Sounding Brass
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” I Cor 13:1
When I heard the President speak tonight, this bible quote came to mind. I have no doubt that he is sincere, but sincerity without love (charity) is hollow and self serving.
The President has confirmed in his speech tonight what we already knew. We are going to have pretty much the same number of troops in Iraq through the end of his Presidency as we had prior to the surge - whether we like it or not. What we also can surmise from the Democrats is that this is just fine with them. They would like to have this issue to run on in November, 2008.
As many have already said, the troop withdrawals are just a bit of kabuki theatre. We have to bring those troops home because we have already extended their deployments in order to create the troop surge. So whether things were getting better or not, they would be coming home.
It is certainly good news for those that are coming home and all of our prayers go with them for their safe return.
It is also good news for those areas of Iraq who are experiencing a short respite from the fighting.
As far as the strategy is concerned, there is really not a whole lot there.
What is happening on the ground is that Iraq is partitioning itself and preparing for the coming civil war. There are very few multi-ethnic areas of the country left. We and the British are helping in that process by turning over control to the local militias, paying the local leaders for their cooperation, and in some cases actually arming them. We are also bringing back those who were in positions of power during Saddam’s government because they know how to run the country. Unfortunately they also are hated by the Shia. If you are interested in more insight on this prediction, listen to the interview of Tom Ricks on Fresh Air. He has been one of the few who has been consistently right in predicting what is going to happen next.
The reason why the Iraq government hasn’t made much progress is because there is no progress to be made. They are positioning themselves for the day when the real fighting begins and everything else is just lip service to attempt to get the most money out us before we leave.
That fighting will begin sometime in 2009 as the new Democratic president begins to draw down our troops to a level where we can no longer effectively keep the factions apart. When the real fighting starts, we will be forced to remove the rest of our troops to keep them out of harms way. We will likely try to keep troops in the region in order to prevent the conflict from spreading, but our influence at that time will depend on what is going on in Iran, Syria, and Israel. Since Israel just bombed Syria, it’s not looking real good for the home team right now.
Though this may seem frightening enough, what is really frightening is the suggestion that President Bush may also launch a strike against Iran before he leaves office. I know it sounds crazy, but there was a report to day of an Iranian supplied missile landing in the Green Zone in Baghdad. That’s the same sort of PR that led up the original invasion of Iraq. What would happen after that hit the fan is anyone’s guess.
Prayer is always an effective tool when faced with circumstances as bleak and hopeless as these seem. It is comforting to know that God is the only wisdom and power and that all creation including world leaders reflect that wisdom as part of their spiritual nature. That’s at least what I’m working on these days.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Again politics aside as we do not agree but your last paragraph we are together on. To take our petions to the white house is as usless as taking them to the out house. God is the one in control here and all things will be as he allows. His purposes are not known clearly to us as, “for today we see as though a foggy mirror but then we shall see Him face to face.” (parapharsing there)
ROMS 8:28 says all things work for the good for those who love God and are called according to HIs purposes. There is good in this situation and it is ordered by HIM!!!! Lets pray for the good in this so He may be glorified.
If we were to trade political views here I would start with why we went in in the 1st place. I was becuase of the 18 UN resolutions that he had broke which were signed by him (sadem) as the seeece fire negociations after the gulf war. any one of which rightly should have had the UN COLLECTIVELY back in there. 18 resolutions violated and no response was, in my veiw, simply unacceptable. One broken was unacceptable.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Kieth,
I’ll probably post something on this in more detail in the next day or two.
I guess it depends on who you read and who you are willing to believe, with regard to why we invaded Iraq.
I have my opinions, but I wasn’t privy to any of the discussions, so it is hard for me to say for sure.
Someone who was privy to those discussions, however, is life-long Republican and former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan. In his latest book that I just got for my birthday, he says the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with UN resolutions and everything to do with oil.
Jeff
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
GW went beforen the UN after 9-11 and our taking it to the talaban in afganistan. he said very clearly that iraq was in violation of the 18 resolutions that were agreed upon which stopped us, the “UN” in 1990, refore taking his head off then. GW went on the say “if you don’t do something about it I will.” the UN voeted unaimously he do “something ” about it.it was just what to do that was the problem. GW in his annual address said the same thing. this is the reason stated for war. AFTER the war others started confusineg the issue and whats laughable to me is that repubs cab even tell you why we went….thye should ahve been voted out in 2006 for the failure to explain even ther own opinion.(this was not the reason they lost however)
September 24th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Keith,
You need to do a little more research on how the UN works if you are going to use those violated resolutions to support the legality of the US invasion of Iraq.
Under the UN charter, the invasion of any nation by another nation or group of nations is legal only if it has been sanctioned by a vote of the UN Security Council. The US and Britain had just such a resolution staged up, but withdrew it in March, 2003 when it was clear that it did not have majority support. Sec of State Powell tried to argue that previous resolutions gave the US this approval, but the charter is pretty clear. You want to invade with the UN’s approval, you have to have the support of the Security Council.
As far as why GB1 didn’t go to Baghdad, you have to look no further than YouTube to watch the video of Dick Cheney defending the action. He says that toppling Iraq and Saddam would lead to a dangerous power vacuum in the region and potential quagmire for US troops. So instead, the UN adopted a serious of “containment” resolutions which were working. Saddam didn’t invade anybody else. The US was able to fly over Iraq. Even weapons inspectors had some access for a while and didn’t find anything. What we learned later is that Saddam felt that he needed the illusion of hidden weapons in order to protect Iraq from invasion by Iran. That’s why he acted as if he had something to hide, but in fact he had destroyed all his stockpiles as he had been instructed to do. Eventually the inspectors would have found that out if they had been given enough time.
There wasn’t any confusion over why we went. We invaded because the Bush administration terrified us with the dire predictions that Saddam had WMD’s and was trying to build nuclear weapons. Our government also promised that we knew where all the weapons were and invading was our only choice to prevent him from either using them or giving them to bin Laden. When that didn’t work out, the administration had to come up with something else to justify our staying (Saddam was a bad guy, the Iraqis would welcome us, democracy will solve the problems in Iraq, we’ve got to fight the terrorists in Iraq or else we’ll be fighting them here, we’ve just got to train up the Iraqis and they’ll be able to defend themselves, the Iraqi government will be effective as soon as there is a little stability, etc.). As each succeeding excuse also vaporized, it became harder and harder to sustain the illusion that any sort of responsible planning occurred. Instead it became clear that the Bush administration is making it up as they go. So I’m not surprised that the Republicans also appeared confused.
Jeff
September 29th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I would suggest that the the Bush admin didn’t terrify us. the intelegence we had on his nuc program was universal thought. no one disagrred with us in fact EVERY nation believed he had them. the clointon administration believed he had them…..i did then and still do today….but none of that maters. he was in violation of the un resolutions…….only 3 countryies didn’t go along with the “and then what” i mentioned above. russian, france & germany. why? because they were inside iraq with their fingers in the cookie jar. (see you recent post on follow the money to understand motavation here) this was simple an unacceptable situation fro the adminsitartion and very frankly for me also…..
September 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Keith,
The UN charter is pretty clear. A unanimous Security Council vote is required to authorize an invasion. As you pointed out, there were at least three members of the security council who didn’t view Iraq as such a threat to world peace that they were willing to authorize the US to invade. The US, or any other country for that matter, doesn’t have the right to take international law into their own hands and decide for everyone else what is right or wrong. All of those countries had relationships with Iraq and access to the same intelligence that the US had. They clearly came to different conclusions regarding the need for action. As it tuned out, they were right.
As far as nuclear weapons, you’ve been drinking too much of the administration’s Koolaide. It take a lot of work, significant infrastructure, and a lot of time to create a nuclear weapon. Israel blew up the only reactor in Iraq in 1980 and the US destroyed what was left in the first Gulf war. No one thought that Saddam had a nuclear weapon, though there was concern that we was trying to restart his development program. That was the whole Nigerian uranium boon doggle that Joe Wilson exposed prior to the invasion. But it was going to take him a long time before he could have produced any significant amount of weapons grade material, and between inspections and fly over rights, we would have likely discovered and destroyed it well before it become operational.
He did have chemical weapons because we helped him build them and he used them in the war with Iran and to suppress some internal uprisings. The Clinton administration was concerned that he also may have developed some biological weapons. What the Bush administration cleverly did was classify these as Weapons of Mass Destruction. That way every time they used the term, the American people (including you it seems) heard nuclear weapons. I wonder if they would have been as effective in their scare tactics if they had just said chemical and biological weapons.
The reality though is that there were no weapons. The UN weapons inspectors couldn’t find them either before or after the invasion. The reason why they haven’t been found is that they don’t exist. Saddam destroyed them all in compliance with one of the UN resolutions he agreed to after the first Gulf war. We have learned since from papers that the US recovered after the invasion which Saddam himself corroborated, that he continued to behave as if he did have chemical and biological weapons in order to keep Iran at bay and his internal enemies fearful.
The only unacceptable situations as far as I’m concerned are the rush to judgment of Iraq orchestrated by the Bush administration and the criminal lack of planning associated with the whole activity.
Jeff
October 1st, 2007 at 8:48 am
I did say nuc’s and he did have a program if not the weapons, but the program in itself was a violation. wmd’s he did have and those were a
violation as well….. at worst i sincerly don’t believe GW lied… he may have been wrong….but as stated above however….everyone else on earth was wrong also….i’ve drank no coolaid.
we’re talking about the un’s crediblity and if you’d like to do that i guess that would be ok but i don’t know if you and i would get far….i’m more interested in still understanding “spiritual wickedness in high places.”
still curious to your definition of sin and the how the bible plays a role in determining sin…
October 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Keith,
Thanks for the reply.
With regard to sin, I believe that anything that diverts our focus or attention away from God fits my definition of sin. Anytime we accept anything as more powerful than God, we suffer self-inflicted pain. That pain continues as long as we persist in this false belief.
Here’s an example. The Bible says that God sends the sun to shine on both the evil and the good. In other words God’s love is there for all to enjoy. All we have to do is accept it. If I insist on standing with my back to the sun, however, everything looks pretty dark and lifeless. God didn’t make it dark and lifeless, we did. That’s sin. We will continue to suffer “darkness” until we choose to turn back in the right direction, that’s redemption and reformation. God didn’t for an instant stop loving us, or seeing us as His perfect creation. It was only our delusion view of the world that caused us pain.
My favorite quote in this regard comes from Jesus in John 12:47. He said, “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.”
In other words, Jesus didn’t come here to point out who is sinning. He came here to point out that the sun is shining and as a result, the world is filled with light. Those who get it are saved.
So what I take from this is if Jesus, the most perfect ebodiment of the Christ (God’s idea come to man) ever to walk the earth, said that he wasn’t qualified to be a judge, I can only look at “judging” as another occasion for sin for me. That’s because I know that I fall well short of the mark of Jesus.
Revelation pretty well wraps it up when it describes heaven as a place where there is no night because all have overcome their temptations to look anywhere else for God. It is eternally open to any and all. You just have to be willing to walk toward the light.
“And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.” Rev 21:23-25
Jeff
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Let go with your second paragraph…..so what determines what standing face to the light and turn ones back to the light is? i would say it’s the bible, Gods instruction manual. so if one is embracing turning there back to the light, i will offer homosexuality see roms 1, they are “away from God.” i’m not comdeming them to hell as of yet as they can become repentant, but they would be with there backs turned to God. you’ve said those turned face to the sun are the saved, this would make them unsaved. again what decideds the action that is “facing the sun” to those that are “standing in the dark….i like your paragrah by the way.
I use the verse “all things not done in faith is sin” as my defination of sin.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Kieth,
Thanks for your reply.
We do walk a fair bit down the road together.
I completely agree that homosexuality is likely a sinful act for you. It would be for me too. I made a promise to God and my wife when we married that I would be faithful to her.
But why waste time judging how other adults voluntarily choose to live their lives? This sort of judging is also turning away from God because it is suggesting that you know as much as He does.
Remember the two great commandments.
Love God.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
In my current understanding, loving God is striving to get to know Him better by trying to see the world as He sees it - in His image and likeness.
In my current understanding, loving my neighbor is seeing them as God sees them, reflecting their creator - because this is how I would hope everyone sees me.
This is, in my humble opinion, how the world will be transformed.
Jeff
October 6th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
hey jeff…..,
your second to last paragraph is really spot on…this isa n understanding that i came to about 14 years ago. that we are all made in God’s image and we should see everyone in that light…..as Gods creation….not the sin but the person God made. so when you’re knocking the sinner your knocking someone God loves very much.
I am just stuck on why you can only go so far as to say homosexuality is wrong for you because of the commitment you’ve made to your wife….
(congratualtions by the way) i would suggest that that isn’t the reason it sin however. it’s sin because the bible says it is…. this isn’t a “judging of the way other adults voluntarily choose to live their lives.” not accepting a standard contrary to the bibles teaching as a “legitimate way of life.” is not judging.
it is not the Christians, and EVERY OTHER dominate religion, that have made this an issue. it is they who brought this to the public square and stood at the court house to legitimaize what God has clearly opposed. again this isn’t judging them. to oppose them changing laws publicly that’s the big deal. here’s just one example of why.
if gay marrige were the law of the land and a gay couple came to a pastor of a local church and asked to be married the following would happen. he would say no and they could bring, and will, discrimination charges against him. he’ll go to jail…and for what? refusing to do something the bible, his faith and his church would find to be sin. that’s why the big deal.
Jesus did not come to MAKE people stop sinning, but rather to point them to their creator and to save them…for he said “I come that you may have life.” satan came for another purpose. “he goes to and fro, looking for those he can devoure.” one comes that you may life, the other that you may have death. our sin leads us to that death. our repentance from sin through our confession and belief in Jesus brings us that life, “eternal.”
so………..it’s not the judging of others that is the motivation factor here it’s the SAVING of them that’s the motivator. we are to call sin sin, while having respect for Gods created persons. you are correct that we are not to JUDGE them but only to point out their error. they will ultimatly choose weather they will “GIVE themselves over,” as 1st Romans says, which leads to death.
Have a good weekend (I’ve got new york yankee tickets for sundays playoff game against the indians)
October 6th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Kieth,
Good to see you here again.
The bible says that a lot of things are sinful that we now accept as common practice including having intercourse during a woman’s menstrual cycle and wearing clothes that are blend of fabrics. There are a number of credible Bible scholars who say that the handful of verses prohibiting homosexual acts in the old testament concern ritualistic pagan sexual practices and prostitution, not consensual adult relationships. In the new testament, Paul has a couple of quotes that are also used as foundation for this argument, but if you go back and look at the original Greek, it seems he also was concerned about Greek and Roman ritual practices and not the topic we’re talking about. But the larger question, for me anyway, is why pick this particular sin as a point of social focus?
My sense is that this is NOT an issue of spirituality. It is instead a wedge issue that conservative politicians and fundamentalist Christian leaders have used to build a very effective political coalition.
Your generalization about world religions and concern about pastors being sued are examples of the baseless propaganda sometimes preached from the pulpit that is consumed as fact by the congregation. You could find this out for yourself, but you’ve allowed yourself to be blinded by what you see as righteousness. Happy to help you with that “mote” though.
Let’s take that claim about religions first. There are Christian sects that not only embrace homosexuality in their congregations, but also in their clergy (e.g. Church of England and Evangelical Lutherans). So clearly they must be reading the Bible differently than you. You can search the web to find hundreds of congregations in most major religions including Evangelicals where gay congregations are welcome. In the Hindu religion (4th largest), sexuality (including homosexuality) is celebrated as long as it is consensual and romantic. Buddhism (6th largest) advocates freeing yourself from all desires, including sexual desire, but doesn’t single out homosexuality as any different than any other sexual activity. There are gay jewish (11th largest) temples. They have figured this out without the benefit of the new testament. I could go on, but I think that you get the point.
As far as pastors getting sued, I didn’t even have to look that one up. Just think about it. At least in this country, we have a separation of church and state. You can have a segregated church if you would like. There are still plenty of them in our country today, but the federal government isn’t going after them as violators of the Civil Rights act. No pastor is going to go to jail because they refuse to marry people who they feel, for whatever reason, don’t “qualify”. How many Catholic priests, for example, have been sued because they refused to marry people who have been divorced?
What is illegal is for a church to claim a tax-exempt status and then advocate a political position through support of either a candidate or a proposition. How many pastors knowingly crossed that line in the last couple of elections? I don’t know, but I’m not about to sue them. They should know better (render unto Caesar), but it is really between them and God.
As far as what constitutes judging, I’ll let you decide that for yourself. But it certainly seems to me that if we have to pass laws in order to “save” consenting adults from what you perceive to be a moral weakness, we have gone well past the point where we are acting out of love.
I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things with you. You have given me an opportunity explore some thoughts that I’m sure will prove helpful in my own study and future blog posts.
Thanks,
Jeff