Many thanks (again) to the folks at Eisenbrauns for sending me a review copy of War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 2). You can read the first part and second part of my review of this book here and here. In this third (and final) post, the chapters we will look at cover diverse ground. One defends Christian pacifism, another looks at the distinction between Just Wars and Crusades. The three final essays take up the issues as they relate specifically to terrorism.

Chapter 4
Impulses toward Peace in a Country at War: The Book of Isaiah between Realism and Hope by M. Daniel Carroll R.
This essay begins with some personal experiences of the author’s time living in the midst of the war in Guatemala (1982-1996). Dissatisfied with how both sides of the conflict handled the situation, he was motivated to find an “appropriate evangelical response” (59). The writings of Reinhold Niebuhr (Faith and History; Moral Man and Immoral Society; and The Nature and Destiny of Man) and Stanley Hauerwas (extensive list in footnote 11, p 62) provided fertile ground for Carroll’s thinking, even though they reflect a sharp contrast in thought. Niebuhr “recognized humanity’s inherent will to power and noted that it plays itself out in destructive ways, both within and between nations” and “understood the pervasiveness of sin in society and politics” (61). Because of this, Niebuhr believes that there is the “unavoidable necessity of occasionally having to use coercion—sometimes to the point of waging war—to maintain and establish at least a modicum of justice in this unjust world” (61).

On the other hand, Hauerwas argues “for another starting point in the debate over whether Christians as individuals and the Church as an institution should support and be involved in war…Christians do not choose nonviolence because we can rid the world of war, but rather in a world of war we cannot be anything but nonviolent as worshipful followers of Jesus the Christ” (emphasis is the author’s, 62). Carroll agrees with Hauerwas. Out of this position Carroll identifies two foundational questions that must be answered: “Who are we?” (the issue of identity) and “What are we to do?” (the issue of mission). The answers to these questions will determine fundamental loyalty and a resulting goal for life/service.

To answer these questions (and to wrestle with the believer’s approach to war), Carroll looks to the book of Isaiah. He spends significant ink detailing the history, archaeological data, and prophetic message. He mines three lessons from Isaiah’s words for Judah: it is wise to explore the values and attitudes of those who make policy choices (character matters!); believers are “called to trust in the absolute power of Yahweh to deliver” (75); believers should not lose sight of the eschatological hope (war is not ultimate, one day it will end) (77).

Chapter 5
Distinguishing Just War from Crusade: Is Regime Change a Just Cause for Just War? by Daniel R. Heimbach
Heimbach does not address the pacifists’ question about whether a war is ever morally right. He respectfully disagrees with the pacifists and believes that a just-war approach to the ethics of war (and a Christian’s participation in such a war) is faithful to Scripture, has been the teaching of the majority of the church since the time of the New Testament, and is not a corruption of biblical morality (79). He attempts to define the line between just war and crusade. He distinguishes the two based on how each justifies going to war.

He situates his argument in the controversy about the war with Iraq. He discusses the justification given by President Bush for going to war with Iraq in 2003 (a pre-emptive strike against a potential threat). He also recounts numerous Christian leaders and their responses to this justification (quoting those who supported the President and those who cautioned against such justification). However, he does not agree that the justification given was valid. Instead, he believes that the arguments put forth come close to (if not actually) crossing the line from Just War to Crusade.

Nevertheless, Heimbach believes “that the war with Iraq was indeed justified, that there was legitimate just cause. But, in explaining how it was justified, President Bush and others included one reason with which I do not agree. The only morally appropriate reason for this war was to enforce the terms of the 1991 surrender. The just cause for the Persian Gulf War (the invasion of Kuwait) still pertained” (87). Aside, from this, Heimbach believes that the war would be difficult to justify (and he does give details to support his position). He concludes his essay with an appendix of Conflicting Statements on Just Cause (citing a diverse group throughout history, including, the prophet Amos, the apostle Paul, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Paul Ramsey, Wilton Gregory, Robert Tucker, Charles Colson, and President Bush).

Chapter 6
Noncombatant Immunity and the War on Terrorism by Tony Pfaff
Pfaff addresses the issues of noncombatant casualties, particularly in the pursuit of justice against terrorists. Pfaff sates that “it is a nearly universally accepted moral principle that it is wrong to harm innocent people intentionally. However, states are obligated to protect their citizens from harm, and individuals vested with this responsibility sometimes find it necessary to risk violating the moral principle in order to uphold the civil principle. Soldiers sometimes must attack enemy military targets located near civilian residences. Polices sometimes put bystanders’ lives at risk when they pursue criminals” (94-95).

Pfaff seeks to define terrorists and discusses the differences between criminals and enemies (and how they are to be brought to justice). The main distinguishing characteristic seeming to be the kind of threat or risk the terrorist(s) present. He discusses the different roles that police and soldiers hold, and how each role approaches justice and peace.

He concludes, in part, by saying “The al-Qaeda terrorists are criminals. But they are also enemies. Because it is always preferable to do less harm than more, it will always be preferable to pursue them under the criminal model because this model risks the least harm to noncombatants. But because terrorists are enemies, when it is not possible to pursue them as criminals, it is permissible to conduct operations that will knowingly though not intentionally harm civilians, given the restrictions outlined [in this essay]” (111).

Pfaff acknowledges that there are unresolved issues that he cannot address in the scope of this essay, including, permissions associated with violating political sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states in order to pursue terrorists and how to treat detained terrorists.

He warns “a state cannot rationally fight evil by committing it… [America’s] leaders must take care not to become like the enemy it opposes” (112).

Chapter 7
Terrorism: What Is It and How Do We Deal with It? by Ian G. C. Durie
Ian Durie, like Heimbach, affirms the just-war position. He was a former soldier (a participant in the first Gulf War, in 1991). After his experiences in war and subsequent examination of the roots of just-war doctrine he concluded, “the responsibility for justice, law, and order in society requires the state to be prepared to use force conditionally and in a closely controlled manner to deal with internal disorder and external aggression and that Christians have a duty to play their parts, although some may be called to pacifist as an individual stance” (113).

Durie also takes up the task of attempting to define terrorism, and asks if terrorism is ever legitimate. For example, “In the case of justified resistance, terrorism may be the appropriate method of fighting of a relatively powerless minority against a more powerful majority” (116). After discussing various types of terrorism, he deals with the topic of resisting (and defeating) international terrorism.

He concludes by saying that “terrorism is a potentially legitimate form of warfare, but terrorists never use it legitimately, and this is why it is not a justifiable means of resistance” (122). He gives three action items to consider: 1) Governments “have a duty to respond legitimately within the constraints of just-war doctrine and the international rules of war, taking care not to further the terrorist cause by repressive actions;” 2) “governments should seek to address the causes of injustice throughout the world, thus negating the means by which terrorists justify their actions;” 3) “Both governments and those who oppose them should be called to account by Christians and others who have the duty of responding to God’s call for justice and freedom from oppression for all nations and peoples” (122).

At the end of Durie’s chapter there is an appendix listing eight Criteria for Justified Resistance.

Chapter 8
Just Peacemaking Reduces Terrorism between Palestine and Israel by Glen H. Stassen
Stassen begins by saying that both pacifists and just-war theorists can agree on Just Peacemaking Theory. This theory answers the question: “What peacemaking practices are in accord with Jesus’ way, work in the real world, and are obligatory for Christians to advocate and practice in the real world?” (127). Stassen demonstrates Just Peacemaking practices in the Bible (e.g., Cain and conflict resolution; Jacob and independent initiative; Joseph and forgiveness; Moses and righting injustice, and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount). He also uses examples from history to demonstrate Peacemaking Theory for the prevention of terrorism (e.g., Russia, Turkey, Biological weapons, and Israel & Palestine).

He also argues that because terrorism is purpose driven, preventive initiatives can make a difference. He gives several examples: Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Desert, the 1993 Oslo Agreement, and the Lebanon Border Incident (2007).

He concludes by pointing out the limits of unilateral power (i.e., there is a limit to what United States can do without help from other nations), and thus there is a need for cooperative foreign policy in the pursuit of justice and peace (especially in the fight against terrorism). Stassen believes that “Just Peacemaking offers a wiser and more effective way to dry up the sources of terrorism” (148).

My Conclusions
This collection of essays offers much food for thought and no simple answers. In fact, taken as a whole, the reader comes away with some views that are directly in opposition to one another. Yet, all are grounded in a biblical, Christian ideology. This highlights just how complicated the situations of war, terrorism, and peace can be on the personal, national, and international level.

John Goldingay, in a review from Themelios 33-3 (December 2008) and quoted on the publisher’s website, makes a very astute observation. “I think much of the symposium reflects an unresolved and often unrecognized problem about biblical interpretation in connection with issues related to war and peace. It was only in the context of modernity that war became a problem, something whose existence people were no longer willing simply to accept as a reality of human life and something they believed could be overcome.”

This book would be an excellent choice for a small discussion group (perhaps in a classroom, book club, or church setting). The purpose of the book is really to bring the issues to the table, not to give pat answers. At 148 pages it is not a long read, and each chapter gives enough material to stimulate a discussion. Even the topics that are not taken up in detail, but nevertheless mentioned, could stimulate further study and consideration.

Hess says that war in the Hebrew Bible is a topic “vast in scope” and that there is “no unanimity among biblical authors regarding war” (19). Although he does point out a few passages that deal with a future time of universal peace, the general expectation of the scriptures is that “war is assumed from the outset as a necessary part of the world in which the ancients found themselves” (19). In order to bring the focus a little closer to the task of the seminar, Hess surveys and evaluates a few contributions related to the ethics of war (as described in the HB).

First, he deals with the theme of “Yahweh as Warrior,” which considers the nature of God as a warrior who leads his people in battle. Then he examines three different types of war as portrayed in the HB: 1) holy war (which includes ḥerem warfare); 2) a bardic tradition (which narrates a war by a set of expected rules and characters); and 3) an “ideology of expediency” which uses whatever force is necessary to eradicate the enemy. Finally, Hess asks, “Why did the authors record the battle stories?” and considers the issue of accounts of war as propaganda (particularly comparing similar accounts of war from other Ancient Near East cultures).

He concludes his essay saying, “In the end, the Bible reflects a variety of reasons for war, but it does so with a moral tenor that ultimately recognizes battle as a necessary evil in the context of a greater, cosmic struggle between good and evil” (32).

Chapter 3
Toward Shalom: Absorbing the Violence by Elmer A. Martens
In this essay, Martens argues that “the cross along with the resurrection is the centerpiece of the Christian gospel, that its message is fundamentally reconciliation and peace, and that the method for achieving reconciliation and peace is absorbing the violence” (33). Christians, according to Martens, do this by both advocating and practicing nonviolence.

The first half of the essay describes what Martens calls “God’s heartbeat for humanity”: shalom, reconciliation, peace. He views the cross of Christ as the message and method by which peace is made (defending this from the writings of Paul and Isaiah).

After laying this foundation, Martens acknowledges that the Bible also “depicts humans as agents of violence [and] … reports that God commands acts of violence” but that this is not the dominant chord of the overall composition (40). Thankfully, he doesn’t leave the reader hanging, but does attempt to address the issue of violence in the Bible by looking at violence in society generally (attributed to sin), violence in human affairs perpetrated at God’s command (as an act of justice against corruption, and to prevent a worse evil from propagating within the nation of Israel), and violence directly associated with God as the agent. Martens briefly surveys many proposed (and according to him, inadequate) solutions for the issue of understanding the commands of God to the Israelites to dispossess the Canaanites and then proposes a theological point of entry focused on prioritizing holiness, righteousness, and justice in scripture. I was not able to see how he connected the validity of God commanding the Israelites to perform acts of violence (for the sake of holiness and justice) with his advocacy for Christian nonviolence.

Also a bit disconcerting to me were some of the analogies that Martens chose. In the section about violence as the hard edge of justice, Martens discusses the issue of the mass destruction of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perrizites, etc., as a combination of judgment for their perversity, which we have evidence of from their “morally gross in the extreme” literature (e.g., evidence found in the archaeological work at Ugarit) and as a preemptive strike to prevent a worse evil (47). As an illustration justifying the necessity this type of violence, he discusses the way healthy cattle were killed along with infected cattle in order to combat mad cow disease. I wonder, though, if we really want to compare slaughtering cows to prevent the spread of disease to the slaughtering of Canaanite men, women, and children to prevent the spread of sin?

In the subsequent section on violence and the soft edge of justice, Martens says that where possible, God also eschews violence if it can be avoided (e.g. the city of Nineveh). He also discusses Yahweh’s engagement in the historical process as a pre-cursor to the incarnation and argues that “through war, Yahweh educates his people in the meaning of trust, faith and his sovereignty” (49). He uses the example of the Egyptians at the Red Sea as an indication that God is the one who fights and highlights that the participation of the Israelites is absent. Similarly, in the story of Gideon, clearly the 300 Israelites “armed with weapons of less-than-mass destruction such as pitchers, torches and trumpets” had little likelihood of success against soldiers armed with swords and spears (49). These examples are Martens argument for a pedagogical lesson from war: let God do the fighting.

In the final section on God as the agent of violence, he explores two images of God; God as king (sovereign) and warrior (over evil; ultimately completing its trajectory in Jesus). Martens says there are several (unnamed in the essay) ethical conclusions that can be drawn from this, but focuses on one: “Christians need not — should not — engage in violence. The fact that Yahweh our God is a powerful warrior, whose passion for holiness and justice is intense and who will deal decisively with evil, means that his followers can afford to leave the righting of wrongs in God’s hand” (55). Therefore, for Christians, the priority should be shalom which is achieved in a non-coercive manner. Human-to-human violence is to be dealt with by a transformation of the heart and Christians should follow the divine warrior, who becomes the incarnate Jesus and suffers martyrdom to break the violence cycle. Martens says believers should follow this example which demonstrates the principle that “bringing shalom demands the absorption of violence” (57).

This chapter caused me to re-visit the disturbing issue of attempting to make sense of the God-directed violence portrayed in the HB and whether or not we can extract an ethic for our day. I also found myself wanting to hear Martens “connect the dots” a little more with how we get to the non-coercive, violence-absorbing stance that he advocates Christians should take, and what that would look like in our current world of much violence. Perhaps some of the other essays from the conference will address this. Stay tuned for Part 3!

First up, ScienceOnline2010, January 14-17th, 2010 at Sigma Xi in the Research Triangle Park. This is officially an “unconference.” More about conversation than lecture. Here’s a list of who’s coming. And here’s the program. But don’t worry, even if you can’t attend, you can participate. Follow the Twitter account for the conference (@scio10) or the hashtag #scio10.

From the conference website:

This is a conference to explore new ways in communicating scientific exploration. Our goal is to bring together scientists, physicians, patients, educators, students, publishers, editors, bloggers, journalists, writers, web developers, programmers and others to discuss, demonstrate and debate online strategies and tools for doing science, publishing science, teaching science, and promoting the public understanding of science. Our conference addresses a variety of issues and perspectives on science communication, including science literacy, the popularization of science, science in classrooms and in homes, debunking pseudoscience, using blogs as tools for presenting scientific research, writing about science, and health and medicine. In addition to being an internationally known hub of scientific and biomedical research and education, North Carolina has numerous science blogs written by a wide variety of people – see this listing of Science bloggers located in North Carolina here.

I would love to go, but can’t. But that doesn’t mean I won’t be keeping up with the fun.

So, what could follow such a super science spectacular? Why our very own TEDx event!

(click for larger image)

The United States spends more on medical care per person than any country, yet life expectancy is shorter than in most other developed nations and many developing ones. Lack of health insurance is a factor in life span and contributes to an estimated 45,000 deaths a year. Why the high cost? The U.S. has a fee-for-service system—paying medical providers piecemeal for appointments, surgery, and the like. That can lead to unneeded treatment that doesn’t reliably improve a patient’s health. Says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who studies health insurance worldwide, “More care does not necessarily mean better care.” —Michelle Andrews

HT @BoraZ via Twitter

Greetings!
On the way to work this morning I heard a report on consumers having a stand-off with retailers about the level of discounts expected. Consumers are refusing to buy items until a 50% if not 70% discount is offered. Forgive me. I just can’t stay quiet on this issue. I can understand if you want to skip this newsletter. Honestly, I am speechless and saddened. I am sympathetic to the tight financial times we are in. I am not a rich person. Far from it. This is rather about how I value my fellow man and planet. This about our obsession for “something for nothing” about turning a blind eye to what is ultimately exploitation and degradation. This happens on all levels: global (China vs USA) and local (WalMart vs mom & pop stores). I think discounting actually further impoverishes people. Rather than hearing my thoughts, please consider the following article.

Why a Low Price Isn’t Always a Good Deal
Interview With Ellen Ruppel Shell, author of Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture

By: Krista Walton | Source: AARP Bulletin Today | July 9, 2009

“All you can eat!” “Buy one, get one free!” “Thirty percent off everything in stock!” “Forty-eight-hour sale!”

Shop. Shop. Shop. Americans march to sales pitches. Many of those scurrying to be first in line don’t question whether they’re getting a good deal. And if they are getting a good deal, at what cost to others does it come?

Ellen Ruppel Shell is a self-described cheapskate. But one purchase-three pairs of tube socks for $5-made her begin investigating how anything could sell at such an incredibly low price. The result is her new book, Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture [read an excerpt from Cheap]. Shell, a correspondent for The Atlantic and author of The Hungry Gene, not only uncovered dire consequences for consumers and workers in this country and around the world but also adopted a whole new approach in her own shopping. To start with, she now buys free-range organic eggs.

Shell spoke with AARP Bulletin Today about why $5 for tube socks isn’t such a great deal after all.
Q. What’s more important to a shopper-price or product?
A. Price is the biggest trigger, not the product itself. That’s what is really remarkable: We love the deal, we cherish the deal, we go for the deal, and often we care much less about the purchase itself. Studies have shown that there are actual psychological changes in our brain when we buy something. We get the biggest jolt from making the actual deal, and often when we bring that product home, we’re much less happy either with it or with the ownership of it.
Q. How did the price of tube socks make you question the high cost of discount culture?
A. I was buying tube socks for my kids at a discount store, and it just freaked me out that I could get three pairs of tube socks from China for $5. What does it mean when making fibers, producing socks with them, shipping the socks all the way from China, and then putting them out on the store floor-where the store space costs money and the employees checking you out at the register need to be paid-adds up to $5 for three pairs? How could these prices be so very, very low?
Q. Isn’t cheap good?
A. Well, no one wants to pay more money. I mean, I’m the biggest cheapskate that walked the earth. When I say that I adore getting free parking, I mean it! But I realized I was making a mistake by cruising for half an hour to find free parking. I was wasting gas and wasting my time. We really devalue our time. Marketers count on the fact that we’ll devalue our time.
Consider how long you spend driving to a discount store-which in the case of places like IKEA is an average of 50 miles. And then add the time you might spend assembling what you bought. And the fact that you got something that you probably won’t be able to pass down to anyone. All of that should be added to the cost of your purchase.
Q. Do really low prices come with social consequences?
A. Absolutely. I went to China twice while writing this book, and the conditions for workers there are not ideal, to say the least. I visited Taizhou, an hour’s flight from Shanghai, where thanks to low-cost production the air quality was so bad my eyes stung the minute I got off the plane. My guide, a high school teacher, showed me polluted ponds where frogs, mutated by the toxic metals and chemicals pouring into the water, had only one leg. In those same ponds, women washed clothes and kids played. Those kids also worked dismantling high-tech devices shipped in from the United States, Japan and elsewhere-computers, cell phones, et cetera-which they “mined” for metal. One way to do this was to use an acid bath to leach out the gold from, say, a pile of cell phones, resulting in extremely toxic fumes.
Q. What do American companies do about it?
A. While I was in Shanghai, I tried to get in touch with the American Chamber of Commerce [AmCham] to discuss their view on workers’ rights. They declined to get back to me, but AmCham-which represents Nike, Intel, Microsoft and Wal-Mart, among many other companies-lobbied assiduously against regulations that would enforce worker protections. For example, one regulation would guarantee workers a binding agreement to ensure timely payment at a minimum rate. AmCham threatened to curtail investment and lay off workers in China if reforms were instated.
Q. Has discount culture contributed to the current economic crisis in this country?
A. Well, we live in a culture that insists that we can have it our way immediately, at all times, whatever it is we want. This culture encourages consumption, and low prices have made everything seem within our reach. That perception got us deeply in debt. Over 60 percent of us own houses, and we used them as piggy banks, taking out loans based on the value of our house or the projected value, all fueled by the idea that we needed objects and we could buy them cheaply if we just had a little more money.
Q. Was income increasing to finance greater consumption or repay new loans?
A. By 2008, the inflation-adjusted median family income had dropped by almost $1,200 from the 1970s. At the same time, spending increased by over $4,600, while corporate profits doubled. How is it possible that our inflation-adjusted incomes are going down, but we’re spending more and corporate profits are doubling?
Q. What’s the answer?
A. Part of that is that while consumer goods got cheaper, we were neglecting our wages and benefits. I can’t really emphasize that enough. What helped keep those wages and benefits low without us revolting and protesting was the decline in prices of consumer goods. We could get T-shirts for really cheap, so it seemed like everything was OK, when in actuality the price of many of the things we must buy, like education and health care, soared. We have these very enormous and growing costs on big purchases, and we’ve kind of been distracted by the low costs of small purchases.
Q. But isn’t high-quality stuff often priced beyond the reach of most people?
A. There’s this false dichotomy between quality and price, the idea being that you have to pay a very high price for quality. That wasn’t the case 30 years ago. You weren’t necessarily looking for the lowest price, but you’d get quality for a reasonable price, and you’d also get reasonable service at many places. Once, you could go to a mid-priced store and be served by knowledgeable sales people. You would stand in the dressing room and they’d bring you stuff, and they’d tell you what they thought-whether you liked it or not!
Q. Is that impossible today?
A. We could demand that kind of service for a moderate price, but we’ve been trained to assume that that level of service has to come with a high price. Our expectations have been lowered. Brent Hull, a Texas-based architectural designer [quoted] in the book, said to me, “We don’t think we deserve quality anymore. We think that’s only for rich people.” There’s some truth to that.
Q. How can we be smarter shoppers?
A. Well, my book isn’t a consumer’s guide, but I can tell you how writing it helped me. I completely changed the way I shop. I try to think first about what it is I want in a product, whether it’s a sweater or a chicken or a bicycle. What is it that I value? What do I want? Do I want this thing to last? Do I care? Am I thinking in terms of the environment when I buy this thing? Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not. I’m not perfect.
I try to think about all those things before I look at the price. Then if I look at the price and it’s more than I want to spend, I rethink the purchase. Do I really need this thing? If I can’t buy something that’s of quality, maybe I should wait until I’ve saved enough to buy it.
Now, for example, when I buy eggs, I buy the free-range organic eggs. They are more expensive than the regular eggs, but only by a little, and for some people that would be a deal breaker. For me, I can afford it.
Q. What kinds of things should we be buying?
A. I would like people to challenge their assumptions about what gives them value in life. What gives them a kick? What do they really enjoy? And what do they think it is worth to them? People should also think about whether they’re being taken advantage of by this system. Are they getting what they want in terms of their benefits and pay? Are they feeding into the sweatshop mentality? If people were really informed about the personal consequences and the consequences for the world community because of these extremely low prices, they may think twice.

Here is another interesting article to read:
Why Big Shopping Bargains Are Bad News For America
Like I always say, it’s not just about what people deserve, but about what kind of person I want to be. I want to buy local as much as possible and pay honest and ethical prices for the things I have.

Sincerely, Jill
Jill DiMauro
Proteus Bicycles

I’ve started to think twice about what food I buy and where I buy it (we participate in a meat-buying club with a local farmer and buy as much as we can from the Farmers’ Market). Now I need to broaden my thinking to question just how a store can sell a full-sized, nicely knitted, Christmas stocking for just a dollar.

If you live near College Park, MD, stop by and tell Jill I said, “Hi!” You will find some terrific bicycles, top-notch mechanics, and a few friends.