“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
2 Chronicles 7:14

People regularly email me with questions about how to communicate with other Christians about liberty and peace. The greatest conundrum the Christian libertarian has, it seems, is persuading other Christians to stop supporting the immoral wars that governments perpetrate across the globe. It is particularly difficult in the United States, where “supporting the troops” is essentially part of the new orthodoxy in most evangelical Protestant churches. You can publicly criticize a minister that he preaches too long and someone will support you, but say one word criticizing the military (or even the police) and you become anathema.

It is not as though we cannot defend our position adequately; the truth is on our side. We can easily bring forth historical data, ethics, and solid theology to make our case that war is wrong. This is good and right! We must never cease reasoning with those who disagree with us, and we should do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). However, we must admit that a large part of the problem is not merely failure to reason, but also a failure to show Christian compassion toward others. Churches all over forget that war really is hell, and neglect the suffering war causes. This is especially reflected in our public prayers.

In the past, even the Southern Baptists took the Word of God seriously and prayed for those affected by war. But when was the last time you heard a church pray for anyone in the Middle East, for instance, other than soldiers? When was the last time you heard a church pray for an end to war?

Recently, I was moved to step out and try something I have never heard of done before: ask the leaders of my congregation to take the lead in praying for those suffering in war. (In the Church of Christ tradition, the elders are the spiritual leaders of the congregation.) After consulting with some of my close friends, I attended the June 2010 elders’ meeting and presented the following letter to them to address the “Prayer for the Church” that we offer every Sunday morning worship service.

*********************

To the Elders of the University Avenue Church of Christ,

We have noticed an unusual trend over the past few months during our prayers for the church in Sunday morning worship. On multiple occasions, we have heard people pray for men and women in the military, that they receive “special measures of protection” as they fight to “protect our freedoms” and “serve our country.” While we understand the concerns of church members who have friends and family in the armed forces, and while we sincerely hope for their safe return immediately, we find that these kinds of prayers are neglectful of another group – those victims who suffer wrongfully from this war, to whom we are indeed responsible in part for their suffering. Regardless of one’s opinion of these wars, we think that all can agree upon inspection that this practice can and should change to be more inclusive.

For instance, we never hear prayers for our fellow Christians who live in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the US invasion in 2003, Christians who were tolerated in the past have been repeatedly persecuted and frequently even killed by indiscriminate warfare or surging extremist groups, and nearly half of the Christian population of 800,000 in Iraq has either fled the country or died. In March 2010 alone, over 4,000 Christians were displaced from their homes following unrest in the northern city of Mosul. Many more have confined themselves to their homes for their own safety.

Moreover, we rarely, if ever, hear prayers for the innocent people in Iraq that die on a daily basis, either from indiscriminate killing by our own military or civil unrest that results from a country torn apart by war. The lowest estimates of non-combatant deaths in Iraq number greater than 100,000. Unfortunately, over time our sensibilities and attitudes toward this war – which is now the longest prolonged conflict in American history – have become desensitized and lackadaisical, and thus we often forget these innocent people.

We appeal to the elders to lead the way toward recognizing this issue with two simple proposals. First, we propose to include in the bulletin prayer requests under “Family Members in the Military” a mention of the innocent and oppressed in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially our Iraqi and Afghan brothers and sisters in Christ, and for an end to these wars. Second, we propose that the elders take the lead in consistently mentioning the same in prayer with the congregation on Sunday mornings. If the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective, then surely instituting this practice will do good both for these victims and for our own spirits.

We support this appeal with Scripture in two ways. First, if you consider these people as we do, that they are innocent victims and have been wronged by their own leaders, by extremists, and by our own military, then may we pray to God as Jesus taught his disciples: to be “delivered from evil.” If we can pray this for ourselves, surely we can do so for others. But second, if you still consider these people our enemies, then may we do as Jesus said in Matthew 5: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” May this be the beginning of understanding what Jesus said moments before, “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Changing our practice to include praying for the oppressed is not a political statement. In fact, this is not a political issue in the least; on the contrary it is a moral and theological issue. If we are to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then we should take seriously that Jesus came and died to proclaim peace on earth and to liberate the oppressed. We may expect that “wars and rumors of wars” will always exist, but this does not require a condoning or defeatist attitude of such events. Rather, this understanding should make us more sensitive and more compassionate toward those who suffer.

To conclude, war is arguably the most destructive human activity ever devised, and it is an intensely serious moral and theological issue because of its finality for those involved either directly as soldiers or indirectly as innocents. It is right to earnestly pray for our family members participating in war, but let us not become callous to the suffering of others, especially those to whom we are indirectly responsible for their suffering. Therefore, we should let our congregational prayers reflect our concern for them.

In Christ,

Norman Horn [Others at my church signed this letter as well, names withheld for privacy.]

Sources:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,587345,00.html
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33940&Cr=iraq&Cr1
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

*********************

The response of the elders was, to my surprise, extraordinarily positive. We discussed some of the ramifications of them taking this position. Only one had any concern for it being “too political.” In response, I emphasized that the effects of war are apolitical and intensely real, and therefore to ignore what’s going on is potentially even more political than standing up for what is right.

The next Sunday morning service, during the “Prayer for the Church,” the elder assigned to the task prayed for peace and for the innocent affected by war. This has continued for many weeks on end, with both elders and non-elders doing the same. It isn’t a perfect record at this point, but something is changing.

Amen!

Now, I have to admit that I have the ear of the eldership already. I am a part-time minister in this congregation, and thus they could have been generally more receptive of my proposal because it came from me. It could be that if you tried the exact course of action I did, it might not work out so well. But I still contend that anyone could work with their church in an analogous manner to change it even a little toward peace. Here are some ideas that might help you:

1) Start by setting the example yourself. When you are asked to pray in public for the congregation and its concerns, include those oppressed by war with any prayer offered for family and friends in the military. Furthermore, make sure that you are praying for peace in your private life.

2) If and when you engage your congregation more directly, initiate it by making a request that requires no justification at all. Don’t be afraid to just ask! Send one of your church leaders a very simple request, something like this: “When we pray for soldiers in Iraq, could we also pray for the Iraqis who are suffering, especially our Christian brothers and sisters there, and that God would bless our enemies and bring them peace.” You don’t even have to justify such a request. That’s straight out of Scripture, right?

3) Find others to make the same request together. Talk to some of your elders/leaders together. Again, keep it simple, but up the ante a little bit each time.

4) Keep it apolitical. You are not trying to “make people into libertarians” or anything of the sort. This message is first and foremost about the people affected by conflict. Our concern is for them, not for our egos or political views.

5) If at first you don’t succeed, try again. You may not get a good hearing initially, but be patient. Gently keep pushing back. If it becomes necessary, use the letter above as a model to give to your church leaders. Keep in mind, I really think this should be a “letter of last resort” to be used if your leaders refuse to listen to simpler reason. I carefully constructed this with feedback from multiple sources, so that it could easily show the self-evident principles involved. It gives no quarter and I don’t apologize for that, but know your audience and appeal to their sensibilities.

Of course, some in your church will respond negatively to this kind of request. They may ask how you can ask a church to pray for this war, for instance, when there are millions of other things for which we could pray. What about apartheid in South Africa, earthquakes in Haiti, or persecuted Christians in China? Could not the list go on forever if we wanted?

Those critics have a point, but our response should be that there is a fundamental difference between, say, praying for apartheid in South Africa – where we are aware of no national influence (and in my church’s case, have none of our church members as missionaries there) – and these wars. The difference is that this country, the United States, claims responsibility for their country now, and hence we are already involved. It is not “our fault” that Haiti had an earthquake or that Christians in China are being persecuted (though we may pray for them anyway), but it is in part our fault that the United States has torn apart the Middle East. Moreover, churches continue to condone and support such aggression with little thought either to the consequences for the Arab peoples or the internal subconscious changes that this has on our own churches. And what better way to change our own hearts than through the power of prayer? And what better way to start that process than through the leadership of the church?

Imagine what would happen if churches across the United States (and internationally!) were to stop praying for the military alone and to begin including those oppressed by war in their public prayers as well. Don’t you think that God will help make our hearts ever more attuned to the oppressed?

If the Bible says that the prayers of the righteous are effective, and if we believe that prayer affects us as much or more than prayer affects God, then let us never cease to pray for and support those who suffer from the horror of war and let us encourage others to do the same.

Think about some ways that you can be a peaceful voice for peace in your church. Maybe emulating the story above is one way you can make a difference. I truly believe this simple idea can change hearts and minds across the world if, with God’s help, we are brave enough to try.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Matthew 5:9.

A modified version of this text will become a permanent page at LCC as an open letter to all American churches.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to Promote Peace in Your Church

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Afghanistan, church, ethics, iran, iraq, peace, prayer, theology, violence, war, war on terror

Related Content:

• Podcast: The President’s Prayer (0)
• Everything you need to know about the Wikileaks Afghanistan Leak (11)
• Podcast: War, Foreign Policy, and the Church (Part 1) (0)
• Podcast: The Christian Axis of Evil (0)
• Mission Accomplished, Obama-Style (0)

Statists are anti-progress. Statists claim their policies are for the common good. For some this claim is just a front to get more power, but for others it is a genuine goal. Nevertheless, even the most well-intentioned statists, who believe that granting government the power to control individual actions will result in a better outcome, violate rights and cause harm. One need only consider historical fact to disprove this statist belief. For most of history, people were not free to decide how to live their lives because they lived in servitude to a noble or king. The vast majority of people were wretchedly poor, worked from dusk until dawn six or seven days a week, were prone to encounter devastating diseases, and died in their twenties or thirties. Even the privileged few — the kings, nobles and clergy — had nowhere near the standard of living that the ordinary worker in western countries enjoys today. It was classical liberalism — the ideas of British Enlightenment philosophers, Adam Smith, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and the American “founding fathers” — that unlocked the true human potential. Classical liberalism set man free from servitude to another and gave him the right and the responsibility to care for his own life. As a result of the emergence and subsequent dominance of liberal democracy and capitalism in the last two hundred years, the world has seen progress unparalleled in human history: according to renowned economist Angus Maddison, “[w]orld per capita real income has risen twenty times as fast since 1820, than it did in the eight centuries from 1000 to 1820.”

Statism is anti-growth. Statists often justify their policies claiming that they want to reduce inequality and poverty. In reality though, statists achieve neither and often exacerbate both because their policies discourage economic growth, which is particularly detrimental to low income and poor people. For one, politicians and bureaucrats are limited in their knowledge, as is any individual. No matter how smart an elected official, bureaucrat, or committee is, there’s no way they could adequately plan and control the actions of millions of individuals to achieve maximal economic growth. Moreover, statism encourages rentseeking and protectionism, the activity of groups seeking government enforced advantages and insulation from the outcomes of free trade. This harms the consumer, who is forced to pay higher prices due to lack of competition and fund the rent through higher taxes. This statist action disincentivizes increases in production and job creation, thus depriving low income and poor people of better opportunities to make a living.

Statism causes conflict. Though statists claim to work for the common good, their actions benefit one group at the expense of another. Nazis favored the “Aryan” at the expense of all other nationalities and ethnicities; affirmative action proponents favor blacks, Hispanics and women at the expense of whites and males; socialists and unions favor workers at the expense of business owners; protectionists favor their native industry at the expense of that in other countries; rent-seekers favor their business, organization, or cause at the expense of other businesses, organizations, and causes at the expense of consumers; many religious people, but especially fundamentalists, favor their followers at the expense of those of another religion and at the expense of atheists; and earth liberation environmentalists favor nature at the expense of humans.

Hence, statists create friction and conflict among individuals, groups, and nations. The long stretch of peace during the mid-19th century was at least in part the result of limited government and laissez-faire economics in places like Britain and the United States. The free movement of people was widespread; Russia, the only country that required a passport, was considered backwards. The bloody wars and atrocities committed by governments during the 20th century were the consequence of a move toward state intervention to control people’s lives, ultimately leading to the emergence of ultra-statist regimes such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia and Maoist China, and many other totalitarian experiments including a United States that interned over 110,000 individuals of Japanese descent, drafted many more individuals, and implemented wage and price controls.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Stop Statism

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: freedom, memes, peace, statism

Related Content:

• Great Libertarian Memes (2)
• Who Owns You? (4)
• What We Can Learn from Spaghetti Sauce (2)
• The Freedom to Move (0)
• Teensploitation (3)

—–

The Olympic Games have historically represented a time of peace for the world. The sacred city of Olympia, the site of the games of ancient Greece, forbade the possession of weapons within its borders. A special “Olympic Peace” was proclaimed throughout the land to allow spectators and athletes travel safely to and from the games.

French aristocrat Pierre de Coubertin created the International Olympic Committee in 1894 with the explicit goal of influencing the world for peace. Coubertin once said, “Wars break out because nations misunderstand each other. We shall not have peace until the prejudices which now separate the different races shall have been outlived. To attain this end, what better means than to bring the youth of all countries periodically together for amicable trials of muscular strength and agility?” The first Olympic games took place in 1896, but the IOC did not formalize the ideal of the Olympic truce until a century later, in 1992. Since 1993, the UN General Assembly adopts a resolution every two years that invites the member states to observe the truce during the games.

This tradition raises an interesting question: If we can call a truce for sixteen days so that the countries of the world can participate in the Olympic games, why hold the games only once every two years? Why not every year, and for a longer period of time? Why not thirty days? Surely that wouldn’t be very difficult. But then, why not three months? For that matter, why not hold the Olympics year-round? Then we could have peace (and sports) all the time!

“Whoa there, hold on!” you say. “Thirty days might be possible, but all the time? Surely you jest, oh silly Olympics fanatic! How could we afford year-round games? How could we solve international problems? How will disputes be arbitrated? How could we manage our imperialist ways?”

True, holding the Olympics year-round would be incredibly expensive. Running the 2008 Beijing games cost the Chinese over 1.8 billion dollars (1.22 billion Euros) minus revenues – and that’s just for sixteen days! Let’s make a liberal estimate on extended costs. For one month, it would cost roughly 3.5 billion dollars. Multiply that by 12, and you’re talking 42 billion dollars per year. That’s a lot of money… but it’s only a fraction of what the United States spends on Iraq. The war in Iraq has already cost United States taxpayers over $800 billion, and in this year alone the budget for the war is $196 billion. The Congressional Budget Office is even calling it the Trillion-Dollar War. I’m pretty sure it would be more affordable to just fund year-round Olympics than have year-round war.

True, countries could no longer point guns and set up blockades to coerce others into doing their bidding, but there would be a mechanism for resolving disputes – the games themselves! Suppose the United States and Russia get mad at each other (or rather, their governments get mad at each other) and they can’t reach a diplomatic solution. Instead of taking up arms and blowing cities to kingdom come, each country picks an event of their choice, and they agree on a third event. Best two out of three wins! They have to accept the result or other countries will ostracize them for being bad sports. And considering they just avoided massive financial losses the wanton destruction of war, both are now better off!

Yes, it could get complicated, but we surely have to admit that perpetual sports is better than perpetual war. At least in the Olympics, no civilians die from stray shot-puts or loose javelins!

Think of the further advantages of this kind of system. First, the rules are well-defined, unlike in war, and there are no Geneva Conventions you can conveniently ignore when you need to “enhance” your interrogation techniques. Steroids might be a problem, but that could be dealt with if necessary. If an employer can take a urine sample correctly, I’m positive that the governments of the world can figure this out.

Second, the Olympic games are, quite simply, more fun for everyone. War is hell, as they say, and even though the Olympics aren’t heaven they surely are a step up from hell. Who doesn’t like sports? Certainly mothers and fathers would be much more comfortable sending their kids off to learn the backstroke than to learn how to kill en masse. International politics could become a family outing, rather than the untouchable subject at the dinner table. In fact, Olympic games politics might provide just the right incentive to get young people more civically involved – that’s what all the government schools want, right?

Third, the Olympic games could foster a sense of national unity better than a war ever could. Imagine the United States getting behind Michael Phelps swimming his way to resolving territory disputes, or the USA Basketball Team showing Britain that we do NOT want the Kyoto Protocol.

Better yet, why not have the world leaders – the ones who think it’s their right to impose their will upon others – participate in the events? Bush versus Kim Jong-il – who gets to keep his nukes? In the team sports, let the administrations duke it out. Bush Co. [or now, Obama Co.] versus Ahmadinejad-and-other-long-named-guys – be there and watch the Secretary of State leap over Mahmoud to victory! Now that’s drama. Who could ask for more?

Alright, enough of all this strange and silly talk. We all know that perpetual Olympic games could never bring about world peace. Unfortunately, even participating countries have repeatedly broken resolutions they signed regarding the Olympic truce. Did Operation Iraqi “Freedom” stop for one moment during 2002, 2004, or 2006? Are current operations on hiatus? Absolutely not.

So what’s the point?

Politics from the very beginning has marred the renewed Olympic tradition. The paradox of rectifying international peace and nationalism continues to cast an eerie shadow over an experience that challenges people to look beyond borders. Most importantly, few of the participating countries have any desire to honor the Olympic truce, including the United States. Should this be any surprise? Not really. The nature of the state is antithetical to peace, as its very existence depends upon continual coercion against its citizens. As Randolph Bourne says, “War is the health of the state.” The state sets up a completely artificial us-them mentality based upon imaginary lines on a map. Those within the state are the good guys, and everybody else outside it is potentially a bloodthirsty fiend. In some sense, the Olympics could never break through these barriers since it continues to encourage nation-worship. Nevertheless, I think we can appreciate Coubertin’s vision for peace.

Although the symbolic truces of the Olympic games have some value, the nations of earth must realize that lasting peace is preserved not through millions of guns, but rather through the millions of goods and services they can trade with others. When we cooperate non-violently with one another as free people through free enterprise, we build relationships with a foundation of respect and mutual admiration. On the other hand, as we cease to interact peaceably we lay a foundation of enmity. Frederic Bastiat once said, “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers eventually will.” May we take heed of Bastiat’s wisdom and encourage peace through cooperation, Olympian and otherwise.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to Eliminate War (with the Olympics)

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: peace, sports, war

Related Content:

• How to Promote Peace in Your Church (7)
• WikiLeaks releases suppressed video from Iraq (24)
• What Happened to the Southern Baptists? (5)
• What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? (1)
• Top 10 Disasters of the Obama Administration in 2009 (1)