess, Sophie. Eisenheim’s strong love for Sophie drive him to use his magic in some very creative ways to fool the crown prince and escape with his life-long love. The magic he performs seems almost impossible given the historical setting, but a man with extreme ingenuity possibly could have pulled it off. The death scene reminded me more of a modern Hollywood style trick than a possible maneuver by a nineteenth century magician. The gullibility of people was much greater since they had not been exposed to so much modern special effects as we have.

In the end, the hero wins the maiden and the evil villain is thwarted, ruined and commits suicide. The death of the crown prince is portrayed in such a positive light, I found myself unconsciously applauding his demise. But after some reflection, I had to ask myself a few questions. Did Eisenheim know that the crown prince would commit suicide? Probably not. Is Eisenheim in some way responsible for his death? Probably. As a Christian, can I agree that his actions were noble and righteous? No. Would it be ethical for me to do a similar thing? No. While the crown prince was evil and threatened the happiness of both Sophie and Eisenheim, resorting to fraud and deception that ends in suicide is questionable at best.

So, I was reminded that I must be careful whenever watching a movie to evaluate my responses to the story and not just let the producer sway my thinking and feeling unchallenged. This is especially important for movies since film is such a emotional medium that has incredible power to influence our thinking. It is often not the rational arguments of teachers and preachers that shape our worldview and mindset but the popular culture, through music and videos. It is imperative that we challenge the messages we are receiving from our culture and subject them to scrutiny by the Word of God.

Richard III

William Shakespeare wrote this tragedy, Richard III, around 1592-7, making the historical King Richard III one of the most infamous villains of English history. Shakespeare wrote most of his historical plays at the beginning of his career, and the first recorded performance of Richard III was in 1600. Richard, duke of Gloucester, reigned as king of England from 1483 to 1485. He was from the house of York and gained his kingship by having his brother King Edward IV murdered and his two sons locked in the London Tower, only to have them murdered. Richard was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485, ending the Plantagenet dynasty, bringing the Wars of the Roses to a culmination.

Here are two famous quotes made by Richard III in this play.


“But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”



“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.”



Queen Margaret and the Duchess of York mourn the loss of their husbands and children and curse Richard who was behind their murders. I thought the description of the “hell-hound” by Queen Margaret was powerful:

“Thou hadst a Clarence too, and Richard kill'd him.
From forth the kennel of thy womb hath crept
A hell-hound that doth hunt us all to death:
That dog, that had his teeth before his eyes,
To worry lambs and lap their gentle blood,
That foul defacer of God's handiwork,
That excellent grand tyrant of the earth,
That reigns in galled eyes of weeping souls,
Thy womb let loose, to chase us to our graves.
O upright, just, and true-disposing God,
How do I thank thee, that this carnal cur
Preys on the issue of his mother's body,
And makes her pew-fellow with others' moan!”


Shakespeare had a keen sense of human psychology, especially of villains. The lines of Richard where he describes his cunning deception is profound (quoted above). He quotes scripture and acts very piously in order to deceive everyone. They think he is an honorable gentleman all the while he is plotting and carrying out the murders of his brother the king and his nephews, the heirs to their father’s throne. It is a warning for us today to be careful not to let people fool us by speaking the right words while living contrary to those ideals. The Apostle Paul warns us in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.” Shakespeare was most likely thinking of these verses when he put these words into Richard’s mouth.

I also enjoyed the irony of the fateful end of Richard on the battlefield. He is determined to kill his enemy, Richmond, and slays many in his incredible fury but can’t find the real Richmond. In the battle his horse is killed and he must fight on foot. He is soon overwhelmed, causing him to cry out his famous words, “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.” Richard dies on the battlefield for want of a horse to escape the onslaught. The mighty are often laid low and the evil are often destroyed in the same way that they destroyed others.

Gridiron Gang

I enjoyed the movie Gridiron Gang, starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. I thought the production was second-rate but the story was inspiring. The acting wasn’t topnotch, since most of the actors were unknowns. While I have a lot of respect for the Rock and enjoy his movies, I must admit that he is not a great actor. The movie lacked the emotional punch of other similar movies, such as Remember the Titans, where racial tensions had to be surmounted in much the same way that gang rivalries had to be transcended in Gridiron Gang. Much more could have been done with this movie to make it a top-notch production that would have more effectively promoted its inspiring message.

I was inspired by the story mainly because it was based on true events. I admire the compassion and tenacity of Sean Porter, the main character, who sacrifices and innovates to help gang members in juvenile prison develop the character and attitudes necessary to escape the dead end lifestyle of the inner city gangs.

To be honest, I was moved emotionally more by the clips at the end showing the real life people portrayed in the movie. Their comments were more powerful than the movie was. It would have been better to have watched 15 minutes of these clips than watching the movie. The real Sean Porter was much more dynamic than The Rock was able to portray him. And the young men were able to communicate the transformation that had taken place in their lives because of Sean’s tough love.

I hope that more people realize that the present system isn’t working and use this model as inspiration for creating more effective alternatives to our juvenile justice system. It would also be valuable for anyone who works with youth to inspire them to come up with more effective methods of instilling values and character.

Terrorist

Terrorist, the newest novel by John Updike, is well written and thought provoking. Ahmad is a high school senior living with his mother, a flirtatious Irish woman, having been abandoned by his father, an Arab, while he was an infant. Even though he is only half Arab and is raised by his ex-Catholic mother, he chooses to follow Islam. He is very serious about his faith and studies the Koran with an Yemini Imam, who fills his mind with anti-American rhetoric and a Jihad.

His Imam convinces him to become a truck driver and not go to college. After high school he gets a job delivering furniture for an Arabic Furniture company. He discovers that on some of his deliveries he is dropping off more than furniture when he secretly watches the recipients tear the furniture open and take out thousands of dollars hidden inside. He confronts his coworker who explains that they are payments for a terrorist cell planning an attack on the anniversary of 9/11. Ahmad agrees to drive the truck that will be laden with explosives and die a martyr’s death by blowing up a commuter tunnel during the morning rush hour.

John Updike writes with a deft style and fully develops his characters. Scenery and action are vividly painted without bogging down the plot. He does an excellent job portraying the mindset of an Islamic extremist. By listening to Ahmad talk and think, you get a sense of how a young Muslim thinks and feels. The faith of a terrorist comes to life in this novel, giving you a better understanding of what drives these men to commit suicide in the service of Jihad.

However, there are several problems with this novel. First, John Updike always works graphic sex into his novels, and this novel is no exception. Second, the ending is not completely believable. I don’t want to ruin the ending, so let me say that there is not enough psychological development to support the choice Ahmad makes at the end. Also, it is unlikely that the events could realistically play out the way he portrays them. In light of these drawbacks, I feel that this novel is an important contribution to understanding the religious, social, intellectual and emotional context of radical Islamic terrorism. Anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of how such attacks can be justified in the minds of the terrorists, this novel will be very helpful.

Today Matters, Decision #12: GROWTH

12. Decision #12: GROWTH: “Today’s growth gives me potential”
Seek and experience improvements daily.

Become what you are capable of becoming.

Growth is not automatic. Take responsibility for your growth or it won’t happen.
Growth doesn’t come simply by gaining knowledge. Knowledge must be used to be of value.
Growth doesn’t come with experience. Reflection on experience is essential.

Importance of growth:
1. Gifting without growth leads to ineffectiveness. Build on your talent. If you merely draw on your talent without growing you will run out of resources.
2. It prevents personal and professional stagnation. Don’t make external changes but pursue internal changes.
3. Your personal growth impacts your organization’s growth. If you want to grow the organization you must first grow the leader. In order to DO more I’ve got to BE more.
4. Only through continuous improvement can you reach your full potential.
Tartar tribe curse: “May you stay in one place forever.”

Practical steps:
1. Make a commitment to maximize your potential. “What is my potential?” Boy with only one hand, “I don’t have a handicap, I only have one hand.”
2. Make a commitment to change. Can’t expect things to stay the same and become better at the same time. “The only thrill worthwhile is the thrill of making something of yourself.”
3. Set growth goals. Set goals in specific areas of your strengths: communication, leadership, etc. Areas that will add value to yourself personally and professionally.
4. Put yourself in a growth environment. We will grow to the size of our environment. We will expand to reach our potential.

Every day I will grow on purpose with my plan. Continually tailor your growth plan to your changing situation.

Make it your goal to improve in some way every day. Break large goals down into small achievable goals.