Solzhenitsyn and the Struggle for Russia's Soul
By George Friedman
There are many people who write history. There are very few who make history through their writings. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died this week at the age of 89, was one of them. In many ways, Solzhenitsyn laid the intellectual foundations for the fall of Soviet communism. That is well known. But Solzhenitsyn also laid the intellectual foundation for the Russia that is now emerging. That is less well known, and in some ways more important.
Solzhenitsyn’s role in the Soviet Union was simple. His writings, and in particular his book “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” laid bare the nature of the Soviet regime. The book described a day in the life of a prisoner in a Soviet concentration camp, where the guilty and innocent alike were sent to have their lives squeezed out of them in endless and hopeless labor. It was a topic Solzhenitsyn knew well, having been a prisoner in such a camp following service in World War II.
The book was published in the Soviet Union during the reign of Nikita Khrushchev. Khrushchev had turned on his patron, Joseph Stalin, after taking control of the Communist Party apparatus following Stalin’s death. In a famous secret speech delivered to the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev denounced Stalin for his murderous ways. Allowing Solzhenitsyn’s book to be published suited Khrushchev. Khrushchev wanted to detail Stalin’s crimes graphically, and Solzhenitsyn’s portrayal of life in a labor camp served his purposes.
It also served a dramatic purpose in the West when it was translated and distributed there. Ever since its founding, the Soviet Union had been mythologized. This was particularly true among Western intellectuals, who had been taken by not only the romance of socialism, but also by the image of intellectuals staging a revolution. Vladimir Lenin, after all, had been the author of works such as “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.” The vision of intellectuals as revolutionaries gripped many European and American intellectuals.
These intellectuals had missed not only that the Soviet Union was a social catastrophe, but that, far from being ruled by intellectuals, it was being ruled by thugs. For an extraordinarily long time, in spite of ample testimony by emigres from the Soviet regime, Western intellectuals simply denied this reality. When Western intellectuals wrote that they had “seen the future and it worked,” they were writing at a time when the Soviet terror was already well under way. They simply couldn’t see it.
One of the most important things about “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was not only that it was so powerful, but that it had been released under the aegis of the Soviet state, meaning it could not simply be ignored. Solzhenitsyn was critical in breaking the intellectual and moral logjam among intellectuals in the West. You had to be extraordinarily dense or dishonest to continue denying the obvious, which was that the state that Lenin and Stalin had created was a moral monstrosity.
Khrushchev’s intentions were not Solzhenitsyn’s. Khrushchev wanted to demonstrate the evils of Stalinism while demonstrating that the regime could reform itself and, more important, that communism was not invalidated by Stalin’s crimes. Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, held the view that the labor camps were not incidental to communism, but at its heart. He argued in his “Gulag Archipelago” that the systemic exploitation of labor was essential to the regime not only because it provided a pool of free labor, but because it imposed a systematic terror on those not in the gulag that stabilized the regime. His most telling point was that while Khrushchev had condemned Stalin, he did not dismantle the gulag; the gulag remained in operation until the end.
Though Solzhenitsyn served the regime’s purposes in the 1960s, his usefulness had waned by the 1970s. By then, Solzhenitsyn was properly perceived by the Soviet regime as a threat. In the West, he was seen as a hero by all parties. Conservatives saw him as an enemy of communism. Liberals saw him as a champion of human rights. Each invented Solzhenitsyn in their own image. He was given the Noble Prize for Literature, which immunized him against arrest and certified him as a great writer. Instead of arresting him, the Soviets expelled him, sending him into exile in the United States.
When he reached Vermont, the reality of who Solzhenitsyn was slowly sank in. Conservatives realized that while he certainly was an enemy of communism and despised Western liberals who made apologies for the Soviets, he also despised Western capitalism just as much. Liberals realized that Solzhenitsyn hated Soviet oppression, but that he also despised their obsession with individual rights, such as the right to unlimited free expression. Solzhenitsyn was nothing like anyone had thought, and he went from being the heroic intellectual to a tiresome crank in no time. Solzhenitsyn attacked the idea that the alternative to communism had to be secular, individualist humanism. He had a much different alternative in mind.
Solzhenitsyn saw the basic problem that humanity faced as being rooted in the French Enlightenment and modern science. Both identify the world with nature, and nature with matter. If humans are part of nature, they themselves are material. If humans are material, then what is the realm of God and of spirit? And if there is no room for God and spirituality, then what keeps humans from sinking into bestiality? For Solzhenitsyn, Stalin was impossible without Lenin’s praise of materialism, and Lenin was impossible without the Enlightenment.
From Solzhenitsyn’s point of view, Western capitalism and liberalism are in their own way as horrible as Stalinism. Adam Smith saw man as primarily pursuing economic ends. Economic man seeks to maximize his wealth. Solzhenitsyn tried to make the case that this is the most pointless life conceivable. He was not objecting to either property or wealth, but to the idea that the pursuit of wealth is the primary purpose of a human being, and that the purpose of society is to free humans to this end.
Solzhenitsyn made the case — hardly unique to him — that the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself left humans empty shells. He once noted Blaise Pascal’s aphorism that humans are so endlessly busy so that they can forget that they are going to die — the point being that we all die, and that how we die is determined by how we live. For Solzhenitsyn, the American pursuit of economic well being was a disease destroying the Western soul.
He viewed freedom of expression in the same way. For Americans, the right to express oneself transcends the content of the expression. That you speak matters more than what you say. To Solzhenitsyn, the same principle that turned humans into obsessive pursuers of wealth turned them into vapid purveyors of shallow ideas. Materialism led to individualism, and individualism led to a culture devoid of spirit. The freedom of the West, according to Solzhenitsyn, produced a horrifying culture of intellectual self-indulgence, licentiousness and spiritual poverty. In a contemporary context, the hedge fund coupled with The Daily Show constituted the bankruptcy of the West.
To have been present when he once addressed a Harvard commencement! On the one side, Harvard Law and Business School graduates — the embodiment of economic man. On the other side, the School of Arts and Sciences, the embodiment of free expression. Both greeted their heroic resister, only to have him reveal himself to be religious, patriotic and totally contemptuous of the Vatican of self-esteem, Harvard.
Solzhenitsyn had no real home in the United States, and with the fall of the Soviets, he could return to Russia — where he witnessed what was undoubtedly the ultimate nightmare for him: thugs not only running the country, but running it as if they were Americans. Now, Russians were pursuing wealth as an end in itself and pleasure as a natural right. In all of this, Solzhenitsyn had not changed at all.
Solzhenitsyn believed there was an authentic Russia that would emerge from this disaster. It would be a Russia that first and foremost celebrated the motherland, a Russia that accepted and enjoyed its uniqueness. This Russia would take its bearings from no one else. At the heart of this Russia would be the Russian Orthodox Church, with not only its spirituality, but its traditions, rituals and art.
The state’s mission would be to defend the motherland, create the conditions for cultural renaissance, and — not unimportantly — assure a decent economic life for its citizens. Russia would be built on two pillars: the state and the church. It was within this context that Russians would make a living. The goal would not be to create the wealthiest state in the world, nor radical equality. Nor would it be a place where anyone could say whatever they wanted, not because they would be arrested necessarily, but because they would be socially ostracized for saying certain things.
Most important, it would be a state not ruled by the market, but a market ruled by a state. Economic strength was not trivial to Solzhenitsyn, either for individuals or for societies, but it was never to be an end in itself and must always be tempered by other considerations. As for foreigners, Russia must always guard itself, as any nation must, against foreigners seeking its wealth or wanting to invade. Solzhenitsyn wrote a book called “August 1914,” in which he argues that the czarist regime had failed the nation by not being prepared for war.
Think now of the Russia that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev are shaping. The Russian Orthodox Church is undergoing a massive resurgence, the market is submitting to the state, free expression is being tempered and so on. We doubt Putin was reading Solzhenitsyn when reshaping Russia. But we do believe that Solzhenitsyn had an understanding of Russia that towered over most of his contemporaries. And we believe that the traditional Russia that Solzhenitsyn celebrated is emerging, more from its own force than by political decisions.
Solzhenitsyn served Western purposes when he undermined the Soviet state. But that was not his purpose. His purpose was to destroy the Soviet state so that his vision of Russia could re-emerge. When his interests and the West’s coincided, he won the Noble Prize. When they diverged, he became a joke. But Solzhenitsyn never really cared what Americans or the French thought of him and his ideas. He wasn’t speaking to them and had no interest or hope of remaking them. Solzhenitsyn was totally alien to American culture. He was speaking to Russia and the vision he had was a resurrection of Mother Russia, if not with the czar, then certainly with the church and state. That did not mean liberalism; Mother Russia was dramatically oppressive. But it was neither a country of mass murder nor of vulgar materialism.
It must also be remembered that when Solzhenitsyn spoke of Russia, he meant imperial Russia at its height, and imperial Russia’s borders at its height looked more like the Soviet Union than they looked like Russia today. “August 1914” is a book that addresses geopolitics. Russian greatness did not have to express itself via empire, but logically it should — something to which Solzhenitsyn would not have objected.
Solzhenitsyn could not teach Americans, whose intellectual genes were incompatible with his. But it is hard to think of anyone who spoke to the Russian soul as deeply as he did. He first ripped Russia apart with his indictment. He was later ignored by a Russia out of control under former President Boris Yeltsin. But today’s Russia is very slowly moving in the direction that Solzhenitsyn wanted. And that could make Russia extraordinarily powerful. Imagine a Soviet Union not ruled by thugs and incompetents. Imagine Russia ruled by people resembling Solzhenitsyn’s vision of a decent man.
Solzhenitsyn was far more prophetic about the future of the Soviet Union than almost all of the Ph.D.s in Russian studies. Entertain the possibility that the rest of Solzhenitsyn’s vision will come to pass. It is an idea that ought to cause the world to be very thoughtful.
Taken from www.stratfor.com
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Vision, Discipline, Passion and Conscience
Express Your Voice: Vision, Discipline, Passion and Conscience (64-93)
“More powerful is he who has himself in his power.” Lucius Amaeus Seneca
The highest expression of the four intelligences: (65-66)
Mental: Vision
Seeing with the mind’s eye what is possible in people, projects, and enterprises that comes when our mind joins need with possibility. When there is no vision, people fall into victimism.
Physical: Discipline
Discipline is paying the price to bring the vision into reality and comes when vision is joined to commitment. When discipline is absent people fall into indulgence, sacrificing what matters most for the pleasure or thrill of the moment.
Emotional: Passion
Passion is the fire, the desire, the strength of conviction and the drive that sustains the discipline to achieve the vision, and it arises when need overlaps with talent. When passion is missing people fall into insecurity and the empty chatter of the social mirror.
Spiritual: Conscience
Conscience is the inward moral sense of what is right and wrong and the drive toward meaning and contribution, and is the guiding force to vision, discipline and passion. When conscience is absent people are dominated by ego.
“Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish of spiritual things, whatever increases the authority of the body over the mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may seem in itself.” Susana Wesley
From The 8th Habit by Stephen R. Covey
“More powerful is he who has himself in his power.” Lucius Amaeus Seneca
The highest expression of the four intelligences: (65-66)
Mental: Vision
Seeing with the mind’s eye what is possible in people, projects, and enterprises that comes when our mind joins need with possibility. When there is no vision, people fall into victimism.
Physical: Discipline
Discipline is paying the price to bring the vision into reality and comes when vision is joined to commitment. When discipline is absent people fall into indulgence, sacrificing what matters most for the pleasure or thrill of the moment.
Emotional: Passion
Passion is the fire, the desire, the strength of conviction and the drive that sustains the discipline to achieve the vision, and it arises when need overlaps with talent. When passion is missing people fall into insecurity and the empty chatter of the social mirror.
Spiritual: Conscience
Conscience is the inward moral sense of what is right and wrong and the drive toward meaning and contribution, and is the guiding force to vision, discipline and passion. When conscience is absent people are dominated by ego.
“Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish of spiritual things, whatever increases the authority of the body over the mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may seem in itself.” Susana Wesley
From The 8th Habit by Stephen R. Covey
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Mormonism and Christianity
1. A Brief History of Mormonism
• Joseph Smith (1805-1844) was the son of a mystic and treasure hunter who also counterfeited currency
• God the Father and the Son appeared to him in 1820 telling him they were upset with the corruption of the church and they wanted him to restore the church to authentic Christianity
• The angel Moroni appeared to him in 1823 revealing where the gold tablets were hidden that later became the basis for the Book of Mormon
• Joseph Smith translated the gold tablets in 1827-29 using special glasses which he published as the Book of Mormon in 1830 and then founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• Joseph Smith and Oliver Crowdery received the Aaronic priesthood from the hand of John the Baptist May 15, 1829 and the Melchizedek priesthood was conferred on them shortly after by Peter, James, and John
• Joseph Smith received 135 more revelations between 1831-44 as he and his followers moved around Ohio and Illinois because of persecution, finally building the town of Nauvoo, Illinois, where Smith was killed while being held for trial for polygamy and treason against the state of Illinois
2. The Book of Mormon
• The Mormons hold 4 books as being divinely inspired: the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon (the last 3 being written by Joseph Smith)
• The Book of Mormon purports to be the history of two ancient civilizations located on the American continent, the first emigrating after the tower of Babel (around 2250 BC), called the Jaredites and the second from Jerusalem (around 600 BC), called the Nephites.
• The Nephites split into two warring camps, with the second being called the Lamanites, who became the native Indians
• The Nephites were annihilated by the Lamanites in 385 AD in a battle near Palmyra, New York
• Problems: No archaeological evidence, Indians are not of Semitic descent, many errors and contradictions, plagarism, and anachronisms
3. Theology
• God once was a man who is now exalted and has a physical body who had to grow and develop, grow and learn
• Jesus was conceived through the physical sexual act of God the Father with Mary
• Jesus is a created being, the older brother of Lucifer, who was once sinful and imperfect but who earned his exaltation to godhood through his virtuous life
• Men are beings created through the sexual relations of the gods who must grow and develop to become gods themselves who will govern their own planets and populate them with celestial babies through sexual relations
4. Salvation
• The goal of life is to achieve exaltation to godhead and rule over one’s own planet
• Salvation is found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• There are two levels of salvation: general salvation is only resurrection, either to damnation or to a lesser existence, while individual salvation is the entrance into the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation to godhood
• While Mormons speak of faith in Jesus, it is a false Jesus and faith is intermingled with works, so that while they use terms like “faith,” “grace,” and “justification” they mean different things than what the Bible teaches
• One is “saved” through personal revelation, physical labor, obedience to leaders, overcoming temptation, intelligence and knowledge, prayer, baptism, laying on of hands, marriage, church membership, tithing, and temple work
5. Ethics
• No gambling, tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, drugs, vulgar language
6. Religious Practices
• Baptism for the dead
• Temple Ceremonies
• Undergarment: Having made covenants of righteousness, the members wear the garment under their regular clothing for the rest of their lives, day and night, partially to remind them of the sacred covenants they have made with God.
7. Mormonism and Christianity
The Mormon Articles of Faith
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
3. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
• Joseph Smith (1805-1844) was the son of a mystic and treasure hunter who also counterfeited currency
• God the Father and the Son appeared to him in 1820 telling him they were upset with the corruption of the church and they wanted him to restore the church to authentic Christianity
• The angel Moroni appeared to him in 1823 revealing where the gold tablets were hidden that later became the basis for the Book of Mormon
• Joseph Smith translated the gold tablets in 1827-29 using special glasses which he published as the Book of Mormon in 1830 and then founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• Joseph Smith and Oliver Crowdery received the Aaronic priesthood from the hand of John the Baptist May 15, 1829 and the Melchizedek priesthood was conferred on them shortly after by Peter, James, and John
• Joseph Smith received 135 more revelations between 1831-44 as he and his followers moved around Ohio and Illinois because of persecution, finally building the town of Nauvoo, Illinois, where Smith was killed while being held for trial for polygamy and treason against the state of Illinois
2. The Book of Mormon
• The Mormons hold 4 books as being divinely inspired: the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon (the last 3 being written by Joseph Smith)
• The Book of Mormon purports to be the history of two ancient civilizations located on the American continent, the first emigrating after the tower of Babel (around 2250 BC), called the Jaredites and the second from Jerusalem (around 600 BC), called the Nephites.
• The Nephites split into two warring camps, with the second being called the Lamanites, who became the native Indians
• The Nephites were annihilated by the Lamanites in 385 AD in a battle near Palmyra, New York
• Problems: No archaeological evidence, Indians are not of Semitic descent, many errors and contradictions, plagarism, and anachronisms
3. Theology
• God once was a man who is now exalted and has a physical body who had to grow and develop, grow and learn
• Jesus was conceived through the physical sexual act of God the Father with Mary
• Jesus is a created being, the older brother of Lucifer, who was once sinful and imperfect but who earned his exaltation to godhood through his virtuous life
• Men are beings created through the sexual relations of the gods who must grow and develop to become gods themselves who will govern their own planets and populate them with celestial babies through sexual relations
4. Salvation
• The goal of life is to achieve exaltation to godhead and rule over one’s own planet
• Salvation is found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• There are two levels of salvation: general salvation is only resurrection, either to damnation or to a lesser existence, while individual salvation is the entrance into the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation to godhood
• While Mormons speak of faith in Jesus, it is a false Jesus and faith is intermingled with works, so that while they use terms like “faith,” “grace,” and “justification” they mean different things than what the Bible teaches
• One is “saved” through personal revelation, physical labor, obedience to leaders, overcoming temptation, intelligence and knowledge, prayer, baptism, laying on of hands, marriage, church membership, tithing, and temple work
5. Ethics
• No gambling, tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, drugs, vulgar language
6. Religious Practices
• Baptism for the dead
• Temple Ceremonies
• Undergarment: Having made covenants of righteousness, the members wear the garment under their regular clothing for the rest of their lives, day and night, partially to remind them of the sacred covenants they have made with God.
7. Mormonism and Christianity
The Mormon Articles of Faith
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
3. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Satanism, Wicca, and Christianity
1. Satanism
• It generally refers to the worship of Satan and/or the practice of magic
• Reverse Christian Satanists worship Satan as he is depicted in the Bible
• The Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor La Vey, the author of the Satanic Bible, teaches its followers to reject God and Christ, follow their own passions and desires, to show kindness to friends but to attack one’s enemies
2. Wicca
• Wicca is a pagan, nature-based religion popularized in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant, who at the time called it Witchcraft and its adherents “the Wicca”
• It is supposedly a modern survival of an old witchcraft religion which had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian paganism of Europe
• Wicca has distinctive ritual forms, seasonal observances and religious, magical and ethical precepts
3. Wicca Beliefs
• Though the vast majority of Wiccans believe in some form of God, and/or gods, most see Wicca as a duotheistic religion worshipping a God and a Goddess, who are seen as complementary polarities, and embodiments of a life-force manifest in nature
• Most Wiccans believe in reincarnation and an afterlife
• Wiccans believe in magic and use spells and rituals to manipulate the physical and spiritual world
4. Wicca Morality
• Morality is summed up in the phrase, “Do what you will”
• You are free to act on any and all impulses while accepting the consequences of those actions
• According to the “Law of Threefold Return” all of your actions, whether benevolent or malevolent, will return back on you in triple force
• Many seek to cultivate the eight virtues: mirth, reverence, honour, humility, strength, beauty, power and compassion
5. Wicca Rituals
• Magic and spells are performed in a circle, often marked by the four elements: air, fire, water, earth; some add a fifth element: spirit
• The pentagram symbolizes the four elements with the spirit leading at the top
• Often a set of magical tools is used: broom (besom), cauldron, chalice, wand, Book of Shadows, altar cloth, athame, boline, candles, crystals, pentacle and/or incensem which are placed on an altar in the middle of the circle
• Special rituals are held on specific days in each season based on the lunar calendar
6. Satanic Rituals
• Members meet Friday nights and at other times depending on the lunar calendar
• Members dress in black and meet after dark in remote locations near trees and water
• Rituals often include dancing, wild music, feasting, sexual acts, confession and renunciation of good deeds, renunciation of God and Jesus, unholy water (urine), toads, inverted crucifixes, incense, crucibles, sulfur and candles
• Sometimes an animal is sacrificed and the blood is spilled onto a naked girl tied to the altar
• Demons and other spiritual beings are called upon and Tarot cards, Ouija boards and crystals are used for divination
7. Satanism, Wicca, and Christianity
• Many people get involved in witchcraft because it offers them power over other people and things, secret knowledge, supernatural experiences, success, and freedom to indulge their desires
• Often a contractual obligation needs to be entered into with demonic forces, either explicitly or implicitly
• Those who delve into witchcraft and Satanism open themselves up to demonic oppression and possession
• Satanism, more than Wicca, is anti-Christian in that it seeks to pervert and contradict Christian theology and practice
• The Bible repeatedly condemns witchcraft, sorcery, spells, divination, magic and the like
• The powers behind witchcraft and Satanism are not friendly, but are opposed to God and will seek to destroy man
• Satan often transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive men into following him
• Much of what passes for witchcraft is fake but there are real forces behind some who claim such powers
Ex. 22:18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.
Lev. 19:26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. “‘Do not practice divination or sorcery.
Lev. 19:31 “‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.
Lev. 20:6 “‘I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.
Lev. 20:27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”
Deut. 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
Deut. 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
Deut. 18:11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Deut. 18:14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so.
1Sam. 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
1Sam. 28:3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in his own town of Ramah. Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land.
1Sam. 28:7 Saul then said to his attendants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.” “There is one in Endor,” they said.
2Kings 17:17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
2Kings 21:6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
2Kings 23:24 Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD.
1Chr. 10:13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance,
Is. 8:19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Is. 19:3 The Egyptians will lose heart, and I will bring their plans to nothing; they will consult the idols and the spirits of the dead, the mediums and the spiritists.
Is. 47:12 “Keep on, then, with your magic spells and with your many sorceries, which you have labored at since childhood. Perhaps you will succeed, perhaps you will cause terror.
Is. 47:13 All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you.
Jer. 27:9 So do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your interpreters of dreams, your mediums or your sorcerers who tell you, ‘You will not serve the king of Babylon.’
Jer. 27:10 They prophesy lies to you that will only serve to remove you far from your lands; I will banish you and you will perish.
Dan. 2:2 So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king,
Mal. 3:5 “So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.
Acts 8:9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great,
Acts 8:11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic.
Acts 13:6 They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-jesus,
Acts 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith.
Acts 16:16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling.
Gal. 5:20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
Gal. 5:21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Rev. 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Rev. 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
• It generally refers to the worship of Satan and/or the practice of magic
• Reverse Christian Satanists worship Satan as he is depicted in the Bible
• The Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor La Vey, the author of the Satanic Bible, teaches its followers to reject God and Christ, follow their own passions and desires, to show kindness to friends but to attack one’s enemies
2. Wicca
• Wicca is a pagan, nature-based religion popularized in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant, who at the time called it Witchcraft and its adherents “the Wicca”
• It is supposedly a modern survival of an old witchcraft religion which had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian paganism of Europe
• Wicca has distinctive ritual forms, seasonal observances and religious, magical and ethical precepts
3. Wicca Beliefs
• Though the vast majority of Wiccans believe in some form of God, and/or gods, most see Wicca as a duotheistic religion worshipping a God and a Goddess, who are seen as complementary polarities, and embodiments of a life-force manifest in nature
• Most Wiccans believe in reincarnation and an afterlife
• Wiccans believe in magic and use spells and rituals to manipulate the physical and spiritual world
4. Wicca Morality
• Morality is summed up in the phrase, “Do what you will”
• You are free to act on any and all impulses while accepting the consequences of those actions
• According to the “Law of Threefold Return” all of your actions, whether benevolent or malevolent, will return back on you in triple force
• Many seek to cultivate the eight virtues: mirth, reverence, honour, humility, strength, beauty, power and compassion
5. Wicca Rituals
• Magic and spells are performed in a circle, often marked by the four elements: air, fire, water, earth; some add a fifth element: spirit
• The pentagram symbolizes the four elements with the spirit leading at the top
• Often a set of magical tools is used: broom (besom), cauldron, chalice, wand, Book of Shadows, altar cloth, athame, boline, candles, crystals, pentacle and/or incensem which are placed on an altar in the middle of the circle
• Special rituals are held on specific days in each season based on the lunar calendar
6. Satanic Rituals
• Members meet Friday nights and at other times depending on the lunar calendar
• Members dress in black and meet after dark in remote locations near trees and water
• Rituals often include dancing, wild music, feasting, sexual acts, confession and renunciation of good deeds, renunciation of God and Jesus, unholy water (urine), toads, inverted crucifixes, incense, crucibles, sulfur and candles
• Sometimes an animal is sacrificed and the blood is spilled onto a naked girl tied to the altar
• Demons and other spiritual beings are called upon and Tarot cards, Ouija boards and crystals are used for divination
7. Satanism, Wicca, and Christianity
• Many people get involved in witchcraft because it offers them power over other people and things, secret knowledge, supernatural experiences, success, and freedom to indulge their desires
• Often a contractual obligation needs to be entered into with demonic forces, either explicitly or implicitly
• Those who delve into witchcraft and Satanism open themselves up to demonic oppression and possession
• Satanism, more than Wicca, is anti-Christian in that it seeks to pervert and contradict Christian theology and practice
• The Bible repeatedly condemns witchcraft, sorcery, spells, divination, magic and the like
• The powers behind witchcraft and Satanism are not friendly, but are opposed to God and will seek to destroy man
• Satan often transforms himself into an angel of light in order to deceive men into following him
• Much of what passes for witchcraft is fake but there are real forces behind some who claim such powers
Ex. 22:18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.
Lev. 19:26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. “‘Do not practice divination or sorcery.
Lev. 19:31 “‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.
Lev. 20:6 “‘I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.
Lev. 20:27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”
Deut. 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
Deut. 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
Deut. 18:11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Deut. 18:14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so.
1Sam. 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
1Sam. 28:3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in his own town of Ramah. Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land.
1Sam. 28:7 Saul then said to his attendants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.” “There is one in Endor,” they said.
2Kings 17:17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
2Kings 21:6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
2Kings 23:24 Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD.
1Chr. 10:13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance,
Is. 8:19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Is. 19:3 The Egyptians will lose heart, and I will bring their plans to nothing; they will consult the idols and the spirits of the dead, the mediums and the spiritists.
Is. 47:12 “Keep on, then, with your magic spells and with your many sorceries, which you have labored at since childhood. Perhaps you will succeed, perhaps you will cause terror.
Is. 47:13 All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you.
Jer. 27:9 So do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your interpreters of dreams, your mediums or your sorcerers who tell you, ‘You will not serve the king of Babylon.’
Jer. 27:10 They prophesy lies to you that will only serve to remove you far from your lands; I will banish you and you will perish.
Dan. 2:2 So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king,
Mal. 3:5 “So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.
Acts 8:9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great,
Acts 8:11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic.
Acts 13:6 They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-jesus,
Acts 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith.
Acts 16:16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling.
Gal. 5:20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
Gal. 5:21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Rev. 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Rev. 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Judaism and Christianity
1. Branches of Judaism
• Orthodox (Both the Written and Oral Torah were divinely revealed to Moses, and are binding and unchanging)
• Hassidic (Orthodox Jews who follow one rabbi, wear distinctive dress and follow strict customs)
• Conservative (Jewish Law is dynamic and modern developments embraced in order to accommodate modernity)
• Reformed (Liberal and open to individual choice since the oral law is not binding today)
• Secular (Jews, especially those living in Israel, who ignore religious practices)
2. Theology
• 13 Principles of Maimonides (1135-1204 AD)
3. Scriptures and Major Writings
• Tanakh (Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim)
• Targum (Translations and interpretation)
• Talmud (Jerusalem vs. Babylonian)
• Mishnah (Compiled oral tradition) and Gemara (Rabbinic commentary)
• Midrash (Rabbinic exegesis and interpretation)
4. Holidays and Holy Days
• The Sabbath (weekly day of rest lasting from sundown on Friday night to sundown Saturday night)
• Passover
• Pentecost or Feast of Weeks (First fruits of the wheat harvest)
• Feast of Tabernacles
• Hashashanah (New Year)
• Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)
• Hannukah (Festival of Lights)
5. Diet, Clothing and Lifestyle
• Kosher dietary laws
• Yarmulke (skull cap)
• Tzitzit (fringes or tassels)
• Tefillin (boxes containing scripture worn on the forehead and left arem during festivals)
• Kittel (white knee-length outer garment worn during prayer and holy days)
• Prayers are recited three times daily
• Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah
6. Messianic Hope
• Traditional thought and current Orthodox thought has mainly held that the Messiah will be an anointed one (messiah), descended from his father through the Davidic line of King David, who will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel and usher in an era of peace
• Other denominations, such as Reform Judaism, perceive a Messianic Age when the world will be at peace, but do not agree that there will be a Messiah as the leader of this era
• Hasidic Jews tend to have a particularly strong and passionate belief in the immediacy of the Messiah's coming, and a belief that their personal devotion and actions have spiritual properties that can hasten the arrival
• Reform Judaism generally does not accept the idea that there will be a messiah. Some believe that there may be some sort of "messianic age" in the sense of a "utopia," which all Jews are obligated to work towards
7. Judaism and Christianity
• Approach each individual according to his or her denominational leaning
• Realize that it is difficult for Jews to convert to Christianity because of family pressure and historical mistreatment
• Study the Jewish festivals and practices so that you can find common ground and explain how Jesus fulfills the OT
• Focus on Jesus as the Messiah as the fulfillment of OT prophecy (if not Jesus, who else even comes close?)
• A true Jew is a Jew who is one inwardly not merely outwardly; good works and ritual will not save you
• Orthodox (Both the Written and Oral Torah were divinely revealed to Moses, and are binding and unchanging)
• Hassidic (Orthodox Jews who follow one rabbi, wear distinctive dress and follow strict customs)
• Conservative (Jewish Law is dynamic and modern developments embraced in order to accommodate modernity)
• Reformed (Liberal and open to individual choice since the oral law is not binding today)
• Secular (Jews, especially those living in Israel, who ignore religious practices)
2. Theology
• 13 Principles of Maimonides (1135-1204 AD)
3. Scriptures and Major Writings
• Tanakh (Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim)
• Targum (Translations and interpretation)
• Talmud (Jerusalem vs. Babylonian)
• Mishnah (Compiled oral tradition) and Gemara (Rabbinic commentary)
• Midrash (Rabbinic exegesis and interpretation)
4. Holidays and Holy Days
• The Sabbath (weekly day of rest lasting from sundown on Friday night to sundown Saturday night)
• Passover
• Pentecost or Feast of Weeks (First fruits of the wheat harvest)
• Feast of Tabernacles
• Hashashanah (New Year)
• Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)
• Hannukah (Festival of Lights)
5. Diet, Clothing and Lifestyle
• Kosher dietary laws
• Yarmulke (skull cap)
• Tzitzit (fringes or tassels)
• Tefillin (boxes containing scripture worn on the forehead and left arem during festivals)
• Kittel (white knee-length outer garment worn during prayer and holy days)
• Prayers are recited three times daily
• Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah
6. Messianic Hope
• Traditional thought and current Orthodox thought has mainly held that the Messiah will be an anointed one (messiah), descended from his father through the Davidic line of King David, who will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel and usher in an era of peace
• Other denominations, such as Reform Judaism, perceive a Messianic Age when the world will be at peace, but do not agree that there will be a Messiah as the leader of this era
• Hasidic Jews tend to have a particularly strong and passionate belief in the immediacy of the Messiah's coming, and a belief that their personal devotion and actions have spiritual properties that can hasten the arrival
• Reform Judaism generally does not accept the idea that there will be a messiah. Some believe that there may be some sort of "messianic age" in the sense of a "utopia," which all Jews are obligated to work towards
7. Judaism and Christianity
• Approach each individual according to his or her denominational leaning
• Realize that it is difficult for Jews to convert to Christianity because of family pressure and historical mistreatment
• Study the Jewish festivals and practices so that you can find common ground and explain how Jesus fulfills the OT
• Focus on Jesus as the Messiah as the fulfillment of OT prophecy (if not Jesus, who else even comes close?)
• A true Jew is a Jew who is one inwardly not merely outwardly; good works and ritual will not save you
Islam and Christianity
1. God
• Muslims are strict monotheists who worship one supreme God named Allah
• Islam means submission to Allah and a Muslim is one who submits fully to God’s will
• Muslims believe Christians are polytheists since they see the Trinity as three separate gods
2. Quran
• The word Quran means “recitation” and refers to the oral verses in Arabic, but broadly refers to the written record also
• It is the literal word of God recorded by the prophet Mohammed through the angel Gabriel between 610 and 632 AD
• It is divided into 114 chapters, which combined, contain 6,236 verses.
3. Angels
• Angels, or messengers (malak), are crucial to Islam
• Angels do not have free will and must worship and obey God perfectly
• Angels' duties include communicating revelations from God, glorifying God, recording every person's actions, and taking a person's soul at the time of death
4. Mohammed
• Mohammed (570-632) was a religious, political and military leader who received revelations from God which were recorded in the Quran
• Muslims view him not as the creator of a new religion but the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others
• Mohammed preached in Mecca for 13 years calling the people to leave polytheism, only to be expelled and settled in Medina in 622. After a series of battles he captured Mecca in 629 and controlled the whole Arabian peninsula in 632
5. Resurrection, Judgment and Predestination
• All men will be resurrected to face judgment to be either rewarded or punished for their deeds done in life on this earth
• Some sins, such as unbelief, usury and dishonesty, will automatically condemn a man to hell
• Paradise is an eternal dwelling place of the righteous filled with physical pleasures and joy in God’s presence
• God has complete foreknowledge and absolute control over all events: “Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He is our protector”
6. The Five Pillars of Islam
• The shahadah: “There is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger”
• Salah: ritual prayer performed five times a day
• Zakat: almsgiving is the practice of giving based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all Muslims
• Sawm: fasting during the month of Ramadan
• The Hajj: the pilgrimage during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah in the city of Mecca.
7. Law, Diet and Jihad
• Sharia is Muslim based on traditional Islamic scholarship and covers every aspect of life
• Like Jews, Muslims cannot eat pork, shellfish, and alcohol
• Jihad is “exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation”
8. Major Branches of Islam
• Sunni (85%) believe that the caliph must be elected
• Shia (15%) believe that the caliph must come from the line of Mohammed through his son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib
• Sufism is not a denomination but a mystical-ascetic form of Islam which strives to obtain direct experience of God
9. Islam and Christianity
• It is very difficult for a Muslim to convert to Christianity because of severe social pressure
• Muslims believe the Old Testament is true and the Jesus was a prophet like Mohammed
• Allah tends to be viewed as very distant and unknowable, so focus on having a personal relationship with Jesus
• Islam is very legalistic and harsh, so win them through love and compassion and Christ’s forgiveness
• Muslims are strict monotheists who worship one supreme God named Allah
• Islam means submission to Allah and a Muslim is one who submits fully to God’s will
• Muslims believe Christians are polytheists since they see the Trinity as three separate gods
2. Quran
• The word Quran means “recitation” and refers to the oral verses in Arabic, but broadly refers to the written record also
• It is the literal word of God recorded by the prophet Mohammed through the angel Gabriel between 610 and 632 AD
• It is divided into 114 chapters, which combined, contain 6,236 verses.
3. Angels
• Angels, or messengers (malak), are crucial to Islam
• Angels do not have free will and must worship and obey God perfectly
• Angels' duties include communicating revelations from God, glorifying God, recording every person's actions, and taking a person's soul at the time of death
4. Mohammed
• Mohammed (570-632) was a religious, political and military leader who received revelations from God which were recorded in the Quran
• Muslims view him not as the creator of a new religion but the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others
• Mohammed preached in Mecca for 13 years calling the people to leave polytheism, only to be expelled and settled in Medina in 622. After a series of battles he captured Mecca in 629 and controlled the whole Arabian peninsula in 632
5. Resurrection, Judgment and Predestination
• All men will be resurrected to face judgment to be either rewarded or punished for their deeds done in life on this earth
• Some sins, such as unbelief, usury and dishonesty, will automatically condemn a man to hell
• Paradise is an eternal dwelling place of the righteous filled with physical pleasures and joy in God’s presence
• God has complete foreknowledge and absolute control over all events: “Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He is our protector”
6. The Five Pillars of Islam
• The shahadah: “There is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger”
• Salah: ritual prayer performed five times a day
• Zakat: almsgiving is the practice of giving based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all Muslims
• Sawm: fasting during the month of Ramadan
• The Hajj: the pilgrimage during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah in the city of Mecca.
7. Law, Diet and Jihad
• Sharia is Muslim based on traditional Islamic scholarship and covers every aspect of life
• Like Jews, Muslims cannot eat pork, shellfish, and alcohol
• Jihad is “exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation”
8. Major Branches of Islam
• Sunni (85%) believe that the caliph must be elected
• Shia (15%) believe that the caliph must come from the line of Mohammed through his son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib
• Sufism is not a denomination but a mystical-ascetic form of Islam which strives to obtain direct experience of God
9. Islam and Christianity
• It is very difficult for a Muslim to convert to Christianity because of severe social pressure
• Muslims believe the Old Testament is true and the Jesus was a prophet like Mohammed
• Allah tends to be viewed as very distant and unknowable, so focus on having a personal relationship with Jesus
• Islam is very legalistic and harsh, so win them through love and compassion and Christ’s forgiveness
Hinduism and Christianity
1. The Hindu Concept of God
• There a many different schools of thought in Hinduism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism
• The soul (Atman) is eternal
• For many Hindus, Atman is Braman and Braman is Atman (God and the soul are the same)
• Others see God as a supreme being separate from the soul and worship him as Vishnu, Brama, Shiva or Shakti
2. Devas and Avatars
• Heavenly beings or gods are very integral to Hindu culture
• Most Hindus distinguish devas from their Ishvara, their concept of a personal supreme God
• There are stories of God descending to earth in bodily form, called an avatar, to restore dharma (ethics) in society and guide men to moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth)
3. Karma and Samsara
• Karma means action, work or deed, and can be called the moral law of cause and effect
• Samsara is the cycle of action, reaction, birth, death, and rebirth
• Moksha is the liberation from samsara, the letting go of ephemeral pleasure for eternal happiness and peace (nirvana)
• One’s atman (soul) then achieves union with Brahman (the cosmic spirit)
4. The Hindu Concept of the Goal of Life
• Classical Hindu thought accepts two main life-long dharmas: Grihastha Dharma and Sannyasin Dharma
• The Grihastha Dharma recognize four goals known as the purusharthas. They are:
1. Kama: Sensual pleasure and enjoyment
2. Artha: Material prosperity and success
3. Dharma: Correct action, in accordance with one's particular duty and scriptural laws
4. Moksha: Liberation from the cycle of samsara
• The Sannyasin Dharma recognizes, but renounces Kama, Artha and Dharma, focusing entirely on Moksha
5. Yoga
• The methods one chooses to achieve the goal of life are called Yogas, and a person can follow more than one Yoga
• A teacher of one of these methods is called a Yogi
• Paths one can follow to achieve the spiritual goal of life (moksha, samadhi, or nirvana) include:
1. Bhakti Yoga (the path of love and devotion),
2. Karma Yoga (the path of right action),
3. Raja Yoga (the path of meditation) and
4. Jnana Yoga (the path of wisdom)
6. Hindu Scriptures
• Shruti (lit: that which is heard) refers to the Vedas which form the earliest record of the Hindu scriptures (There are four Vedas: Rigveda, Samaveda Yajusveda and Atharvaveda)
• All other Hindu texts are called the Smritis (memory) and include the Mahabharata, Puranas, and the Ramayana
• The Bhagavad Gita is an integral part of the Mahabharata and one of the most popular sacred texts of Hinduism
7. Hindu Practices, Rituals, Pilgrimages and Festivals
• Hindus can engage in puja (worship or veneration), either at home or at a temple
• Hindus perform their worship through icons (murtis) which serve as a tangible link between the worshiper and God
• Mantras are invocations, praise and prayers that through their meaning, sound, and chanting style help a devotee focus the mind on holy thoughts or express devotion to God
8. Hinduism and Christianity
• Realize that Hiinduism is rooted deeply in the culture so that religion and culture often cannot be separated
• Always look for common ground upon which to build bridges
• Don’t attack but seek to clearly present Christ in a way that is clearly understood and not misunderstood
• Be careful when using the phrase “born again” since it means something entirely different to a Hindu
• There a many different schools of thought in Hinduism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism
• The soul (Atman) is eternal
• For many Hindus, Atman is Braman and Braman is Atman (God and the soul are the same)
• Others see God as a supreme being separate from the soul and worship him as Vishnu, Brama, Shiva or Shakti
2. Devas and Avatars
• Heavenly beings or gods are very integral to Hindu culture
• Most Hindus distinguish devas from their Ishvara, their concept of a personal supreme God
• There are stories of God descending to earth in bodily form, called an avatar, to restore dharma (ethics) in society and guide men to moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth)
3. Karma and Samsara
• Karma means action, work or deed, and can be called the moral law of cause and effect
• Samsara is the cycle of action, reaction, birth, death, and rebirth
• Moksha is the liberation from samsara, the letting go of ephemeral pleasure for eternal happiness and peace (nirvana)
• One’s atman (soul) then achieves union with Brahman (the cosmic spirit)
4. The Hindu Concept of the Goal of Life
• Classical Hindu thought accepts two main life-long dharmas: Grihastha Dharma and Sannyasin Dharma
• The Grihastha Dharma recognize four goals known as the purusharthas. They are:
1. Kama: Sensual pleasure and enjoyment
2. Artha: Material prosperity and success
3. Dharma: Correct action, in accordance with one's particular duty and scriptural laws
4. Moksha: Liberation from the cycle of samsara
• The Sannyasin Dharma recognizes, but renounces Kama, Artha and Dharma, focusing entirely on Moksha
5. Yoga
• The methods one chooses to achieve the goal of life are called Yogas, and a person can follow more than one Yoga
• A teacher of one of these methods is called a Yogi
• Paths one can follow to achieve the spiritual goal of life (moksha, samadhi, or nirvana) include:
1. Bhakti Yoga (the path of love and devotion),
2. Karma Yoga (the path of right action),
3. Raja Yoga (the path of meditation) and
4. Jnana Yoga (the path of wisdom)
6. Hindu Scriptures
• Shruti (lit: that which is heard) refers to the Vedas which form the earliest record of the Hindu scriptures (There are four Vedas: Rigveda, Samaveda Yajusveda and Atharvaveda)
• All other Hindu texts are called the Smritis (memory) and include the Mahabharata, Puranas, and the Ramayana
• The Bhagavad Gita is an integral part of the Mahabharata and one of the most popular sacred texts of Hinduism
7. Hindu Practices, Rituals, Pilgrimages and Festivals
• Hindus can engage in puja (worship or veneration), either at home or at a temple
• Hindus perform their worship through icons (murtis) which serve as a tangible link between the worshiper and God
• Mantras are invocations, praise and prayers that through their meaning, sound, and chanting style help a devotee focus the mind on holy thoughts or express devotion to God
8. Hinduism and Christianity
• Realize that Hiinduism is rooted deeply in the culture so that religion and culture often cannot be separated
• Always look for common ground upon which to build bridges
• Don’t attack but seek to clearly present Christ in a way that is clearly understood and not misunderstood
• Be careful when using the phrase “born again” since it means something entirely different to a Hindu
Buddhism and Christianity
1. Who was the Buddha?
• Siddhartha Gautama was an Indian prince who left the palace and encountered suffering, sickness, and death for the first time
• He followed a Yogi for six years in an intensive ascetic effort to achieve enlightenment and freedom from suffering, but found it only made things worse
• He realized that the true way lies in the middle path, avoiding both indulgence and asceticism
• He sat down under a tree and through meditation achieved freedom from suffering
• He then traveled for 45 years teaching others the Dharma, the way to achieve enlightenment, reach Nirvana, and gain freedom from suffering
2. The Four Noble Truths
• Suffering is the experience of all beings
• Suffering is caused by desire, grasping and struggling
• Suffering is eliminated by letting go of all desires and things
• The end of suffering (Nirvana) is achieved through the eightfold path
3. The Eightfold Path
• Right Understanding: See the world as it is and that all things change
• Right Attitude: Stop trying to manipulate others and the world and be open-minded and positive
• Right Speech: Speak the truth simply, gently, and boldly in a way that is kind and useful to others
• Right Action: Discipline yourself to live compassionately with all other beings and not harm others
• Right Livelihood: Support yourself through honest labor that does not bring harm to others but serves others
• Right Effort: Stop struggling and allow yourself to work effortlessly and experience all of life
• Right Mindfulness: Do everything with precision and clarity with total awareness
• Right Concentration: Always be fully engaged in the present moment with a quiet mind
4. The Buddhist Vow (Three Refuges)
• To take refuge in the Buddha (see Buddha nature of all creatures)
• To take refuge in the Dharma (truth)
• To take refuge in the Sangha (community)
• To take the five precepts of Compassion
* To not cause harm by killing, stealing, lying, misusing sexuality & intoxicants but revere life in all forms
5. Forms of Buddhism
• Southeast Asia (Theravada: the way of the elders, monastic)
• East Asia (Zen or Mahayana: lay practitioners, each follower seeks to become a Buddha)
• Tibet (Tibetan: devotion and prayer, many Buddhas such as the Dhali Lama)
6. Buddhism and Christianity
• Suffering is the experience of all beings and Christ embraced all of that suffering on the cross
• Suffering is caused by human ego and self-centeredness that is dealt with by Christ on the cross
• Love, compassion, kindness, gentleness, non-violence are teachings of Jesus and flow from the Holy Spirit in us
• Buddha could only show the way; Jesus is the way
• Buddha only found enlightenment in this world; Jesus brings us into eternal life
• Buddhism is based on human effort while Christianity is based on faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross
• Jesus is the Light of the world and He alone gives us true understanding and enlightenment
7. Talking with Buddhists
• Ask a lot of questions and seek clarification so you know exactly what he or she believes before saying anything
• Realize that Buddhism is rooted deeply in the culture so that religion and culture often cannot be separated
• Always look for common ground upon which to build bridges
• Don’t attack but seek to clearly present Christ in a way that is clearly understood and not misunderstood
• Buddhists tend to be polytheists or non-theists depending on which region they come from
• Siddhartha Gautama was an Indian prince who left the palace and encountered suffering, sickness, and death for the first time
• He followed a Yogi for six years in an intensive ascetic effort to achieve enlightenment and freedom from suffering, but found it only made things worse
• He realized that the true way lies in the middle path, avoiding both indulgence and asceticism
• He sat down under a tree and through meditation achieved freedom from suffering
• He then traveled for 45 years teaching others the Dharma, the way to achieve enlightenment, reach Nirvana, and gain freedom from suffering
2. The Four Noble Truths
• Suffering is the experience of all beings
• Suffering is caused by desire, grasping and struggling
• Suffering is eliminated by letting go of all desires and things
• The end of suffering (Nirvana) is achieved through the eightfold path
3. The Eightfold Path
• Right Understanding: See the world as it is and that all things change
• Right Attitude: Stop trying to manipulate others and the world and be open-minded and positive
• Right Speech: Speak the truth simply, gently, and boldly in a way that is kind and useful to others
• Right Action: Discipline yourself to live compassionately with all other beings and not harm others
• Right Livelihood: Support yourself through honest labor that does not bring harm to others but serves others
• Right Effort: Stop struggling and allow yourself to work effortlessly and experience all of life
• Right Mindfulness: Do everything with precision and clarity with total awareness
• Right Concentration: Always be fully engaged in the present moment with a quiet mind
4. The Buddhist Vow (Three Refuges)
• To take refuge in the Buddha (see Buddha nature of all creatures)
• To take refuge in the Dharma (truth)
• To take refuge in the Sangha (community)
• To take the five precepts of Compassion
* To not cause harm by killing, stealing, lying, misusing sexuality & intoxicants but revere life in all forms
5. Forms of Buddhism
• Southeast Asia (Theravada: the way of the elders, monastic)
• East Asia (Zen or Mahayana: lay practitioners, each follower seeks to become a Buddha)
• Tibet (Tibetan: devotion and prayer, many Buddhas such as the Dhali Lama)
6. Buddhism and Christianity
• Suffering is the experience of all beings and Christ embraced all of that suffering on the cross
• Suffering is caused by human ego and self-centeredness that is dealt with by Christ on the cross
• Love, compassion, kindness, gentleness, non-violence are teachings of Jesus and flow from the Holy Spirit in us
• Buddha could only show the way; Jesus is the way
• Buddha only found enlightenment in this world; Jesus brings us into eternal life
• Buddhism is based on human effort while Christianity is based on faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross
• Jesus is the Light of the world and He alone gives us true understanding and enlightenment
7. Talking with Buddhists
• Ask a lot of questions and seek clarification so you know exactly what he or she believes before saying anything
• Realize that Buddhism is rooted deeply in the culture so that religion and culture often cannot be separated
• Always look for common ground upon which to build bridges
• Don’t attack but seek to clearly present Christ in a way that is clearly understood and not misunderstood
• Buddhists tend to be polytheists or non-theists depending on which region they come from
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Iraq: Positive Signs
Here is an interesting article from Stratfor.com.
Iraq: Positive Signs
By George Friedman
The latest reports concerning the war in Iraq suggest the situation is looking up for the United States. First, U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties continue to fall. Second, there are confirmed reports that Sunni insurgents controlled by local leaders have turned on al Qaeda militants, particularly those from outside the country. Third, the head of U.S. Central Command, in an interview with the Financial Times, implied that an attack against Iran is a distant possibility.
It is tempting to say the United States has turned the corner on the war. The temptation might not be misplaced, but after many disappointments since 2003, it is prudent to be cautious in declaring turning points -- and it is equally prudent not to confuse a turning point with a victory. That said, given expectations that the United States would be unable to limit violence in Iraq, and that Sunni insurgents would remain implacable -- not to mention the broad expectation of a U.S. attack against Iran -- these three points indicate a reversal -- and must be taken seriously.
The most startling point is the decline in casualties, and particularly the apparent decline in sectarian violence. Explaining this is difficult. It could simply be the result of the more efficient use of U.S. troops in suppressing the insurgency and controlling the Shiite militias. If that were the only explanation, however, it would be troubling. Standard guerrilla warfare doctrine holds that during periods of intense enemy counterinsurgency operations, guerrillas should cease fighting, hide weapons and equipment and blend into the civilian population. Only after the enemy shifts its area of operations or reduces operational tempo should the guerrillas resume combat operations. Under no circumstances should insurgents attempt to fight a surge.
Therefore, if we were considering U.S. military operations alone, few conclusions could be drawn until after the operations shifted or slowed. In addition, in a country of 25 million, the expectation that some 167,000 troops -- many of them not directly involved in combat -- could break the back of an entrenched insurgency is optimistic. The numbers simply don't work, particularly when Shiite militias are added to the equation. Therefore, if viewed simply in terms of military operations, the decline in casualties would not validate a shift in the war until much later, and our expectation is that the insurgency would resume prior levels of activity over time.
What makes the situation more hopeful for the United States is the clear decline in civilian casualties. Most of those were caused not by U.S. combat operations but by sectarian conflict, particularly between Sunnis and Shia. Part of the decline can be explained by U.S. operations, but when we look at the scope and intensity of sectarian fighting, it is difficult to give U.S. operations full credit. A more likely explanation is political, a decision on the part of the various sectarian organizations to stop operations not only against the Americans but also against each other.
There were two wars going on in Iraq. One was against the United States. The more important war, from the Iraqi point of view, was the Sunni-Shiite struggle to determine who would control Iraq's future. Part of this struggle, particularly on the Shiite side, was intrasectarian violence. All of it was political and, in a real sense, it was life and death. It involved the control of neighborhoods, of ministries, of the police force and so on. It was a struggle over the shape of everyday life. If either side simply abandoned the struggle, it would leave a vacuum for the other. U.S. operations or not, that civil war could not be suspended. To a significant extent, however, it has been suspended.
That means that some political decisions were made, at least on the local level and likely at higher levels as well, as several U.S. authorities have implied recently. Civilian casualties from the civil war would not have dropped as much as they have without some sort of political decisions to restrain forces, and those decisions could not be made unilaterally or simply in response to U.S. military pressure. It required a set of at least temporary political arrangements. And that, in many ways, is more promising than simply a decline because of U.S. combat operations. The political arrangements open the door to the possibility that the decline in casualties is likely to be longer lasting.
This brings us to the second point, the attacks by the Sunnis against the jihadists. Immediately after the invasion in 2003, the United States essentially attempted to strip the Sunnis -- the foundation of Saddam Hussein's strength -- of their power. The U.S. de-Baathification laws had the effect of eliminating the Sunni community's participation in the future of Iraq. Viewing the Shia -- the victims of Hussein's rule -- as likely interested not only in dominating Iraq but also in retribution against the Sunnis, the Sunni leadership, particularly at the local level, supported and instigated an insurgency against U.S. forces. The political purpose of the insurgency was to force the United States to shift its pro-Shiite policy and include the Sunnis, from religious to Baathist, in the regime.
Given the insurgency's political purpose, the power of U.S. forces and the well-organized Shiite militias, the Iraqi Sunnis were prepared to form alliances wherever they could find them. A leading source of support for the Iraqi Sunnis came from outside Iraq, among the Sunni jihadist fighters who organized themselves under the banner of al Qaeda and, weapons in hand, infiltrated the country from outside, particular through Syria.
Nevertheless, there was underlying tension between the local Sunnis and the jihadists. The Iraqi Sunnis were part of the local power structure, many having been involved in the essentially secular Baath Party, and others, more religious, having remained outside the regime but ruled by traditional tribal systems. The foreign jihadists were revolutionaries not only in the sense that they were prepared to fight the Americans but also in that they wanted to revolutionize -- radically Islamize -- the local Sunni community. By extension, they wanted to supplant the local leadership with their own by supporting and elevating new local leaders dependent for their survival on al Qaeda power.
For an extended period of time, the United States saw the Sunni insurgency as consisting of a single fabric. The local insurgents and the jihadists were viewed as the same, and the adopted name of the jihadists, al Qaeda, caused the Americans to see them as the primary enemy. Over time, and particularly since the death of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the United States has adopted a more nuanced view of the Sunni insurgency, drawing a distinction between the largely native Iraqi insurgents and the largely foreign jihadists.
Once this occurred and the United States began to make overtures to the native Iraqi insurgents, the underlying tensions between the foreign jihadists and the Iraqi insurgents emerged. The Sunnis, over time, came to see the jihadists as a greater danger to them than the Americans, and by the time U.S. President George W. Bush last visited Iraq, several Sunni leaders were prepared to be seen publicly with him. The growing animosities eventually turned into active warfare between the two factions, with al Qaeda being outnumbered and outgunned and the natives enjoying all of the perks of having the home-court advantage.
From the U.S. point of view, splitting the Sunni insurgency politically and militarily was important not only for the obvious reasons but also for influencing the Shia. From a Shiite point of view -- and now let's introduce Iran, the primary external backer of Iraq's Shiites -- the worst-case scenario would be the re-establishment of a predominantly Sunni government in Baghdad backed by the U.S. military. The political accommodation between the United States and the Iraqi Sunnis represented a direct threat to the Shia.
It is important to recall that Hussein and his Baathist predecessors -- all Sunnis leading a predominantly Sunni government -- were able to dominate the more numerous Shia for decades. The reason was that the Shia were highly fragmented politically, more so than the Sunnis. This historic factionalization made the Shia much weaker than their numbers would have indicated. It was no accident that the Sunnis dominated the Shia.
And the Shia remained fragmented. While the Sunnis were fighting an external force, the Shia were fighting both the Sunnis and one another. Given those circumstances, it was not inconceivable that the United States would try, and perhaps succeed, to re-establish the status quo ante of a united Iraq under a Sunni government -- backed by U.S. power until Iraq could regenerate its own force. Of course, that represented a reversal of the original U.S. goal of establishing a Shiite regime.
For Iran, this was an intolerable outcome because it would again raise the possibility of an Iran-Iraq war -- in which Iran might take another million casualties. The Iranian response was to use its influence among the competing Shiite militias to attack the Sunnis and to inflict casualties on American troops, hoping to force a withdrawal. Paradoxically, while the jihadists are the Iranians' foe, they were useful to Tehran because the more they attacked the Shia -- and the more the Shia retaliated -- the more the Sunnis and al Qaeda aligned -- which kept the United States and the Sunnis apart. Iran, in other words, wanted a united Sunni-jihadist movement because it would wreck the emerging political arrangements. In addition, when the Iranians realized that the Democrats in the U.S. Congress were not going to force a U.S. withdrawal, their calculations about the future changed.
Caught between al Qaeda and the militias, the Sunnis were under intense pressure. The United States responded by conducting operations against the jihadists -- trying to limit engagements with Iraqi Sunni insurgents -- and most important, against Shiite militias. The goal was to hold the Sunnis in the emerging political matrix while damaging the militias that were engaging the Sunnis. The United States was trying increase the cost to the Shia of adhering to the Iranian strategy.
At the same time, the United States sought to intimidate the Iranians by raising, and trying to make very real, the possibility that the United States would attack them as well. As we have argued, the U.S. military options are limited, so an attack would make little military sense. The Iranians, however, could not be certain that the United States was being rational about the whole thing, which was pretty much what the United States wanted. The United States wanted the Shia in Iraq to see the various costs of following the Iranian line -- including creating a Sunni-dominated government -- while convincing the Iranians that they were in grave danger of American military action.
In this context, we find the third point particularly interesting. Adm. William Fallon's interview with the Financial Times -- in which he went out of its way to downplay the American military threat to Iran -- was not given by accident. Fallon does not agree to interviews without clearance. The United States was using the interview to telegraph to Iran that it should not have undue fear of an American attack.
The United States can easily turn up the heat again psychologically, though for the moment it has chosen to lower it. By doing so, we assume Washington is sending two messages to Iran. First, it is acknowledging that creating a predominantly Sunni government is not its first choice. Also, it is rewarding Iran for the decline in violence by the Shiite militias, which undoubtedly required Tehran to shift its orders to its covert operatives in Iraq.
The important question is whether we are seeing a turning point in Iraq. The answer is that it appears so, but not primarily because of the effectiveness of U.S. military operations. Rather, it is the result of U.S. military operations coupled with a much more complex and sophisticated approach to Iraq. To be more precise, a series of political initiatives that the United States had undertaken over the past two years in fits and starts has been united into a single orchestrated effort. The result of these efforts was a series of political decisions on the part of various Iraqi parties not only to reduce attacks against U.S. troops but also to bring the civil war under control.
A few months ago, we laid out four scenarios for Iraq, including the possibility that that United States would maintain troops there indefinitely. At the time, we argued against this idea on the assumption that what had not worked previously would not work in the future. Instead, we argued that resisting Iranian power required that efforts to create security be stopped and troops moved to blocking positions along the Saudi border. We had not calculated that the United States would now supplement combat operations with a highly sophisticated and nuanced political offensive. Therefore, we were wrong in underestimating the effectiveness of the scenario.
That said, a turning point is not the same as victory, and the turning point could turn into a failure. The key weaknesses are the fragmented Shia and the forces and decisions that might emerge there, underwritten by Iran. Everything could be wrecked should Iran choose to take the necessary risks. For the moment, however, the Iranians seem to be exercising caution, and the Shia are responding by reducing violence. If that trend continues, then this really could be a turning point. Of course, any outcome that depends on the Shia and Iranians doing what the United States hopes they will do is fragile. Iran in particular has little interest in giving the United States a graceful solution unless it is well compensated for it. On the other hand, for the moment, Tehran is cooperating. This could simply be another instance of Iran holding off before disappointing the United States, or it could mean it has reason to believe it will be well compensated. Revealing that compensation -- if it is coming -- is the next turn of the wheel.
Iraq: Positive Signs
By George Friedman
The latest reports concerning the war in Iraq suggest the situation is looking up for the United States. First, U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties continue to fall. Second, there are confirmed reports that Sunni insurgents controlled by local leaders have turned on al Qaeda militants, particularly those from outside the country. Third, the head of U.S. Central Command, in an interview with the Financial Times, implied that an attack against Iran is a distant possibility.
It is tempting to say the United States has turned the corner on the war. The temptation might not be misplaced, but after many disappointments since 2003, it is prudent to be cautious in declaring turning points -- and it is equally prudent not to confuse a turning point with a victory. That said, given expectations that the United States would be unable to limit violence in Iraq, and that Sunni insurgents would remain implacable -- not to mention the broad expectation of a U.S. attack against Iran -- these three points indicate a reversal -- and must be taken seriously.
The most startling point is the decline in casualties, and particularly the apparent decline in sectarian violence. Explaining this is difficult. It could simply be the result of the more efficient use of U.S. troops in suppressing the insurgency and controlling the Shiite militias. If that were the only explanation, however, it would be troubling. Standard guerrilla warfare doctrine holds that during periods of intense enemy counterinsurgency operations, guerrillas should cease fighting, hide weapons and equipment and blend into the civilian population. Only after the enemy shifts its area of operations or reduces operational tempo should the guerrillas resume combat operations. Under no circumstances should insurgents attempt to fight a surge.
Therefore, if we were considering U.S. military operations alone, few conclusions could be drawn until after the operations shifted or slowed. In addition, in a country of 25 million, the expectation that some 167,000 troops -- many of them not directly involved in combat -- could break the back of an entrenched insurgency is optimistic. The numbers simply don't work, particularly when Shiite militias are added to the equation. Therefore, if viewed simply in terms of military operations, the decline in casualties would not validate a shift in the war until much later, and our expectation is that the insurgency would resume prior levels of activity over time.
What makes the situation more hopeful for the United States is the clear decline in civilian casualties. Most of those were caused not by U.S. combat operations but by sectarian conflict, particularly between Sunnis and Shia. Part of the decline can be explained by U.S. operations, but when we look at the scope and intensity of sectarian fighting, it is difficult to give U.S. operations full credit. A more likely explanation is political, a decision on the part of the various sectarian organizations to stop operations not only against the Americans but also against each other.
There were two wars going on in Iraq. One was against the United States. The more important war, from the Iraqi point of view, was the Sunni-Shiite struggle to determine who would control Iraq's future. Part of this struggle, particularly on the Shiite side, was intrasectarian violence. All of it was political and, in a real sense, it was life and death. It involved the control of neighborhoods, of ministries, of the police force and so on. It was a struggle over the shape of everyday life. If either side simply abandoned the struggle, it would leave a vacuum for the other. U.S. operations or not, that civil war could not be suspended. To a significant extent, however, it has been suspended.
That means that some political decisions were made, at least on the local level and likely at higher levels as well, as several U.S. authorities have implied recently. Civilian casualties from the civil war would not have dropped as much as they have without some sort of political decisions to restrain forces, and those decisions could not be made unilaterally or simply in response to U.S. military pressure. It required a set of at least temporary political arrangements. And that, in many ways, is more promising than simply a decline because of U.S. combat operations. The political arrangements open the door to the possibility that the decline in casualties is likely to be longer lasting.
This brings us to the second point, the attacks by the Sunnis against the jihadists. Immediately after the invasion in 2003, the United States essentially attempted to strip the Sunnis -- the foundation of Saddam Hussein's strength -- of their power. The U.S. de-Baathification laws had the effect of eliminating the Sunni community's participation in the future of Iraq. Viewing the Shia -- the victims of Hussein's rule -- as likely interested not only in dominating Iraq but also in retribution against the Sunnis, the Sunni leadership, particularly at the local level, supported and instigated an insurgency against U.S. forces. The political purpose of the insurgency was to force the United States to shift its pro-Shiite policy and include the Sunnis, from religious to Baathist, in the regime.
Given the insurgency's political purpose, the power of U.S. forces and the well-organized Shiite militias, the Iraqi Sunnis were prepared to form alliances wherever they could find them. A leading source of support for the Iraqi Sunnis came from outside Iraq, among the Sunni jihadist fighters who organized themselves under the banner of al Qaeda and, weapons in hand, infiltrated the country from outside, particular through Syria.
Nevertheless, there was underlying tension between the local Sunnis and the jihadists. The Iraqi Sunnis were part of the local power structure, many having been involved in the essentially secular Baath Party, and others, more religious, having remained outside the regime but ruled by traditional tribal systems. The foreign jihadists were revolutionaries not only in the sense that they were prepared to fight the Americans but also in that they wanted to revolutionize -- radically Islamize -- the local Sunni community. By extension, they wanted to supplant the local leadership with their own by supporting and elevating new local leaders dependent for their survival on al Qaeda power.
For an extended period of time, the United States saw the Sunni insurgency as consisting of a single fabric. The local insurgents and the jihadists were viewed as the same, and the adopted name of the jihadists, al Qaeda, caused the Americans to see them as the primary enemy. Over time, and particularly since the death of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the United States has adopted a more nuanced view of the Sunni insurgency, drawing a distinction between the largely native Iraqi insurgents and the largely foreign jihadists.
Once this occurred and the United States began to make overtures to the native Iraqi insurgents, the underlying tensions between the foreign jihadists and the Iraqi insurgents emerged. The Sunnis, over time, came to see the jihadists as a greater danger to them than the Americans, and by the time U.S. President George W. Bush last visited Iraq, several Sunni leaders were prepared to be seen publicly with him. The growing animosities eventually turned into active warfare between the two factions, with al Qaeda being outnumbered and outgunned and the natives enjoying all of the perks of having the home-court advantage.
From the U.S. point of view, splitting the Sunni insurgency politically and militarily was important not only for the obvious reasons but also for influencing the Shia. From a Shiite point of view -- and now let's introduce Iran, the primary external backer of Iraq's Shiites -- the worst-case scenario would be the re-establishment of a predominantly Sunni government in Baghdad backed by the U.S. military. The political accommodation between the United States and the Iraqi Sunnis represented a direct threat to the Shia.
It is important to recall that Hussein and his Baathist predecessors -- all Sunnis leading a predominantly Sunni government -- were able to dominate the more numerous Shia for decades. The reason was that the Shia were highly fragmented politically, more so than the Sunnis. This historic factionalization made the Shia much weaker than their numbers would have indicated. It was no accident that the Sunnis dominated the Shia.
And the Shia remained fragmented. While the Sunnis were fighting an external force, the Shia were fighting both the Sunnis and one another. Given those circumstances, it was not inconceivable that the United States would try, and perhaps succeed, to re-establish the status quo ante of a united Iraq under a Sunni government -- backed by U.S. power until Iraq could regenerate its own force. Of course, that represented a reversal of the original U.S. goal of establishing a Shiite regime.
For Iran, this was an intolerable outcome because it would again raise the possibility of an Iran-Iraq war -- in which Iran might take another million casualties. The Iranian response was to use its influence among the competing Shiite militias to attack the Sunnis and to inflict casualties on American troops, hoping to force a withdrawal. Paradoxically, while the jihadists are the Iranians' foe, they were useful to Tehran because the more they attacked the Shia -- and the more the Shia retaliated -- the more the Sunnis and al Qaeda aligned -- which kept the United States and the Sunnis apart. Iran, in other words, wanted a united Sunni-jihadist movement because it would wreck the emerging political arrangements. In addition, when the Iranians realized that the Democrats in the U.S. Congress were not going to force a U.S. withdrawal, their calculations about the future changed.
Caught between al Qaeda and the militias, the Sunnis were under intense pressure. The United States responded by conducting operations against the jihadists -- trying to limit engagements with Iraqi Sunni insurgents -- and most important, against Shiite militias. The goal was to hold the Sunnis in the emerging political matrix while damaging the militias that were engaging the Sunnis. The United States was trying increase the cost to the Shia of adhering to the Iranian strategy.
At the same time, the United States sought to intimidate the Iranians by raising, and trying to make very real, the possibility that the United States would attack them as well. As we have argued, the U.S. military options are limited, so an attack would make little military sense. The Iranians, however, could not be certain that the United States was being rational about the whole thing, which was pretty much what the United States wanted. The United States wanted the Shia in Iraq to see the various costs of following the Iranian line -- including creating a Sunni-dominated government -- while convincing the Iranians that they were in grave danger of American military action.
In this context, we find the third point particularly interesting. Adm. William Fallon's interview with the Financial Times -- in which he went out of its way to downplay the American military threat to Iran -- was not given by accident. Fallon does not agree to interviews without clearance. The United States was using the interview to telegraph to Iran that it should not have undue fear of an American attack.
The United States can easily turn up the heat again psychologically, though for the moment it has chosen to lower it. By doing so, we assume Washington is sending two messages to Iran. First, it is acknowledging that creating a predominantly Sunni government is not its first choice. Also, it is rewarding Iran for the decline in violence by the Shiite militias, which undoubtedly required Tehran to shift its orders to its covert operatives in Iraq.
The important question is whether we are seeing a turning point in Iraq. The answer is that it appears so, but not primarily because of the effectiveness of U.S. military operations. Rather, it is the result of U.S. military operations coupled with a much more complex and sophisticated approach to Iraq. To be more precise, a series of political initiatives that the United States had undertaken over the past two years in fits and starts has been united into a single orchestrated effort. The result of these efforts was a series of political decisions on the part of various Iraqi parties not only to reduce attacks against U.S. troops but also to bring the civil war under control.
A few months ago, we laid out four scenarios for Iraq, including the possibility that that United States would maintain troops there indefinitely. At the time, we argued against this idea on the assumption that what had not worked previously would not work in the future. Instead, we argued that resisting Iranian power required that efforts to create security be stopped and troops moved to blocking positions along the Saudi border. We had not calculated that the United States would now supplement combat operations with a highly sophisticated and nuanced political offensive. Therefore, we were wrong in underestimating the effectiveness of the scenario.
That said, a turning point is not the same as victory, and the turning point could turn into a failure. The key weaknesses are the fragmented Shia and the forces and decisions that might emerge there, underwritten by Iran. Everything could be wrecked should Iran choose to take the necessary risks. For the moment, however, the Iranians seem to be exercising caution, and the Shia are responding by reducing violence. If that trend continues, then this really could be a turning point. Of course, any outcome that depends on the Shia and Iranians doing what the United States hopes they will do is fragile. Iran in particular has little interest in giving the United States a graceful solution unless it is well compensated for it. On the other hand, for the moment, Tehran is cooperating. This could simply be another instance of Iran holding off before disappointing the United States, or it could mean it has reason to believe it will be well compensated. Revealing that compensation -- if it is coming -- is the next turn of the wheel.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
No Terrorist Attacks this Summer
I received the following bulletin from Stratfor.com
SUMMER 2007: THE ATTACK
THAT NEVER OCCURRED
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
The summer of 2007 was marked by threats and warnings of an
imminent terrorist attack against the United States. In addition to the
well-publicized warnings from Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff and a National Intelligence Estimate that al Qaeda was
gaining strength, a former Israeli counterterrorism official warned that
al Qaeda was planning a simultaneous attack against five to seven
American cities. Another warning of an impending dirty bomb attack
prompted the New York Police Department to set up vehicle
checkpoints near the financial district in Lower Manhattan. In
addition to these public warnings, U.S. government counterterrorism
sources also told us privately that they were seriously concerned
about the possibility of an attack.
All these warnings were followed by the Sept. 7 release of a video
message from Osama bin Laden, who had not been seen on video
since October 2004 or heard on audio tape since July 2006. Some
were convinced that his reappearance -- and his veiled threat -- was
the sign of a looming attack against the United States, or perhaps a
signal for an attack to commence.
In spite of all these warnings and bin Laden's reappearance -- not
the mention the relative ease with which an attack can be conducted
-- no attack occurred this summer. Although our assessment is that
the al Qaeda core has been damaged to the point that it no longer
poses a strategic threat to the U.S. homeland, tactical attacks
against soft targets remain simple to conduct and certainly are within
the reach of jihadist operatives -- regardless of whether they are
linked to the al Qaeda core.
We believe there are several reasons no attack occurred this
summer -- or since 9/11 for that matter.
No Conscious Decision
Before we discuss these factors, we must note that the lack of an
attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11 has not been the result
of a calculated decision by bin Laden and the core al Qaeda
leadership. Far too many plots have been disrupted for that to be the
case. Many of those foiled and failed attacks, such as the 2006
foiled plot to destroy airliners flying from London to the United
States, the Library Tower Plot, Richard Reid's failed attempt to take
down American Airlines flight 63 in December 2001 and Jose
Padilla's activities -- bear connection to the core al Qaeda
leadership.
So, if the core al Qaeda has desired, and even attempted, to strike
the United States, why has it failed? Perhaps the greatest single
factor is attitude -- among law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, the public at large, the Muslim community and even the
jihadists themselves.
Law Enforcement and Intelligence
Prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the FBI denied the
existence of an international terrorism threat to the U.S. homeland, a
stance reflected in the bureau's "Terrorism in the United States"
publications in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even after the radical
Zionist Rabbi Meir Kahane was killed by a jihadist with connections
to the Brooklyn Jihad Office and "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdul-
Rahman, the FBI and Department of Justice denied the act was
terrorism and left the investigation and the prosecution of the
gunman, ElSayyid Nosair, to New York police and the Manhattan
District Attorney's Office. (Though they were greatly aided on the
federal level by the Diplomatic Security Service, which ran
investigative leads for them in Egypt and elsewhere.)
It was only after Nosair's associates detonated a large truck bomb in
the parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 that the
existence of a threat to the United States was recognized. Yet, even
after that bombing and the disruption of other plots -- the July 1997
plot to bomb the New York subway system and the December 1999
Millennium Bomb Plot -- the apathy toward counterterrorism
programs remained. This was most evident in the low levels of
funding and manpower devoted to counterterrorism programs prior to
9/11. As noted in the 9/11 Commission Report, counterterrorism
programs simply were not a priority.
Even the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing made no real
difference. Some changes were made, such as physical security
enhancements at federal buildings, but they were merely window
dressing. The real problems, underlying structural problems in the
U.S. government's counterterrorism efforts -- resources, priorities
and intelligence-sharing -- were not addressed in a meaningful way.
Prior to 9/11, experts (including the two of us) lecturing to law
enforcement and intelligence groups about the al
Qaeda/transnational terrorist threat to the United States were met
with indifference. Of course, following 9/11 some of those same
groups paid careful attention to what the experts had to say.
Transnational terrorism had become real to them. The 9/11 attacks
sparked a sea change in attitudes within law enforcement and
intelligence circles. Counterterrorism -- aggressively collecting
intelligence pertaining to terrorism and pursuing terrorist leads -- is
now a priority.
Citizen Awareness
Before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing the American public
also was largely unconcerned about international terrorism. Even
after that bombing, the public remained largely apathetic about the
terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. This was partly the result of the
media's coverage of the 1993 bombing, which seemed to focus on
the hapless, bumbling Mohamed Salameh and not the cunning and
dangerous Abdel Basit (who is more widely known by his alias,
Ramzi Yousef). Furthermore, the follow-on plot to that attack, the
1993 New York bomb plot -- for which Abdul-Rahman and some of
his followers were accused of planning strikes against the Lincoln
Tunnel and other New York City landmarks -- was thwarted. This led
many to believe that the government had a handle on terrorism and
that the United States was protected from such attacks. The second
plot was thwarted before it could be executed, and most Americans
never saw the gigantic crater (nearly 100 feet across) that the
February 1993 truck bomb created through several floors of Building
One's reinforced concrete parking garage. Instead, they saw only a
bit of smoke billowing from the damaged building. The 1993 cases
lacked the stunning visual displays of the 9/11 attacks.
The events of 9/11 also created a 180-degree change in how people
think about terrorism and how they perceive and respond to
suspicious activity. "If you see something, say something" has
become a popular mantra, especially in New York and other large
cities. Part of this stems from the changed attitudes of law
enforcement officials, who not only have issued appeals in the press
but also have made community outreach visits to nearly every flight
school, truck driving school, chemical supply company, fertilizer
dealer and storage rental company in the United States. Through
media reports of terrorist plots and attacks, the public also has
become much more aware of the precursor chemicals for improvised
explosive mixtures and applies far more scrutiny to anyone
attempting to procure them in bulk.
U.S. citizens also are far more aware of the importance of
preoperational surveillance and -- fair or not -- it is now very difficult
for a person wearing traditional Muslim dress to take a photograph of
anything without being reported to the authorities by a concerned
citizen.
This change in attitude is particularly significant in the Muslim
community itself. Contrary to the hopes of bin Laden -- and the fears
of the U.S. government -- the theology of jihadism has not taken root
in the United States. Certainly there are individuals who have come
to embrace this ideology, as the arrests of some grassroots activists
demonstrate, but such people are very much the exception. In spite
of some problems, the law enforcement community has forged some
strong links to the Muslim community, and in several cases Muslims
have even reported potential jihadists to law enforcement.
Even in places where jihadism has more successfully infiltrated the
Muslim community, such as Europe, North Africa and Saudi Arabia,
the jihadists still consider it preferable to wage the "real" jihad
against "crusader troops" in places such as Iraq, rather than to
attack soft civilian targets in the West or elsewhere. As unpopular as
it is to say, in many ways Iraq has served as a sort of jihadist
magnet, drawing young men from around the world to "martyr"
themselves. Pragmatically, every young jihadist who travels from
Europe or the Middle East to die in Baghdad or Ar Ramadi is one
less who could attack Boston, London, Brussels or Rome.
Attitude is Everything
In late 1992 and early 1993, amateur planning was all that was
required to conduct a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In
addition to the almost comical mistakes made by Salameh, serious
gaffes also were made by Ahmed Ajaj and Basit as they prepared
for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, because of the
prevailing apathetic attitude among law enforcement officials and the
public in general, those mistakes were not fatal to the operation.
Given the changes in attitude since 9/11, however, no operation
conducted as poorly as the 1993 bombing would succeed today.
Before the bombing, the FBI investigated the cell that carried it out,
made the determination that the men were harmless fanatics and
closed the investigation. That would not happen today, as even
slightly goofy, wannabe terrorists such as the Miami Seven are
vigorously investigated and prosecuted when possible.
When Ajaj and Basit flew into JFK Airport in September 1992,
authorities pretty much ignored the fact that Ajaj was found
transporting a large quantity of jihadist material, including
bombmaking manuals and videos. Instead, he was sentenced to six
months in jail for committing passport fraud -- a mere slap on the
wrist -- and was then to be deported. Had authorities taken the time
to carefully review the materials in Ajaj's briefcase, they would have
found two boarding passes and two passports with exit stamps from
Pakistan. Because of that oversight, no one noticed that Ajaj was
traveling with a companion. Even when his co-conspirators called
Ajaj in jail seeking his help in formulating their improvised explosive
mixtures and recovering the bombmaking manuals, the calls were
not traced. It was not until after the bombing that Ajaj's involvement
was discovered, and he was convicted and sentenced.
These kinds of oversights would not occur now. Furthermore, the
attitude of the public today makes it far more difficult for a
conspirator like Niday Ayyad to order chemicals used to construct a
bomb, or for the conspirators to receive and store such chemicals in
a rented storage space without being reported to the authorities.
Another change in attitude has been on the legal front. Prior to the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, there were no "terrorism"
statutes concerning the use of weapons of mass destruction or acts
of terrorism transcending national borders. Instead, prosecutors in
terrorism cases struggled to apply existing laws. The defendants in
the 1993 New York bomb plot case were not charged with
conspiring to build bombs or commit acts of international terrorism.
Rather, they were convicted on "seditious conspiracy" charges.
Similarly, Salameh was convicted of violating the Special Agricultural
Worker program and with damaging U.S. Secret Service cars stored
in the basement of the World Trade Center building.
The U.S. security environment has indeed improved dramatically
since 1993, largely as a result of the sweeping changes in attitude,
though also to some extent due to the magnet effect of the war in
Iraq. Success can engender complacency, however, and the lack of
attacks could allow attitudes -- and thus counterterrorism resources -
- to swing back toward the other end of the spectrum.
SUMMER 2007: THE ATTACK
THAT NEVER OCCURRED
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
The summer of 2007 was marked by threats and warnings of an
imminent terrorist attack against the United States. In addition to the
well-publicized warnings from Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff and a National Intelligence Estimate that al Qaeda was
gaining strength, a former Israeli counterterrorism official warned that
al Qaeda was planning a simultaneous attack against five to seven
American cities. Another warning of an impending dirty bomb attack
prompted the New York Police Department to set up vehicle
checkpoints near the financial district in Lower Manhattan. In
addition to these public warnings, U.S. government counterterrorism
sources also told us privately that they were seriously concerned
about the possibility of an attack.
All these warnings were followed by the Sept. 7 release of a video
message from Osama bin Laden, who had not been seen on video
since October 2004 or heard on audio tape since July 2006. Some
were convinced that his reappearance -- and his veiled threat -- was
the sign of a looming attack against the United States, or perhaps a
signal for an attack to commence.
In spite of all these warnings and bin Laden's reappearance -- not
the mention the relative ease with which an attack can be conducted
-- no attack occurred this summer. Although our assessment is that
the al Qaeda core has been damaged to the point that it no longer
poses a strategic threat to the U.S. homeland, tactical attacks
against soft targets remain simple to conduct and certainly are within
the reach of jihadist operatives -- regardless of whether they are
linked to the al Qaeda core.
We believe there are several reasons no attack occurred this
summer -- or since 9/11 for that matter.
No Conscious Decision
Before we discuss these factors, we must note that the lack of an
attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11 has not been the result
of a calculated decision by bin Laden and the core al Qaeda
leadership. Far too many plots have been disrupted for that to be the
case. Many of those foiled and failed attacks, such as the 2006
foiled plot to destroy airliners flying from London to the United
States, the Library Tower Plot, Richard Reid's failed attempt to take
down American Airlines flight 63 in December 2001 and Jose
Padilla's activities -- bear connection to the core al Qaeda
leadership.
So, if the core al Qaeda has desired, and even attempted, to strike
the United States, why has it failed? Perhaps the greatest single
factor is attitude -- among law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, the public at large, the Muslim community and even the
jihadists themselves.
Law Enforcement and Intelligence
Prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the FBI denied the
existence of an international terrorism threat to the U.S. homeland, a
stance reflected in the bureau's "Terrorism in the United States"
publications in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even after the radical
Zionist Rabbi Meir Kahane was killed by a jihadist with connections
to the Brooklyn Jihad Office and "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdul-
Rahman, the FBI and Department of Justice denied the act was
terrorism and left the investigation and the prosecution of the
gunman, ElSayyid Nosair, to New York police and the Manhattan
District Attorney's Office. (Though they were greatly aided on the
federal level by the Diplomatic Security Service, which ran
investigative leads for them in Egypt and elsewhere.)
It was only after Nosair's associates detonated a large truck bomb in
the parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 that the
existence of a threat to the United States was recognized. Yet, even
after that bombing and the disruption of other plots -- the July 1997
plot to bomb the New York subway system and the December 1999
Millennium Bomb Plot -- the apathy toward counterterrorism
programs remained. This was most evident in the low levels of
funding and manpower devoted to counterterrorism programs prior to
9/11. As noted in the 9/11 Commission Report, counterterrorism
programs simply were not a priority.
Even the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing made no real
difference. Some changes were made, such as physical security
enhancements at federal buildings, but they were merely window
dressing. The real problems, underlying structural problems in the
U.S. government's counterterrorism efforts -- resources, priorities
and intelligence-sharing -- were not addressed in a meaningful way.
Prior to 9/11, experts (including the two of us) lecturing to law
enforcement and intelligence groups about the al
Qaeda/transnational terrorist threat to the United States were met
with indifference. Of course, following 9/11 some of those same
groups paid careful attention to what the experts had to say.
Transnational terrorism had become real to them. The 9/11 attacks
sparked a sea change in attitudes within law enforcement and
intelligence circles. Counterterrorism -- aggressively collecting
intelligence pertaining to terrorism and pursuing terrorist leads -- is
now a priority.
Citizen Awareness
Before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing the American public
also was largely unconcerned about international terrorism. Even
after that bombing, the public remained largely apathetic about the
terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. This was partly the result of the
media's coverage of the 1993 bombing, which seemed to focus on
the hapless, bumbling Mohamed Salameh and not the cunning and
dangerous Abdel Basit (who is more widely known by his alias,
Ramzi Yousef). Furthermore, the follow-on plot to that attack, the
1993 New York bomb plot -- for which Abdul-Rahman and some of
his followers were accused of planning strikes against the Lincoln
Tunnel and other New York City landmarks -- was thwarted. This led
many to believe that the government had a handle on terrorism and
that the United States was protected from such attacks. The second
plot was thwarted before it could be executed, and most Americans
never saw the gigantic crater (nearly 100 feet across) that the
February 1993 truck bomb created through several floors of Building
One's reinforced concrete parking garage. Instead, they saw only a
bit of smoke billowing from the damaged building. The 1993 cases
lacked the stunning visual displays of the 9/11 attacks.
The events of 9/11 also created a 180-degree change in how people
think about terrorism and how they perceive and respond to
suspicious activity. "If you see something, say something" has
become a popular mantra, especially in New York and other large
cities. Part of this stems from the changed attitudes of law
enforcement officials, who not only have issued appeals in the press
but also have made community outreach visits to nearly every flight
school, truck driving school, chemical supply company, fertilizer
dealer and storage rental company in the United States. Through
media reports of terrorist plots and attacks, the public also has
become much more aware of the precursor chemicals for improvised
explosive mixtures and applies far more scrutiny to anyone
attempting to procure them in bulk.
U.S. citizens also are far more aware of the importance of
preoperational surveillance and -- fair or not -- it is now very difficult
for a person wearing traditional Muslim dress to take a photograph of
anything without being reported to the authorities by a concerned
citizen.
This change in attitude is particularly significant in the Muslim
community itself. Contrary to the hopes of bin Laden -- and the fears
of the U.S. government -- the theology of jihadism has not taken root
in the United States. Certainly there are individuals who have come
to embrace this ideology, as the arrests of some grassroots activists
demonstrate, but such people are very much the exception. In spite
of some problems, the law enforcement community has forged some
strong links to the Muslim community, and in several cases Muslims
have even reported potential jihadists to law enforcement.
Even in places where jihadism has more successfully infiltrated the
Muslim community, such as Europe, North Africa and Saudi Arabia,
the jihadists still consider it preferable to wage the "real" jihad
against "crusader troops" in places such as Iraq, rather than to
attack soft civilian targets in the West or elsewhere. As unpopular as
it is to say, in many ways Iraq has served as a sort of jihadist
magnet, drawing young men from around the world to "martyr"
themselves. Pragmatically, every young jihadist who travels from
Europe or the Middle East to die in Baghdad or Ar Ramadi is one
less who could attack Boston, London, Brussels or Rome.
Attitude is Everything
In late 1992 and early 1993, amateur planning was all that was
required to conduct a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In
addition to the almost comical mistakes made by Salameh, serious
gaffes also were made by Ahmed Ajaj and Basit as they prepared
for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, because of the
prevailing apathetic attitude among law enforcement officials and the
public in general, those mistakes were not fatal to the operation.
Given the changes in attitude since 9/11, however, no operation
conducted as poorly as the 1993 bombing would succeed today.
Before the bombing, the FBI investigated the cell that carried it out,
made the determination that the men were harmless fanatics and
closed the investigation. That would not happen today, as even
slightly goofy, wannabe terrorists such as the Miami Seven are
vigorously investigated and prosecuted when possible.
When Ajaj and Basit flew into JFK Airport in September 1992,
authorities pretty much ignored the fact that Ajaj was found
transporting a large quantity of jihadist material, including
bombmaking manuals and videos. Instead, he was sentenced to six
months in jail for committing passport fraud -- a mere slap on the
wrist -- and was then to be deported. Had authorities taken the time
to carefully review the materials in Ajaj's briefcase, they would have
found two boarding passes and two passports with exit stamps from
Pakistan. Because of that oversight, no one noticed that Ajaj was
traveling with a companion. Even when his co-conspirators called
Ajaj in jail seeking his help in formulating their improvised explosive
mixtures and recovering the bombmaking manuals, the calls were
not traced. It was not until after the bombing that Ajaj's involvement
was discovered, and he was convicted and sentenced.
These kinds of oversights would not occur now. Furthermore, the
attitude of the public today makes it far more difficult for a
conspirator like Niday Ayyad to order chemicals used to construct a
bomb, or for the conspirators to receive and store such chemicals in
a rented storage space without being reported to the authorities.
Another change in attitude has been on the legal front. Prior to the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, there were no "terrorism"
statutes concerning the use of weapons of mass destruction or acts
of terrorism transcending national borders. Instead, prosecutors in
terrorism cases struggled to apply existing laws. The defendants in
the 1993 New York bomb plot case were not charged with
conspiring to build bombs or commit acts of international terrorism.
Rather, they were convicted on "seditious conspiracy" charges.
Similarly, Salameh was convicted of violating the Special Agricultural
Worker program and with damaging U.S. Secret Service cars stored
in the basement of the World Trade Center building.
The U.S. security environment has indeed improved dramatically
since 1993, largely as a result of the sweeping changes in attitude,
though also to some extent due to the magnet effect of the war in
Iraq. Success can engender complacency, however, and the lack of
attacks could allow attitudes -- and thus counterterrorism resources -
- to swing back toward the other end of the spectrum.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Messianic Psalms
There are fifteen psalms that are explicitly messianic and quoted in the New Testament.
One of the major types of messianic psalms refers to the anointed king. Kings, priests, and sometimes prophets were anointed in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word, masiah, means to smear or pour oil on someone or something for the sake of consecrating it for God’s use. From the word masiah comes the word Messiah, or Anointed One. The Septuagint either transliterates the word as messias or translates it as christos, from which we get the title Christ, the Anointed One.
The king was anointed at his coronation and thus became the masiah of God. David was keenly aware of his typical role as God’s Anointed representative on the throne and when the psalms speak of the king reigning over the whole earth, it indicates that the earthly king is a type of the heavenly king, who reigns in the heavens over the whole world.
Anointing implies consecration, giving the one anointed a high status (making him sacred so that to do violence to him would be a sacrilege) as well as empowering him to fulfill that sacred duty. The outward ritual was symbolic of the anointed one receiving the gift of God’s Spirit, whose presence made the anointed sacred and empowered.
David clearly saw that the nation’s fortunes were tied up with him, so that what happened to him would affect the entire nation. He also understood that any violence done to him was in effect violence done towards God and his people. David’s experiences, then, become typological of the Messiah’s experiences.
As king, the people could see something of God’s glory in him. He was their shield, as was God. He was God’s son and co-regent with God. However, the king’s failures and shortcomings left the people looking for the One who was to come and be the perfect king, the Messiah.
Psalm 2:7 is one of the verses in the Old Testament quoted most frequently in the New Testament. God promised David that his son Solomon would be the next king, and that He would be his Father and he would be God’s son (2 Samuel 7:14). This sonship is also referred to in Psalm 110, and this psalm is quoted by Jesus to show that David realized that even though the king enjoyed a special status as God’s son, there was another Son, higher than he, sitting at God’s right hand. Hebrews 1:13 draws a further contrast by showing that not even the angels have ever received the privilege to sit at God’s right hand, but only to stand before him. Paul, in Romans 1:4 states that Christ was demonstrated to be this Son when he was resurrected from the dead by the power of God. Paul builds on this image in Ephesians 4:8-11 where he quotes Psalm 68:18 to show that Christ ascended into heaven leading a host of captives and giving the gifts of the Spirit to his church. Psalm 45:6 clearly calls this figure on the throne God, indicating that the Messiah is a divine figure, as Hebrews 1:8 points out.
Another Messianic title in the psalms is “my servant,” used by David while in distress (69:17; 86:2, 4, 16) but also in the headings of several psalms to designate himself (18, 36). Most of the quotations from the psalms in the New Testament concerning Christ’s suffering and death come from psalms using this title for the Messiah (22, 35, 40, 41, 109, 118).
Other titles allude to the Messiah and are picked up by the New Testament as well. The high status of “man” is typological of Messiah, as is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18ff; Psalm 110; Hebrews 8-10). Jesus is also called the “stone the builders rejected” (118:22) who has become the chief corner stone.
While there are fifteen psalms that explicitly refer to the Messiah, it is clear from the New Testament that Christ is seen in many more psalms implicitly. The fact that the New Testament writers don’t take the time to explain, let alone prove, that the psalms they are quoting refer to Jesus, implies that there was a wide spread acceptance of this idea already in the early church. This is most likely due to the fact of Jesus’ teaching after his resurrection (cf. Luke 24) where he explains how the whole Old Testament refers to him.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 18-24.
One of the major types of messianic psalms refers to the anointed king. Kings, priests, and sometimes prophets were anointed in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word, masiah, means to smear or pour oil on someone or something for the sake of consecrating it for God’s use. From the word masiah comes the word Messiah, or Anointed One. The Septuagint either transliterates the word as messias or translates it as christos, from which we get the title Christ, the Anointed One.
The king was anointed at his coronation and thus became the masiah of God. David was keenly aware of his typical role as God’s Anointed representative on the throne and when the psalms speak of the king reigning over the whole earth, it indicates that the earthly king is a type of the heavenly king, who reigns in the heavens over the whole world.
Anointing implies consecration, giving the one anointed a high status (making him sacred so that to do violence to him would be a sacrilege) as well as empowering him to fulfill that sacred duty. The outward ritual was symbolic of the anointed one receiving the gift of God’s Spirit, whose presence made the anointed sacred and empowered.
David clearly saw that the nation’s fortunes were tied up with him, so that what happened to him would affect the entire nation. He also understood that any violence done to him was in effect violence done towards God and his people. David’s experiences, then, become typological of the Messiah’s experiences.
As king, the people could see something of God’s glory in him. He was their shield, as was God. He was God’s son and co-regent with God. However, the king’s failures and shortcomings left the people looking for the One who was to come and be the perfect king, the Messiah.
Psalm 2:7 is one of the verses in the Old Testament quoted most frequently in the New Testament. God promised David that his son Solomon would be the next king, and that He would be his Father and he would be God’s son (2 Samuel 7:14). This sonship is also referred to in Psalm 110, and this psalm is quoted by Jesus to show that David realized that even though the king enjoyed a special status as God’s son, there was another Son, higher than he, sitting at God’s right hand. Hebrews 1:13 draws a further contrast by showing that not even the angels have ever received the privilege to sit at God’s right hand, but only to stand before him. Paul, in Romans 1:4 states that Christ was demonstrated to be this Son when he was resurrected from the dead by the power of God. Paul builds on this image in Ephesians 4:8-11 where he quotes Psalm 68:18 to show that Christ ascended into heaven leading a host of captives and giving the gifts of the Spirit to his church. Psalm 45:6 clearly calls this figure on the throne God, indicating that the Messiah is a divine figure, as Hebrews 1:8 points out.
Another Messianic title in the psalms is “my servant,” used by David while in distress (69:17; 86:2, 4, 16) but also in the headings of several psalms to designate himself (18, 36). Most of the quotations from the psalms in the New Testament concerning Christ’s suffering and death come from psalms using this title for the Messiah (22, 35, 40, 41, 109, 118).
Other titles allude to the Messiah and are picked up by the New Testament as well. The high status of “man” is typological of Messiah, as is the high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18ff; Psalm 110; Hebrews 8-10). Jesus is also called the “stone the builders rejected” (118:22) who has become the chief corner stone.
While there are fifteen psalms that explicitly refer to the Messiah, it is clear from the New Testament that Christ is seen in many more psalms implicitly. The fact that the New Testament writers don’t take the time to explain, let alone prove, that the psalms they are quoting refer to Jesus, implies that there was a wide spread acceptance of this idea already in the early church. This is most likely due to the fact of Jesus’ teaching after his resurrection (cf. Luke 24) where he explains how the whole Old Testament refers to him.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 18-24.
Imprecatory Psalms
How can we as Christians understand and use the fiery imprecations that we find in the Psalms?
First of all, we need to understand the imprecatory psalms as a plea for justice to be done and for wrongs to be righted. This is certainly a sentiment that even the New Testament expresses (Luke 18:1-8), where not only is there a concern for clearing one’s name but a call for retribution within the context of the legal system. It must be emphasized that the imprecations in the psalms are not expressions of personal vindictiveness but a sincere, heartfelt cry for justice.
Second, we need to realize that the New Testament has a much fuller revelation than what was available to the psalmists. The cross brings in a whole new dynamic in the way that we relate to those who wrong us as well as an assurance that evil will ultimately be dealt with.
Third, we find that the imprecations range all the way from plaintive to ferocious. The intensity of the imprecation reflects the intensity of the evil that has been suffered. The psalmists were responding to having their friends respond to their love with brutality (109:4) or their enemies brutally take advantage of their weakness (137). The greater the offense the more intense the cry for vengeance.
Fourth, imprecations must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of rhetoric that govern this genre. Just as proverbs, parables, epistles, apocalyptic and gospels are separate genres with unique attributes that need to be understood properly in order to interpret them correctly, so too imprecations are a separate genre with peculiar attributes that need special attention when being interpreted. An imprecation is a form of hyperbole, a poetic device that crosses over the line of cautious literalism. Imprecations are designed to elicit an intense emotional response from the reader, not impart cold, rational facts. It seeks to kindle in the reader the same emotional response to injustice as the one suffering it experienced. Thus, it is indirect yet very intimate. There are times when we can calmly discuss evil and injustice, but there are also times when we need to experience the full force of evil and injustice as if it were happening to us. Imprecations can do that while calm discourse cannot.
Fifth, other biblical figures, such as Jeremiah and Job, wrestled with deep emotional responses to severe pain, suffering and injustice. In response to their intense expressions of pain and despair, God listens to the whole man and the whole message, acknowledging both the content and the emotion, rebuking when the line is crossed while agreeing with what is true in their complaints (see Jeremiah 12:5; 11:20-23; 12:7ff; Job 38:2; 42:7). God, then, is able to handle the complaints of his saints and is compassionate enough to listen to our hearts and not simply our words.
Sixth, the New Testament focuses on grace and forgiveness, where the Gospel is preached to all, especially to sinners. However, in championing God’s love it doesn’t eliminate God’s wrath, but both are held in balance by the cross. While some quotations of the psalms in the New Testament stop short of the imprecations, those who reject Christ and his message are said to have earned a fate worse than Sodom’s. In fact, God’s wrath and the iron rod of the Messiah of Psalm 2 are clearly prominent in Revelation, “the day of his wrath” (110:5) is found in Romans 2:5, and the anger called down on those “who do not know” God (79:6) is confirmed in 2 Thessalonians 1:8. In fact, often the punishment meted out in the New Testament is much more severe than the vindication called for in the quoted psalm (compare Matthew 7:23 with Psalm 6:8). Therefore, it is too simplistic to say that the God of the Old Testament is a wrathful God while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. God is loving, merciful and forgiving in both testaments just as he is just, righteous and an avenger of evil in both testaments. Therefore, while the call for forgiveness is much stronger in the New Testament, God’s wrath is still evident for those who reject that forgiveness and persist in their evil.
Seventh, pleas for vindication can sometimes be viewed as the fact of innocent blood “crying” like Abel’s “from the ground to God.” Injustice and bloodshed are evil and must be vindicated. Any moral system that does not call evil “evil” is self-destructive and harmful. Calls for vindication in this sense are never expressions of personal vindictiveness or vigilante justice, but the cry of justice and righteousness to prevail against the forces of evil. Anyone who would deny this cry is on the wrong side.
Eighth, the Christian today can still profit from the imprecatory psalms in several ways. Because we have a fuller revelation we cannot cry out for vindication in the same way as the psalmists, but we can express our pain and suffering to God while at the same time blessing those who persecute us and praying for those who are treating us unjustly. We can also profit from the imprecations if we allow them to hit us with their full emotional force, deepening our appreciation for the pain and suffering of those who are being treated unjustly, moving our hearts to act with compassion to seek justice in our own world. The imprecatory psalms can also remind us that God’s judgment on sin and evil is real and there will be a day when all the evil in the world will be dealt with and all the wrongs will be righted, so that justice and righteousness will reign like the noon-day sun.
While the imprecatory psalms may make us feel uneasy and not seem relevant to our modern world and the age of grace, it should remind us that we must remain on the side of justice and righteousness and not use the weapons of evil to inflict pain and suffering on those around us. While we need to patiently endure injustice, love our enemies, and trust God to right the wrongs done to us, we also need to be reminded that if we are not careful, we may find ourselves on the wrong side of justice as the perpetrators of injustice and the subjects of someone else’s imprecations.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 25-32.
First of all, we need to understand the imprecatory psalms as a plea for justice to be done and for wrongs to be righted. This is certainly a sentiment that even the New Testament expresses (Luke 18:1-8), where not only is there a concern for clearing one’s name but a call for retribution within the context of the legal system. It must be emphasized that the imprecations in the psalms are not expressions of personal vindictiveness but a sincere, heartfelt cry for justice.
Second, we need to realize that the New Testament has a much fuller revelation than what was available to the psalmists. The cross brings in a whole new dynamic in the way that we relate to those who wrong us as well as an assurance that evil will ultimately be dealt with.
Third, we find that the imprecations range all the way from plaintive to ferocious. The intensity of the imprecation reflects the intensity of the evil that has been suffered. The psalmists were responding to having their friends respond to their love with brutality (109:4) or their enemies brutally take advantage of their weakness (137). The greater the offense the more intense the cry for vengeance.
Fourth, imprecations must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of rhetoric that govern this genre. Just as proverbs, parables, epistles, apocalyptic and gospels are separate genres with unique attributes that need to be understood properly in order to interpret them correctly, so too imprecations are a separate genre with peculiar attributes that need special attention when being interpreted. An imprecation is a form of hyperbole, a poetic device that crosses over the line of cautious literalism. Imprecations are designed to elicit an intense emotional response from the reader, not impart cold, rational facts. It seeks to kindle in the reader the same emotional response to injustice as the one suffering it experienced. Thus, it is indirect yet very intimate. There are times when we can calmly discuss evil and injustice, but there are also times when we need to experience the full force of evil and injustice as if it were happening to us. Imprecations can do that while calm discourse cannot.
Fifth, other biblical figures, such as Jeremiah and Job, wrestled with deep emotional responses to severe pain, suffering and injustice. In response to their intense expressions of pain and despair, God listens to the whole man and the whole message, acknowledging both the content and the emotion, rebuking when the line is crossed while agreeing with what is true in their complaints (see Jeremiah 12:5; 11:20-23; 12:7ff; Job 38:2; 42:7). God, then, is able to handle the complaints of his saints and is compassionate enough to listen to our hearts and not simply our words.
Sixth, the New Testament focuses on grace and forgiveness, where the Gospel is preached to all, especially to sinners. However, in championing God’s love it doesn’t eliminate God’s wrath, but both are held in balance by the cross. While some quotations of the psalms in the New Testament stop short of the imprecations, those who reject Christ and his message are said to have earned a fate worse than Sodom’s. In fact, God’s wrath and the iron rod of the Messiah of Psalm 2 are clearly prominent in Revelation, “the day of his wrath” (110:5) is found in Romans 2:5, and the anger called down on those “who do not know” God (79:6) is confirmed in 2 Thessalonians 1:8. In fact, often the punishment meted out in the New Testament is much more severe than the vindication called for in the quoted psalm (compare Matthew 7:23 with Psalm 6:8). Therefore, it is too simplistic to say that the God of the Old Testament is a wrathful God while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. God is loving, merciful and forgiving in both testaments just as he is just, righteous and an avenger of evil in both testaments. Therefore, while the call for forgiveness is much stronger in the New Testament, God’s wrath is still evident for those who reject that forgiveness and persist in their evil.
Seventh, pleas for vindication can sometimes be viewed as the fact of innocent blood “crying” like Abel’s “from the ground to God.” Injustice and bloodshed are evil and must be vindicated. Any moral system that does not call evil “evil” is self-destructive and harmful. Calls for vindication in this sense are never expressions of personal vindictiveness or vigilante justice, but the cry of justice and righteousness to prevail against the forces of evil. Anyone who would deny this cry is on the wrong side.
Eighth, the Christian today can still profit from the imprecatory psalms in several ways. Because we have a fuller revelation we cannot cry out for vindication in the same way as the psalmists, but we can express our pain and suffering to God while at the same time blessing those who persecute us and praying for those who are treating us unjustly. We can also profit from the imprecations if we allow them to hit us with their full emotional force, deepening our appreciation for the pain and suffering of those who are being treated unjustly, moving our hearts to act with compassion to seek justice in our own world. The imprecatory psalms can also remind us that God’s judgment on sin and evil is real and there will be a day when all the evil in the world will be dealt with and all the wrongs will be righted, so that justice and righteousness will reign like the noon-day sun.
While the imprecatory psalms may make us feel uneasy and not seem relevant to our modern world and the age of grace, it should remind us that we must remain on the side of justice and righteousness and not use the weapons of evil to inflict pain and suffering on those around us. While we need to patiently endure injustice, love our enemies, and trust God to right the wrongs done to us, we also need to be reminded that if we are not careful, we may find ourselves on the wrong side of justice as the perpetrators of injustice and the subjects of someone else’s imprecations.
Much of this material was adapted from Derek Kidner’s commentary, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, pages 25-32.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Second Clement
Second Clement is the oldest extant Christian sermon outside the New Testament. It is not a letter nor was it written by Clement but is a transcription of a sermon by an anonymous presbyter based on Isaiah 54:1. In all the extant manuscripts Second Clement always follows First Clement, indicating that the sermon may have been preached in Corinth, or sent to Corinth for some reason. The text has been dated anywhere from A.D. 100 to 120.
Outline Summary by Chapters:
1. Praise for God’s salvation, calling us out of idolatry in order to serve him through Jesus Christ.
2. He quotes Isaiah 54:1 and interprets in a way that applies to the hearers’ present circumstances: The barren woman without children was the church who now has children through Christ’s work on the cross. The call for the woman who has no labor pains to rejoice is a call to the church to praise God for salvation. The phrase concerning the deserted woman having more children than the one having a husband refers to the fact that the church now has more believers than the Jews.
3. The preacher quotes Jesus’ words about men acknowledging him and the need to do it from the heart and not merely from the lips (Matthew 10:32 and 12:30) , indicating that we will be rewarded if we truly acknowledge Christ and not be like the people predicted by Isaiah 29:13 (quoted by Jesus in Matthew 15:8) who merely honor God with their lips and not their hearts.
4. It is not enough to merely call him “Lord” but we must show it in our actions by loving each other (quoting Matthew 7:21).
5. The preacher admonishes his hearers to not hold onto this world but live for the world to come. He quotes Jesus telling his disciples that they will be like lambs among wolves (Luke 10:13; Matthew 10:16, 28; Luke 12:4-5). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians where Peter asks, “What if the wolves tear the lambs to pieces?” To which Jesus replies that we should not fear those who can destroy the body but not the soul; rather we should fear God who can destroy both in hell.
6. He then quotes Jesus’ saying that we cannot serve two masters (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25), so believers should not be friends with the world.
7. He then uses the analogy of a earthly race or contest and the need to compete by the rules, lest one should be punished. He doesn't quote Paul but it appears he was familiar with several of Paul’s uses of the race metaphor.
8. There is a call to repent because once you die you will no longer have a chance to repent. He quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians and possibly Luke 16:10-12. There is also an allusion to the potter and the clay of Isaiah 45:9.
9. The preacher emphasizes the fact that we are flesh and will be resurrected again in the flesh to face judgment. Jesus himself was a spirit who became flesh (wn men to prwton pneuma, egeneto sarx), so we too must repent now in the flesh so we may enter the kingdom of God.
10. The preacher calls his hearers to forsake sin and ungodliness: “let us abandon that evil mindset, the forerunner of our sins, and flee ungodliness lest evil things overtake us.” If we do good, we will have peace; if we do evil we will never find peace.
11. He quotes several passages from an unknown source to challenge his readers to remain true to the faith and not be double-minded.
12. He urges his hearers to wait patiently for the kingdom of God since we don’t know the day of God’s appearing (epeidh ouk oidamen thn hmeran thß epifaneisaß tou qeou). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians or the Gospel of Thomas but completely misinterprets it.
13. He gives another call to repentance because their sinful lifestyle is causing God’s name to be blasphemed (Isaiah 52:5). Instead, we should live lives of extraordinary goodness so people will marvel and praise God (Luke 6:32, 35).
14. We must take care not to defile the church, which is the flesh while Christ is the spirit. The church has existed from the beginning and was spiritual and was revealed in the flesh of Christ (efanerwqh en th sarki Cristou). Therefore, whoever abuses the church abuses Christ.
15. Those who repent will be rewarded as will the one who calls them to repentance. God is eager to answer our prayer (Isaiah 58:9).
16. Repent while you have a chance for the day of judgment is coming like a blazing furnace (Malachi 4:1) and this world will be destroyed (Isaiah 34:4). This seems to echo 2 Peter 3:10-12. Repentance, fasting, prayer, and charitable giving should be practiced in order to secure God’s blessing.
17. Repent and call others to repent because those caught up in worldly pleasures will be judged in the fires of hell, where “their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh” (Isaiah 66:18, 24).
18. The preacher then confesses his own sinfulness and his present struggle against sin and evil as an encouragement for his hearers to pursue righteousness and escape the coming judgment.
19. The preacher reads the scriptural exhortation and encourages his hearers to take the calls to repentance seriously and continue to seek righteousness even if it results in present suffering.
20. Patience and endurance is essential since none of the righteous ever received his reward quickly. Nor should be do it simply for the reward but out of sincerity and love for God. He then ends with a benediction, invoking the name of God as “To the only God, invisible” as a quote of 1 Timothy 1:17.
This sermon gives us glimpse into the worship of the church, which appears at least in this instance, to center on the reading of scripture (here an Old Testament text), followed by a sermon filled with scriptural quotes and allusions, some from the Old Testament, some from the New Testament, and others from texts not in the canon. This sermon focused primarily upon a call to repentance and a turning from sin.
This sermon also shows that the divinity and humanity of Christ were considered fundamental truths, though the relationship of the Son to the Father is not address, nor is the relationship of the two natures of Christ. This sermon seems to be refuting Docetism, which saw Christ as a spirit who only appeared to have a body (cf. 1 John which also deals extensively with this issue).
One issue for further research would be whether this is the full text of the sermon or an abridged transcription. It has the feel of a spoken message while the ideas don’t seem to be fully developed, nor is there always a smooth transition from one idea to another.
Outline Summary by Chapters:
1. Praise for God’s salvation, calling us out of idolatry in order to serve him through Jesus Christ.
2. He quotes Isaiah 54:1 and interprets in a way that applies to the hearers’ present circumstances: The barren woman without children was the church who now has children through Christ’s work on the cross. The call for the woman who has no labor pains to rejoice is a call to the church to praise God for salvation. The phrase concerning the deserted woman having more children than the one having a husband refers to the fact that the church now has more believers than the Jews.
3. The preacher quotes Jesus’ words about men acknowledging him and the need to do it from the heart and not merely from the lips (Matthew 10:32 and 12:30) , indicating that we will be rewarded if we truly acknowledge Christ and not be like the people predicted by Isaiah 29:13 (quoted by Jesus in Matthew 15:8) who merely honor God with their lips and not their hearts.
4. It is not enough to merely call him “Lord” but we must show it in our actions by loving each other (quoting Matthew 7:21).
5. The preacher admonishes his hearers to not hold onto this world but live for the world to come. He quotes Jesus telling his disciples that they will be like lambs among wolves (Luke 10:13; Matthew 10:16, 28; Luke 12:4-5). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians where Peter asks, “What if the wolves tear the lambs to pieces?” To which Jesus replies that we should not fear those who can destroy the body but not the soul; rather we should fear God who can destroy both in hell.
6. He then quotes Jesus’ saying that we cannot serve two masters (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25), so believers should not be friends with the world.
7. He then uses the analogy of a earthly race or contest and the need to compete by the rules, lest one should be punished. He doesn't quote Paul but it appears he was familiar with several of Paul’s uses of the race metaphor.
8. There is a call to repent because once you die you will no longer have a chance to repent. He quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians and possibly Luke 16:10-12. There is also an allusion to the potter and the clay of Isaiah 45:9.
9. The preacher emphasizes the fact that we are flesh and will be resurrected again in the flesh to face judgment. Jesus himself was a spirit who became flesh (wn men to prwton pneuma, egeneto sarx), so we too must repent now in the flesh so we may enter the kingdom of God.
10. The preacher calls his hearers to forsake sin and ungodliness: “let us abandon that evil mindset, the forerunner of our sins, and flee ungodliness lest evil things overtake us.” If we do good, we will have peace; if we do evil we will never find peace.
11. He quotes several passages from an unknown source to challenge his readers to remain true to the faith and not be double-minded.
12. He urges his hearers to wait patiently for the kingdom of God since we don’t know the day of God’s appearing (epeidh ouk oidamen thn hmeran thß epifaneisaß tou qeou). He then quotes from the Gospel of the Egyptians or the Gospel of Thomas but completely misinterprets it.
13. He gives another call to repentance because their sinful lifestyle is causing God’s name to be blasphemed (Isaiah 52:5). Instead, we should live lives of extraordinary goodness so people will marvel and praise God (Luke 6:32, 35).
14. We must take care not to defile the church, which is the flesh while Christ is the spirit. The church has existed from the beginning and was spiritual and was revealed in the flesh of Christ (efanerwqh en th sarki Cristou). Therefore, whoever abuses the church abuses Christ.
15. Those who repent will be rewarded as will the one who calls them to repentance. God is eager to answer our prayer (Isaiah 58:9).
16. Repent while you have a chance for the day of judgment is coming like a blazing furnace (Malachi 4:1) and this world will be destroyed (Isaiah 34:4). This seems to echo 2 Peter 3:10-12. Repentance, fasting, prayer, and charitable giving should be practiced in order to secure God’s blessing.
17. Repent and call others to repent because those caught up in worldly pleasures will be judged in the fires of hell, where “their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh” (Isaiah 66:18, 24).
18. The preacher then confesses his own sinfulness and his present struggle against sin and evil as an encouragement for his hearers to pursue righteousness and escape the coming judgment.
19. The preacher reads the scriptural exhortation and encourages his hearers to take the calls to repentance seriously and continue to seek righteousness even if it results in present suffering.
20. Patience and endurance is essential since none of the righteous ever received his reward quickly. Nor should be do it simply for the reward but out of sincerity and love for God. He then ends with a benediction, invoking the name of God as “To the only God, invisible” as a quote of 1 Timothy 1:17.
This sermon gives us glimpse into the worship of the church, which appears at least in this instance, to center on the reading of scripture (here an Old Testament text), followed by a sermon filled with scriptural quotes and allusions, some from the Old Testament, some from the New Testament, and others from texts not in the canon. This sermon focused primarily upon a call to repentance and a turning from sin.
This sermon also shows that the divinity and humanity of Christ were considered fundamental truths, though the relationship of the Son to the Father is not address, nor is the relationship of the two natures of Christ. This sermon seems to be refuting Docetism, which saw Christ as a spirit who only appeared to have a body (cf. 1 John which also deals extensively with this issue).
One issue for further research would be whether this is the full text of the sermon or an abridged transcription. It has the feel of a spoken message while the ideas don’t seem to be fully developed, nor is there always a smooth transition from one idea to another.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
First Clement
First Clement was written by the church in Rome to the church in Corinth and is most likely the earliest extant Christian document outside the New Testament. It was written in Rome near the end of the first century, about the same time the apostle John was writing the book of Revelation, around A.D. 95 or 96, in the last year of the emperor Domitian or the first year of emperor Nerva. The author of this letter is unknown to us, and though the letter claims to be the work of the whole church, tradition identifies the author as some named Clement, who tradition claims was the third bishop of Rome after Peter. However, historical evidence suggests that Rome still had a plurality of elders who governed the church at this time, so Clement was most likely the leading elder and not the sole leader.
The letter was written because a certain faction, composed mainly of younger men, in Corinth had ousted the duly appointed bishop of the church. When news of this reached Rome, the church wrote this letter to admonish the faction to step down and reinstate the duly appointed bishop. The church in Rome also dispatched mediators to Corinth to restore peace and proper order.
This letter was held in high regard in the early church and was quoted from frequently. Clement of Alexandria even quotes it as authoritative scripture. This letter even made it into some early copies of the New Testament, so the early church had great respect for this letter.
The first sentence in chapter 1 indicates that there was some trouble in Rome that hindered an immediate response: “Because of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us, brothers, we acknowledge that we have been somewhat slow in giving attention to the matters in dispute among you, dear friends, especially the detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God, which a few reckless and arrogant persons have kindled to such a pitch of insanity that your good name, once so renowned and loved by all, has been greatly reviled.”
The letter goes on to challenge the usurpers to submit to the duly established leadership as is fitting and proper. The letter then refers to a few instances of rebellion in the Old Testament, such as Cain’s murder of Abel, Jacob and Esau, Moses and the rejection of his early leadership by those who knew he killed the Egyptian master, Miriam and Aaron opposing Moses, and David being persecuted by Saul. The letter then gives sever current examples, such as Peter and Paul who were martyred for their faith, and several women who were persecuted named Danaids and Dircae.
One interesting note is that Paul is said to have “reached the farthest limits of the West” and “when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and wen tot he holy place.…” This implies that Paul reached his goal of bringing the gospel to Spain after his imprisonment in Rome. It also implies that he was able to present his defense to Caesar, most likely explaining the gospel to all who were present, and that he was found not guilty and set free.
The letter goes on to warn the Corinthians that such rebellion and factiousness has always been punished. Therefore, the letters calls for the rebels to repent and restore the original leaders. Several examples from the Old Testament of faithful people, who were saved because of their hospitality and generosity, are held up as models for them to imitate, such as Abraham, Lot, Rahab. The letter calls for the church in Corinth to humble itself, repent, and be obedient to God and not follow the arrogant rebels. Christ is then held up as an example of humility and submission to God to follow. Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Job, Moses, and David are also held up as examples to follow. Then the fact that even creation obeys God and follows his decrees is given as a reason to submit to God in this matter. The letter goes on for many more chapters giving exhortations and reasons to repent and submit to God’s order for the church.
One important passage (chapter 44) indicates that the apostles had appointed leaders in the churches and that these leaders were to be honored and obeyed: “Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character, that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well spoken of by all—these men we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry.”
This passage indicates that by the end of the first century, only sixty to seventy years after Christ’s death and resurrection, there was a clear understanding that leadership was, first of all, appointed by the apostles, and second, that those men would have the authority to choose successors, and third, the whole church had to agree on those choices. Therefore, an established leadership was already taking shape immediately after the apostolic period.
The young men in the church of Corinth had clearly gone against this tradition. They had no authority to depose the current leadership, nor did they have the authority to appoint themselves. The church should have resisted such attempts, but it failed to follow the pattern given by the apostles, resulting in schisms and confusion.
In Chapter 47, the letter refers to the apostle Paul’s teaching, calling for them to submit to his authority. In chapter 48 the letter calls for them to quickly root out this offense and pray for forgiveness, so God may be merciful and restore them. The following chapters focus on the need for love and calls the church to show love and not be divided. The letter ends with several chapters of appeal to the rebellious to repent and restore the leadership and seek God’s forgiveness.
This letter also shows us the beginning of the church of Rome’s slow climb to supremacy and dominance over the other churches. The church in Rome saw it fitting to exert its influence over another church in a different region. While it would take centuries before the church in Rome became the leading church and its bishop the leading bishop, it seems that the seeds for that domination began early on as is evident in this letter. This letter also clearly sets up the idea of apostolic succession, with the first bishops being established by the apostles, and the succeeding bishops being established by those bishops, on down through a line of unbroken apostolic succession. While it is evident that this is how it happened historically, it doesn’t mean that Christ or the apostles intended for the bishop of Rome to have dominance over all the other churches. It would seem that the plan was to insure local autonomy not hegemony by one church.
The letter was written because a certain faction, composed mainly of younger men, in Corinth had ousted the duly appointed bishop of the church. When news of this reached Rome, the church wrote this letter to admonish the faction to step down and reinstate the duly appointed bishop. The church in Rome also dispatched mediators to Corinth to restore peace and proper order.
This letter was held in high regard in the early church and was quoted from frequently. Clement of Alexandria even quotes it as authoritative scripture. This letter even made it into some early copies of the New Testament, so the early church had great respect for this letter.
The first sentence in chapter 1 indicates that there was some trouble in Rome that hindered an immediate response: “Because of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us, brothers, we acknowledge that we have been somewhat slow in giving attention to the matters in dispute among you, dear friends, especially the detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God, which a few reckless and arrogant persons have kindled to such a pitch of insanity that your good name, once so renowned and loved by all, has been greatly reviled.”
The letter goes on to challenge the usurpers to submit to the duly established leadership as is fitting and proper. The letter then refers to a few instances of rebellion in the Old Testament, such as Cain’s murder of Abel, Jacob and Esau, Moses and the rejection of his early leadership by those who knew he killed the Egyptian master, Miriam and Aaron opposing Moses, and David being persecuted by Saul. The letter then gives sever current examples, such as Peter and Paul who were martyred for their faith, and several women who were persecuted named Danaids and Dircae.
One interesting note is that Paul is said to have “reached the farthest limits of the West” and “when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and wen tot he holy place.…” This implies that Paul reached his goal of bringing the gospel to Spain after his imprisonment in Rome. It also implies that he was able to present his defense to Caesar, most likely explaining the gospel to all who were present, and that he was found not guilty and set free.
The letter goes on to warn the Corinthians that such rebellion and factiousness has always been punished. Therefore, the letters calls for the rebels to repent and restore the original leaders. Several examples from the Old Testament of faithful people, who were saved because of their hospitality and generosity, are held up as models for them to imitate, such as Abraham, Lot, Rahab. The letter calls for the church in Corinth to humble itself, repent, and be obedient to God and not follow the arrogant rebels. Christ is then held up as an example of humility and submission to God to follow. Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Job, Moses, and David are also held up as examples to follow. Then the fact that even creation obeys God and follows his decrees is given as a reason to submit to God in this matter. The letter goes on for many more chapters giving exhortations and reasons to repent and submit to God’s order for the church.
One important passage (chapter 44) indicates that the apostles had appointed leaders in the churches and that these leaders were to be honored and obeyed: “Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character, that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well spoken of by all—these men we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry.”
This passage indicates that by the end of the first century, only sixty to seventy years after Christ’s death and resurrection, there was a clear understanding that leadership was, first of all, appointed by the apostles, and second, that those men would have the authority to choose successors, and third, the whole church had to agree on those choices. Therefore, an established leadership was already taking shape immediately after the apostolic period.
The young men in the church of Corinth had clearly gone against this tradition. They had no authority to depose the current leadership, nor did they have the authority to appoint themselves. The church should have resisted such attempts, but it failed to follow the pattern given by the apostles, resulting in schisms and confusion.
In Chapter 47, the letter refers to the apostle Paul’s teaching, calling for them to submit to his authority. In chapter 48 the letter calls for them to quickly root out this offense and pray for forgiveness, so God may be merciful and restore them. The following chapters focus on the need for love and calls the church to show love and not be divided. The letter ends with several chapters of appeal to the rebellious to repent and restore the leadership and seek God’s forgiveness.
This letter also shows us the beginning of the church of Rome’s slow climb to supremacy and dominance over the other churches. The church in Rome saw it fitting to exert its influence over another church in a different region. While it would take centuries before the church in Rome became the leading church and its bishop the leading bishop, it seems that the seeds for that domination began early on as is evident in this letter. This letter also clearly sets up the idea of apostolic succession, with the first bishops being established by the apostles, and the succeeding bishops being established by those bishops, on down through a line of unbroken apostolic succession. While it is evident that this is how it happened historically, it doesn’t mean that Christ or the apostles intended for the bishop of Rome to have dominance over all the other churches. It would seem that the plan was to insure local autonomy not hegemony by one church.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Heracles Mad
Euripides treats the legend of Heracles differently than other dramatists, focusing on his disgrace and misery. The play quickly turns to the assassination of Creon by Lycus, who usurps the kingship of Thebes, where Heracles’ family lives. Lycus seeks to destroy all of Creon’s heirs, including Heracles’ three sons. Heracles’ father, Amphitryon, and wife, Megara, keep the children in Zeus’ temple as long as possible.
In the temple, Amphytrion curses Zeus for allowing his grandchildren, Heracles’ sons, to be murdered by Lycus. The chorus then recites the twelve mighty deeds Heracles has wrought, including: killing a lion, a race of centaurs, and a hind; taming Diomede’s man-eating horses; executing Cycnus and the dragon that guarded the golden apples; supporting the heavens on his shoulders; stealing the girdle of the Amazon queen; slaying the Hydra and a three-bodied shepherd monster; and entering the underworld alive. Meanwhile, Megara believes that Heracles has died trying to carry out the twelve tasks demanded of him by Eurystheus, his old enemy, so she prays for Heracles’ ghost to come and scare Lycus away. As she is praying, Heracles himself returns, having finished his twelve tasks, the last one being to descend into Hades alive and return again to the world of the living. He explains that he was delayed because he stayed longer in Hades in order to free his friend, Theseus.
Heracles, along with his wife and father, set a trap for Lycus. When Lycus comes to murder Heracles’ sons, he is caught by surprise and killed by Heracles. But as soon as he has freed Thebes of the usurper, Hera sends Iris and Madness to punish Heracles for killing his grandfather in the course of completing his twelve tasks. While purifying himself to make an offering to Zeus, Heracles goes mad, and foaming at the mouth he hallucinates, thinking he is attacking his old enemy Eurystheus and his sons while in actuality he kills his three sons and his wife. He is knocked unconscious by Athena’s messenger before he can kill his father. The people of Thebes tie Heracles up so he can’t do any more harm.
When Heracles awakens, he thinks he is back in Hades when he sees all the carnage. When he realizes that he was the one who killed his wife and sons, he vows to commit suicide. However, Theseus comes to console him and talks him out of killing himself. He invites Heracles to return with him to Athens and he does.
I was reminded how often we, like Heracles’ father, complain to God for allowing evil to befall us without waiting patiently for his salvation. The Greeks also had a profound sense of retribution for evil actions, even when those actions were not intended. Heracles was punished by Hera for killing a relative, just like Orestes was put on trial for killing his mother and Oedipus was cursed for unwittingly killing his father and marrying his mother. Hubris and evil are punished by the gods, and Heracles was no exception.
Heracles also had to suffer the wrath of Hera because his mother conceived him by mating with Zeus. Many Greek heros had to suffer the jealousy and revenge of the gods. Fortunately, in Christ, there is no condemnation since the wrath of God has been propitiated by Christ’s death on the cross. While God will still discipline us for acts of hubris and sin, He does not seek revenge, but pardons us when we repent.
Heracles’ love for his friend Theseus drove him to put himself in danger in order to rescue him from the underworld. Because he risked his own life to save Theseus from Hades, Theseus was there to console him and keep him from committing suicide. So Heracles’ good deed was instrumental in the preservation of his own life. We should do good to all men, especially to those who are our brothers in Christ, not to get a reward, but realizing that by helping others we are also helping ourselves.
The Greeks also believed that the greater a man was the greater his sorrow would be. Greek tragedy abounds with examples of men, like Heracles, who do mighty deeds and exhibit superhuman character and then suffer incredible pain and loss. Those who desire to live godly lives in Christ will also be persecuted and suffer as Christ did.
In the temple, Amphytrion curses Zeus for allowing his grandchildren, Heracles’ sons, to be murdered by Lycus. The chorus then recites the twelve mighty deeds Heracles has wrought, including: killing a lion, a race of centaurs, and a hind; taming Diomede’s man-eating horses; executing Cycnus and the dragon that guarded the golden apples; supporting the heavens on his shoulders; stealing the girdle of the Amazon queen; slaying the Hydra and a three-bodied shepherd monster; and entering the underworld alive. Meanwhile, Megara believes that Heracles has died trying to carry out the twelve tasks demanded of him by Eurystheus, his old enemy, so she prays for Heracles’ ghost to come and scare Lycus away. As she is praying, Heracles himself returns, having finished his twelve tasks, the last one being to descend into Hades alive and return again to the world of the living. He explains that he was delayed because he stayed longer in Hades in order to free his friend, Theseus.
Heracles, along with his wife and father, set a trap for Lycus. When Lycus comes to murder Heracles’ sons, he is caught by surprise and killed by Heracles. But as soon as he has freed Thebes of the usurper, Hera sends Iris and Madness to punish Heracles for killing his grandfather in the course of completing his twelve tasks. While purifying himself to make an offering to Zeus, Heracles goes mad, and foaming at the mouth he hallucinates, thinking he is attacking his old enemy Eurystheus and his sons while in actuality he kills his three sons and his wife. He is knocked unconscious by Athena’s messenger before he can kill his father. The people of Thebes tie Heracles up so he can’t do any more harm.
When Heracles awakens, he thinks he is back in Hades when he sees all the carnage. When he realizes that he was the one who killed his wife and sons, he vows to commit suicide. However, Theseus comes to console him and talks him out of killing himself. He invites Heracles to return with him to Athens and he does.
I was reminded how often we, like Heracles’ father, complain to God for allowing evil to befall us without waiting patiently for his salvation. The Greeks also had a profound sense of retribution for evil actions, even when those actions were not intended. Heracles was punished by Hera for killing a relative, just like Orestes was put on trial for killing his mother and Oedipus was cursed for unwittingly killing his father and marrying his mother. Hubris and evil are punished by the gods, and Heracles was no exception.
Heracles also had to suffer the wrath of Hera because his mother conceived him by mating with Zeus. Many Greek heros had to suffer the jealousy and revenge of the gods. Fortunately, in Christ, there is no condemnation since the wrath of God has been propitiated by Christ’s death on the cross. While God will still discipline us for acts of hubris and sin, He does not seek revenge, but pardons us when we repent.
Heracles’ love for his friend Theseus drove him to put himself in danger in order to rescue him from the underworld. Because he risked his own life to save Theseus from Hades, Theseus was there to console him and keep him from committing suicide. So Heracles’ good deed was instrumental in the preservation of his own life. We should do good to all men, especially to those who are our brothers in Christ, not to get a reward, but realizing that by helping others we are also helping ourselves.
The Greeks also believed that the greater a man was the greater his sorrow would be. Greek tragedy abounds with examples of men, like Heracles, who do mighty deeds and exhibit superhuman character and then suffer incredible pain and loss. Those who desire to live godly lives in Christ will also be persecuted and suffer as Christ did.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Love Believes All Things
"Love Believes All Things." 1 Corinthians 13:7
Soren Kierkegaard, in his book, Works on Love, reveals the bankruptcy of those who are overly critical, skeptical and suspicious of others. A loving person and a mistrusting person may have the exact same knowledge about an individual but they will draw different conclusions from what they know. A loving person will always interpret the individual in the best positive light, giving him the benefit of the doubt. A mistrusting person, however, will interpret the individual in the worst possible light, refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The mistrusting person feels that believing the individual would be foolish and gullible. By believing the individual, the mistrusting person fears he will be deceived and taken advantage of. Therefore, to avoid being deceived, the mistrusting person always takes the position of skepticism and criticism, viewing all actions of the individual with suspicion.
However, there are many ways of being deceived. If you always mistrust others and view them with suspicion, you cheat yourself out of love. You may never be deceived and taken advantage of by others, but you will also never experience intimacy and love. Therefore, you may never be cheated by another person but you will have cheated yourself out of the most important thing in life—love.
If you love someone else and give them the benefit of the doubt, you may be deceived and cheated. But you will only be deceived and cheated in finite things, things that are temporal and less important. However, if you love and trust others, you will have grasped the most important fundamental truth of life.
Kierkegaard also took a hard swing at his critics when he called them “associate professors [whose] task in life is to judge the great men. [They display a] curious mixture of arrogance and wretchedness—arrogance because they feel called upon to pass judgment, wretchedness because they do not feel their lives are even remotely related to those of the great.”
Read C. Stephen Evans’ article, “Kierkegaard Among the Biographers” in Books & Culture, July/August 2007, pages 12-13.
Soren Kierkegaard, in his book, Works on Love, reveals the bankruptcy of those who are overly critical, skeptical and suspicious of others. A loving person and a mistrusting person may have the exact same knowledge about an individual but they will draw different conclusions from what they know. A loving person will always interpret the individual in the best positive light, giving him the benefit of the doubt. A mistrusting person, however, will interpret the individual in the worst possible light, refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The mistrusting person feels that believing the individual would be foolish and gullible. By believing the individual, the mistrusting person fears he will be deceived and taken advantage of. Therefore, to avoid being deceived, the mistrusting person always takes the position of skepticism and criticism, viewing all actions of the individual with suspicion.
However, there are many ways of being deceived. If you always mistrust others and view them with suspicion, you cheat yourself out of love. You may never be deceived and taken advantage of by others, but you will also never experience intimacy and love. Therefore, you may never be cheated by another person but you will have cheated yourself out of the most important thing in life—love.
If you love someone else and give them the benefit of the doubt, you may be deceived and cheated. But you will only be deceived and cheated in finite things, things that are temporal and less important. However, if you love and trust others, you will have grasped the most important fundamental truth of life.
Kierkegaard also took a hard swing at his critics when he called them “associate professors [whose] task in life is to judge the great men. [They display a] curious mixture of arrogance and wretchedness—arrogance because they feel called upon to pass judgment, wretchedness because they do not feel their lives are even remotely related to those of the great.”
Read C. Stephen Evans’ article, “Kierkegaard Among the Biographers” in Books & Culture, July/August 2007, pages 12-13.
The Four Intelligences or Capacities of Our Nature
Our Third Birth-Gift: The Four Intelligences or Capacities of Our Nature
Four parts of our nature: Mind, Body, Heart, Spirit
Four Capacities of our nature: Physical Intelligence (PQ), Mental Intelligence (IQ), Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) (50)
Mental Intelligence: the ability to analyze, reason, think abstractly, use language, visualize, and comprehend. (50)
Physical Intelligence: the ability of the body to balance and harmonize all of its functions without conscious effort. (50-51)
Emotional Intelligence: self-knowledge, self-awareness, social sensitivity, empathy and communication. A sense of timing for social appropriateness, courage to acknowledge weaknesses and needs, and the respect of differences. (51-53)
“For star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities. For success at the highest levels, in leadership positions, emotional competence accounts for virtually the entire advantage…. Given that emotional competencies make up two-thirds or more o the ingredients of a standout performance, the data suggests that finding people who have these abilities, or nurturing them in existing employees, adds tremendous value to an organization’s bottom line. How much? In simple jobs like machine operators or clerks, those in the top one percent with emotional competency were three times more productive (by value). For jobs of medium complexity, like sales clerks, or mechanics, a single top emotional competent person was twelve times more productive (by value).” Daniel Goleman (52)
“A person may be a ten on a ten-point IQ scale but emotionally score only a two, and not know how to relate well with others. They may compensate for this deficiency by over-relying on their intellect and borrowing strength from their formal position. But in so doing, they often exacerbate their own weaknesses and, in their interactions, the weaknesses of others as well. Then they try to intellectually rationalize their behavior.” (52)
Spiritual Intelligence: our drive for meaning, source of guidance, discernment of principles and connection with the infinite. (53-54)
Semantics and the Superior Nature of Spiritual Intelligence (54-57)
See Howard Gardner’s book, Frames of Mind for an excellent discussion of the concept of separate, yet overlapping intelligences.
See also Robert Cooper and Daniel Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence.
Some separate visual, verbal, analytical, artistic, logical, creative, economic and other intelligences.
“He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality, and will never, therefore, make any progress.” Anwar Sadat (56)
Four parts of our nature: Mind, Body, Heart, Spirit
Four Capacities of our nature: Physical Intelligence (PQ), Mental Intelligence (IQ), Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Spiritual Intelligence (SQ) (50)
Mental Intelligence: the ability to analyze, reason, think abstractly, use language, visualize, and comprehend. (50)
Physical Intelligence: the ability of the body to balance and harmonize all of its functions without conscious effort. (50-51)
Emotional Intelligence: self-knowledge, self-awareness, social sensitivity, empathy and communication. A sense of timing for social appropriateness, courage to acknowledge weaknesses and needs, and the respect of differences. (51-53)
“For star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities. For success at the highest levels, in leadership positions, emotional competence accounts for virtually the entire advantage…. Given that emotional competencies make up two-thirds or more o the ingredients of a standout performance, the data suggests that finding people who have these abilities, or nurturing them in existing employees, adds tremendous value to an organization’s bottom line. How much? In simple jobs like machine operators or clerks, those in the top one percent with emotional competency were three times more productive (by value). For jobs of medium complexity, like sales clerks, or mechanics, a single top emotional competent person was twelve times more productive (by value).” Daniel Goleman (52)
“A person may be a ten on a ten-point IQ scale but emotionally score only a two, and not know how to relate well with others. They may compensate for this deficiency by over-relying on their intellect and borrowing strength from their formal position. But in so doing, they often exacerbate their own weaknesses and, in their interactions, the weaknesses of others as well. Then they try to intellectually rationalize their behavior.” (52)
Spiritual Intelligence: our drive for meaning, source of guidance, discernment of principles and connection with the infinite. (53-54)
Semantics and the Superior Nature of Spiritual Intelligence (54-57)
See Howard Gardner’s book, Frames of Mind for an excellent discussion of the concept of separate, yet overlapping intelligences.
See also Robert Cooper and Daniel Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence.
Some separate visual, verbal, analytical, artistic, logical, creative, economic and other intelligences.
“He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality, and will never, therefore, make any progress.” Anwar Sadat (56)
From: The 8th Habit, by Stephen Covey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)