I am a supporter of short-term missions. However, my blog post of the day before yesterday did not make that clear. I have seen at least two people called to long-term missions because they served on a short-term mission team. My problem is not with short-term missions per se. My problem is with under-trained teams who come over and cause multiple problems to the missionaries in residence and who expect the local long-term missionary to be overwhelmingly grateful that they have deigned to come. I saw too many of that type of visitor coming through.

Nevertheless, I do not fully agree with people, such as Tony Campolo, who argue:

Does it ever occur to those leaders who take bright, enthusiastic American young people to Haiti to build hundreds and hundreds of church buildings and schools that Haitians are capable of building them? Do they even consider how many jobs they take away from Haitians because of their well-intentioned construction enterprises? Does it occur to them that when Haitians see an American youth group put up a cinder block school building in just ten days that this could contribute to a sense of inferiority as these Americans do in ten days what seems to Haitians like a miracle?

This an argument that, interestingly enough, is made by some conservative and some liberal Christians. The argument is that there is an incredible amount of money that is spent by short-term mission teams, money that could be better spent if it were given directly to the Haitian churches. And, you know what? There really is a lot of truth to that argument. It is a very idealistic viewpoint, and all the more attractive because it is true.  But, as with many idealistic arguments, it is based on people behaving in an idealistic and perfect fashion.

But, in a less than idealistic world, in a world that is full of fallen and damaged people, people do not behave in an idealistic way. In fact, people do not give freely in the way in which they ought to. We can rail away at Christians who will not freely give unless they are personally involved or personally know the people, or we can come up with ways that educate and help recruit world-involved Christians. I prefer going for the honey rather than the vinegar. Short-term missions is a good way to expose Christians with a limited worldview to something bigger, something that can be life-changing for them. And, when they have the life changing experience that turns them into world Christians, they often become personally involved either as missionaries themselves, or as coordinators and supporters of missions.

And, there are a couple of factors that Tony Campolo forgets to take into account. One factor is that there are organizations such as SIFAT that are Christian and provide sustainable technology to needy areas. Their short-term missions activities improve the quality of life of local peoples through sustainable renewable technologies. The other factor is that there are many areas where the local Christians feel isolated and alone. A visit from a properly taught, properly behaving, mission team lets them know that there is more to Christianity than what they experience locally, and lets them know that they are not alone. In other words, in a properly put together short-term mission, both sides can have their worldview enlarged.

But, there is one further argument that Tony Campolo makes that has me seeing red.

===MORE TO COME===

Related posts:

1. Learning about whom we visit in short-term mission
2. Why don’t we reach out to the inner city?
3. Multiple Missionary Support by Local Congregations

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Fed. appeals court upholds ‘under God’ in pledge

By TERENCE CHEA
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow’s favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion. . . .

Judge Carlos Bea . . . wrote for the majority in Thursday’s 2-1 ruling. “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded,” he said. . . .

Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, agreed. He said the Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case because Thursday’s ruling is the third appellate court decision upholding the pledge.

In addition, Congress passed legislation reaffirming the pledge in 2002, following the 9th Circuit’s ruling that struck it down.

“I think this is the last word on this particular lawsuit,” Little said. “It’s an important ruling.”

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”

If you want to read the full article rather than the few excerpts above, go here and do a search for “In God We Trust”.

Needless to say, I am utterly pleased with the court’s ruling. I also like the wording of the ruling in that they have struck a moderate tone of voice that honors history while avoiding the thorny issue of activism in religion, which is precisely what the government is supposed to do. It is a ruling that will not please the extremes in this country, but it is one that is within our common law tradition of interpretation. Unfortunately, there will inevitably be the extreme non-theists who will continue pushing for a secular country in which religion is pushed out of public discourse, despite the freedom of religion clause. On the other side, there will inevitably be the extreme Judeo-Christians who will continue pushing to formally establish Christianity as the religion of the USA despite the establishment clause.

I suspect that most people do not know that, legally, courts have to balance out two separate clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America. One is called the freedom of religion clause, while the other is called the establishment clause. Because both are broadly worded, it is sometimes a difficult balancing act to come up with adequate judicial interpretations. Nevertheless, the establishment clause has been winning all too often in the past thirty years. This ruling is a welcome breath of fresh air pushing back towards the other clause.

Related posts:

1. A small victory for religious expression
2. Of Bible, interpretation, and Supreme Court judges, part 03
3. Of Bible, interpretation, and Supreme Court judges, part 06

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In January of 2009, I posted a blog on what we can learn from the poor. I talked about Fr. Alejandro Mesco and what he had taught me about sharing the good things that the Lord gives us. Just today, I read an article in Mission Frontiers which is a magazine of the US Center for World Missions. It is found in the column titled Further Reflections and the particular article is called, Learning the Lay of the Land.

The author is reflecting on Haiti and a culture where, “the rule of law is questionable and where only a few people control the flow of the money.” He answers that question with some reflections that do not give a direct answer but cause us to think. Among his reflections are:

“How prepared are the 14-day teams that have gone to Haiti or other places we in the USA consider ‘needy’? Were these teams really helpful? What did they actually do? How prepared were they to understand the situation in the country before they got there?”

He then talks about hearing an interview on a travel channel, of all places, where a question was asked about teams who go to other countries in order to participate in short-term help. The interview was not addressing disaster situations, rather it was addressing a planned short-term situation, such as the physicians who will often go during the summer with a non-profit to do a two-week surgery visit or dental visit, etc. The person being interviewed commented:

Rick first talked about the need for the group to learn about the situation, learning about the history of Latin America and the relationship between rich and poor. . . . He recounted the uneasy historical tensions between the rich and the poor, and the cycle of the rich often oppressing or killing the poor and the poor often revolting and killing the rich. . . . Then Rick Steves added a comment that points to a core issue in mission today. Church people (and he is a church person, he noted) tend not to ask the questions as to why the poverty is there in the first place.

Comments of this type then lead the author of the magazine article to make some very interesting observations:

I couldn’t help thinking about the lingering question: Why are we “church” people often so far behind in our awareness, reflection and action? I know there are many exceptions, but we often seem to be stuck in a sort of “pre-Information Age” in which we bumble around the world with two-week teams ignorant of the histories and cultures of those we serve, and then we’re so relieved to go home, “where people at least pick up the trash.” But what does that kind of mentality communicate to those we visit in other nations?

These short-term trips may impart some blessing to the peoples they purport to serve, but how do these trips really help these peoples deal with their situation? What other problems do we ignore or create while trying to help?

I can remember short-term mission teams coming to “help” us in South America. Sometimes they would be a blessing, but we always shuddered when we received the news that some visitors or a team was coming because us missionaries knew that their expectations and our needs would often be wildly divergent. Interestingly enough, there was one group that we were always glad to receive and it was a secular group. That group was World Challenge from England. What is World Challenge?

World Challenge provides educational expeditions in the developing world and closer to home which teach life skills, stretch comfort zones and expand minds outside the classroom. The bespoke 1 to 6-week itineraries foster team and leadership skills and are the culmination of our pioneering programmes, which see young people involved in planning and fundraising their way to the experience of a lifetime.

The students who travel with them, travel for a mixture of adventure and social service. Each trip requires that the student fully and freely participates in some hands-on work on a social project of some type. But, at the same time, they also do some adventure hiking, etc., so that the whole trip is not simply “work”. The students raise their money during the year, but must also attend seminars in which the history and background of each country that is visited. They must learn important cultural do’s and dont’s. They learn to work as a team, with some team-building exercises during the year. And, most important, they may not go on the trip unless they have completed the entire training.

Thus, by the time we received a team, they were shepherded by experienced adults–who most often were schoolteachers during the year, not full-time employees–,  the students would know how to properly greet and behave among us. And, while the students were every bit as rowdy as First World students often are, they knew how to work as a team and when to cut off the horseplay and get to work. Even in their horseplay, they would never do in public anything that would run counter to the culture. They did their own laundry, asking only where the facilities were, and did not expect us to cook for them unless they had pre-arranged it with us before they even arrived. Again, they would only ask about kitchen facilities or would simply go to a local cheap restaurant.

In the article I cited from the beginning, I mentioned that it documented how I had learned from the poor. This article documents what I learned from the rich. Realistically, the students that I met who traveled with World Challenge were often upper-class since the South America trip was a six-week trip. They taught me about how incredibly helpful a prepared short-term team can be. I took at least one team on the multiple hour mule ride to Choco. I wish I could find a couple of the photographs so you could see a 30 some mule team strung out, hanging over a canyon on a narrow trail, with a student or adult perched on each one. And, when they got there they pitched in and helped in the building of a Mother’s Center, guided by the local Quechua villager. Note: the villagers were in charge of the building and directed, not the other way around. They taught about having the humility to accept the direction of someone who could barely read and write.

So, what about the “Christian” short-term teams or visitors? Frankly, they were the ones who caused us to shudder. . .

Related posts:

1. Short-term missions, social support, and Tony Campolo
2. On learning humility
3. The Choco mission, part 03

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

From Pithless Thoughts:

Do you fast?
Let the ears by not listening to evil talk and gossip.
For what good is it if we abstain from birds and fishes,
but bite and devour our brothers and sisters? (St. John Chrysostom).

When my wife and I were married less than five years, we were asked to go to Port Huron, Michigan, where there was a small congregation that was also a covenant community. They were affiliated with what was then one of the leading examples of intentional community in the USA, the Word of God Community. We both learned many things from that community and the Word of God Community, but, at the same time, came to realize that we were looking for something that we had not yet found. It was from that community that we became Anglicans and ended up going into mission work.

Among their best teachings were the “practical” teachings on living out the Christian life. And, one of the ones that we use to this day is the teaching on gossip. I will not try to reproduce it other than to say that the cartoon above is a good representation of the teaching received. You see, it is all too easy for Christians to hide a massive temptation to gossip and habit of gossiping by putting on a suitably pious face on the whole thing. As the cartoon shows, we often use a supposed concern for the fate of others as an excuse to share information which the other person has no right to know. We are not gossiping; we are asking for intercessory prayer; we are asking for the intercession of the saints. And, when we sin with our tongues with the other person, we claim that we are simply giving them the information that they need in order to intercede for the person about whom we are concerned.

And so, they gave us several guidelines to determine whether something we were sharing was gossip. Among them were:

• Did the person about whom you are talking give you permission to share their story and ask for prayer?
• Would you be embarrassed to repeat what you said in front of the person about whom you were talking?
• Does the person who is hearing the story have any authority to deal with the issue? They specifically said that you could not use intercessory prayer as an excuse to share. Though intercessory prayer changes things, in the realm of gossip it is all too often (over 90%) of the time an excuse to share inappropriately.
• Is what you are sharing going to diminish the reputation of the person about whom you are sharing?

There were one or two more guidelines, but you get the idea. So, what would I recommend when you hear an item you think you ought to share?

• Share all you want with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Express your concerns to Him in prayer, then leave the matter in His hands. However, be prepared for the idea that He may very well begin to work on YOU and maybe even call you to confession and repentance while leaving the other person alone!
• Share all you want with the saints in glory. They are with the Lord and purified of their sins. Ask them to intercede on behalf of the person about whom you are worried.
• Share cautiously with your priest (pastor). However, be prepared for the idea that if he is a good priest and wise that he may very well begin to work on YOU and maybe even call you to confession and repentance!
• Do not share with anyone else.

As I said, to this day I consider many of their practical teachings to be quite wise.

Related posts:

1. Oh, the games people play
2. Do we love the “other”?
3. How big is your cross?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other toys.
One grey night it happened, Jackie Paper came no more
And Puff that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar.

As I was listening to this Peter, Paul, and Mary song on Sunday, I found myself with tears in my eyes. In part this did not surprise me. I am a proud Latino, that means that my original culture has taught me that I am allowed to be emotional, and my adopted culture (USA) has taught me that it is OK for men to cry. So, between one and the other, I had tears in my eyes. But, why did I have such a strong feeling? Well, I think for any of several reasons:

1. The song was written at a time of high idealism. Whatever one may think of all the mistakes that us babyboomers have made over the decades–and there have been many–the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were a time of high idealism in this country. From that time came movements such as the Jesus People, the modern Christian music movement, etc. I would argue that on the political front there was also a time of high idealism in which there was a hope of a change for the better. We did not notice at that time that people continued divided into “right” and “left” but it certainly was a time of high idealism. I admit it. I miss the idealism and the high hopes that were as common as breathing at that time. Our hope was not in the Lord, and so it was vain, but even as a false hope, it was hope of real change in this world. Yet, for all the mistakes we made, many of us would not be Christians if it were not for the radical Christianity that sprang up at that time.

2.  But, we are now grandparents. I think that part of my tears were the sadness that every parent and grandparent has felt since the time of Adam and Eve. And this is the deeper sadness. We raise our children. We watch our children raise our grandchildren. If we are truly honest, we admit that within us there is the desire that none of our descendants go through what we have gone through. We want our children and grandchildren to remain innocent. Theologically we know that this is not possible, but we are like Adam and Eve, when we have our children, we hope that these are the children who somehow will stay in the innocence of the Garden of Eden. We groan and ache when we watch our children “learn” evil. We realize that the damage to our human nature is present in them also. And, so we watch another generation unable to avoid exactly the same mistakes we made, despite all our warnings and teaching. And so, as grandparents we learn even deeper what it means that Adam and Eve sinned and that we are fallen and damaged.

3.  And, we are also older. That is what it means to be grandparents. That also means that every one of us who is a grandparent–or of that age–has watched a loved one die or has had a close friend die. We have learned the bitterness of sin. All of us are realizing, either in our own bodies or by watching our friends, that the curse of Genesis is still quite active. Sin has yet to meet its final defeat. Hell has been defeated; the door to Paradise is open; but death has yet to be fully defeated; we have yet to be fully redeemed. There still remains for us a hope that has yet to be fulfilled. “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’”

And so, it is only as we reach old age that we finally begin to truly understand the curse, that we truly begin to understand the loss of innocence that came as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. It is only now that we begin to fully realize that we, too, have followed Adam and Eve in their decision. But, to our own personal pain, it is only now that we begin to truly realize that we have passed on the curse to those whom we love most and love best, our children and grandchildren.

Yes, we have hope. Yes, we have been redeemed by Our Lord. But, it is only when one is older that one begins to understand why the Orthodox funeral liturgy has, at its beginning, passages that speak of the agony of death and the pain of sin. Yes, the service is filled with the hope of the Lord. But, that hope only makes sense if one fully understands the effect of the curse on Adam and Eve.

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys.

Pippin: I didn’t think it would end this way.
Gandalf: End? No, the journey doesn’t end here. Death is just another path… One that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass… And then you see it.
Pippin: What? Gandalf?… See what?
Gandalf: White shores… and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.
Pippin: [smiling] Well, that isn’t so bad.
Gandalf: [softly] No… No it isn’t.

Related posts:

1. Gandalf, my priest friend, and what awaits
2. USO girls in WWII
3. Roman Catholic and Orthodox differences on Original Sin

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As Father Orthoduck is writing this, he is very tired from a long Sunday of very worthwhile worship and service of the Lord. But, thanks to a fellow blogger, Father Orthoduck was introduced to the blog of a delightfully wacky fellow Orthodox blogger. And, so, Father Orthoduck recommends Steve of Pithless Thoughts. Particularly his current Lenten cartoons take a wonderful and humorous look at the reality and foibles of Lenten fasting and Lenten attitudes.

Father Orthoduck must admit the longer that Lent goes on, the more scrumptious a hot dog looks, and who cares how bad they are for your health!

Related posts:

1. Go to confession during Lent
2. On the development of Great Lent
3. Of mushrooms and Lent

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What can we learn from the experiences of General MacArthur and Secretary of State Marshall on handling the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, both history and statistics show that both men were fully successful in turning former enemies into stable and reliable allies. Mind you, this does not mean that they never disagree with us, but, when all is said and done, they stand with us. What did they do that helped turned former military enemies into civilian allies? Well, there were several things that they did that might be helpful to us at this time.

1.  They accepted the existing system of government and did not attempt to change it. Before World War II, Japan was a constitutional empire and Germany was a parliamentary democracy. After World War II, Japan remained a constitutional empire and Germany remained a parliamentary democracy. Neither man was interested in changing the style of government that each culture had developed over the course of time. They were only interested in ensuring that the governments were just governments in which people behaved ethically and the police forces were just. They were not interested in turning either country into an American-style representative democracy. After all, if a government is just, its particular form does not matter, and, if a government is unjust, its particular form does not matter. If one is a victorious invader, it is actually easier to maintain stability in a country if one maintains as many cultural forms as possible, provided those forms do not conflict with your ethical and security goals. One can see this in Cyrus’ treatment of the Jews in the Books of Nehemiah and Ezrah.

2.  Both men spent unstintingly in the rebuilding of the shattered economies. The rebuilding of infrastructure was actually a higher priority than the pursuit of former enemies. And, in order to rebuild and maintain the infrastructure, both men used the experienced professionals of the former regime since both Axis powers forced all middle and upper level managers to be part of the party. There is nothing that so settles a populace as having fairly full employment and a working infrastructure. If one has a full belly and a warm house, one is much less likely to rebel than if one is hungry and searching for a non-existent job. Again, look at the Books of Nehemia and Ezrah and see how much money both of those men were given in order to rebuild shattered Israel.

3.  The United States of America had a policy that allowed the immigration of many of the displaced persons from both Japan and Europe. This immigration policy not only functioned as a relief valve while the infrastructure was being rebuilt, but also built links between the USA and the former Axis countries. These were ties that went much deeper than treaties or governmental theories. Many Japanese, Germans and Austrians ended up with relatives here; relatives who reported that they had jobs and were well accepted by the populace. If you have ever seen the movie The Sound of Music, with Julie Andrews, you know that it is based on a real family who was really called the von Trapp family, and who really had to flee Austria. But, the film ends with them climbing over the mountains to the safety of Switzerland. Father Orthoduck is certain that most of you do not know that the von Trapp family ended up in Vermont. If you are interested in the story of the von Trapp family, you can go to The National Archives and see photographs as well as copies of their USA documents.

4.  The United States of America had post-war tours by people from the defeated Axis powers. One can read in newspapers from the late 1940’s and early 1950’s of touring Japanese karate experts (and teams), Austrian singers, German engineers, etc. That is, by having those people tour through the USA, it helped us see them as just normal human beings, rather than as monsters who were only fit to be killed.

Can you see how the application of policies of this type might help in turning former enemies into allies? Father Orthoduck would suggest that we need to study both General MacArthur and Secretary of State Marshall to see how many of their successful policies can be applied wholesale to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Related posts:

1. Some unpolished thoughts on the Middle East
2. Hearing ourselves through the ears of others
3. Does God like democracy? — part 04

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Yesterday Father Orthoduck talked about the Marshall Plan and suggested that it may have some things to say to us about Iraq and Afghanistan. Father Orthoduck also suggested that some knowledge of history might be helpful in order to be able to understand why citizens of the Middle East might be less than excited about our presence in Iraq, even though they agree with our invasion of Afghanistan. Let’s start first with a look at the recent history of the Middle East.

Have you ever heard about the British Mandate of Palestine? It was, “a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948. The boundaries of two new states were laid down within the territory of the Mandate, Palestine and Transjordan.” Now, this may surprise you, but the United States at that time was against the mandate, in part because it seemed to simply be a legal way to disguise the spoils of war (World War I) among the European powers. More than that, the High Commissioner for the mandate refused to recognize the rights of non-Orthodox Jews and of Protestant Christians. Worse, the High Commissioner continued the millet system of the Ottoman Empire. Thus the USA Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations.

But, more than that, France held Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, and French Morocco as colonies. Spain held Spanish Morocco. Italy held Ethiopia. Britain further held Egypt. In other words, the Middle East was divided among the (white) European powers. Algeria only became fully independent in 1962. Father Orthoduck was already 10 1/2 years old then. Morocco became independent in 1956, and so on. As Americans, we fail to realize that the Middle East is full of people who can remember being occupied by the European powers. For these people, it is NOT old history, it is part of their personal memories.

Can you understand why they might have a knee-jerk reaction to the invasion of a Middle Eastern country by a “white” country? By and large the Middle East understood our invasion of Afghanistan because it was a clear case of retaliation against your enemy. But, there was no clear aggression by Saddam against the United States. We might not have liked him, and he certainly was violating human rights. But, you need to place yourself in their shoes. Many of the Middle Eastern states are run by autocratic and authoritarian regimes. While Saddam was extreme by Middle Eastern standards, he was not completely outside the way their various governments run themselves. But worse, almost all Middle Easterners of the age of babyboomers (or older) have personal memories of being controlled by an European power.

But, we might have yet pulled it off had we found weapons of mass destruction or proof that Saddam was planning to directly engage in terrorist acts in the USA. But, he was not. There were no weapons of mass destruction found and to this day there is no evidence that he was involved in any direct attacks on the USA. So, to the typical Middle East citizen, it looks merely like another instance of the historical interference of the European/First World powers into the Middle East. Can you now understand why the typical Middle East citizen might then look at anyone who violently opposes the USA as a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist? In fact, as Father Orthoduck pointed out Al Qaeda had an incredible opportunity to become heroes. Thank God that they made the same type of mistakes as C.S. Lewis points out in his book That Hideous Strength. Evil always overstretches itself.

Had it not been for the stupidity of Al Qaeda, we might be facing a more difficult situation than the one we are facing. That is not to say that we have taken the smartest steps that we could have, particularly given the history of the post-WWII period. But, the prior history of the region gives a quite plausible reason why Middle Eastern Muslims were slow to speak out against the jihadists. It was not always because they were evil Muslims who had it in for Christians. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you have nice thoughts about people who resembled the people whom you remembered as being your occupiers when you were a child, or that your parents or grandparents had told you about?

And, so, on the one hand, it took longer than it should have for a fatwa to be proclaimed against the jihadists. But, that can be explained in part, but only in part, by the prior history. Nevertheless, we have yet to look at ourselves and some possible approaches to the Middle East.

===MORE TO COME===

Related posts:

1. MacArthur, Marshall, and the Middle East
2. Shifting gears to become Orthodox
3. Hearing ourselves through the ears of others

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Yesterday Father Orthoduck posted on the fatwa that was announced against the jihadists by a prominent Islamic scholar. Sometimes we ask ourselves why did this not happen sooner. But, since Americans have very little tendency to listen, despite all the Oprah-like shows that emphasize learning to listen, and since Americans know very little history or geography, they then have a tendency to be somewhat clueless when dealing with world affairs. Even our Psych-Ops people inside and outside the Armed Forces tend to be oriented only towards neutralizing a perceived immediate threat rather than preparing the ground for a lasting change among those whom you have defeated in battle.

On top of this general cluelessness, Americans have a tendency to judge everything as black or white and to make that as a snap judgment. The trouble is that it is in the shades of gray that one begins to understand the dimensions of a problem. We actually got that right in World War II. Notice that both General Douglas MacArthur in the Pacific and Secretary of State George Marshall in Europe understood that. Both men resisted outcries from the populace and the Congress to punish the conquered enemy. They also resisted outcries that everyone who had held any position of any authority in the former regimes had to be banned from being used by the Allies. Both men knew their history and their human psychology and knew that to produce lasting change in the two main Axis countries, they had to be cognizant of the two factors of history and psychology.

On the history side, they were well aware that the reparations that were levied on Germany after World War I impoverished and humiliated the country and led directly to the rise of the anti-European reaction that was the National Socialist Party. In fact, just this past week, one of the Ripley’s Believe It or Not cartoons pointed out that Germany is still paying off the reparations from World War I. Can you imagine that?! On the psychology side, they were well aware that outside the top leadership, many people simply serve the current regime because they have to eat and not necessarily because they agree with the current regime. More than that, the longer a regime is in power, the more of the infrastructure is managed by people who are supposedly tainted with some affiliation to the party in power.

So both men executed the same basic simple plan. Part one of the plan was to avoid reparations that would lead to hopelessness and resurgent anger. So, they set about rebuilding the infrastructure and making sure that a functional economy was in place that could provide decent employment for almost everyone. They were so successful that, “By 1952 as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for all Marshall plan recipients, output in 1951 was 35% higher than in 1938.” Folks, they actually improved the economy of Europe so well that the economy was 1/3 better than under the pre-World War II governments! Who would even want to rebel against the occupying forces under such a scenario? The populace remained calm after World War II out of sheer amazement at what their conquerors were doing.

But, they also understood human psychology. Most people are followers of one type or another. They may rise into supervisory positions, but they tend to implement policy rather than to originate policy. And, as long as that policy does not have them personally involved in something evil, as long as the evil things happen somewhere else, they can convince themselves that they bear no personal moral responsibility for the other actions. Add a healthy dose of fear (the Gestapo, Saddam’s secret police, etc.), and one can keep large portions of the populace quiet, even if they do not agree with you. If, in addition, you make some type of party affiliation necessary for any post beyond a very low level supervisor, then you can morally taint a large number of people who will know that the party with which they are affiliated is doing evil things, but are too afraid to critique or to not join. Uhm, Saddam knew that lesson, too.

Both MacArthur and Marshall knew this psychology. And so, they did not punish those with party affiliation. Rather, they told them to stay in their supervisory jobs and to run the country, under the new rules. In one fell swoop, they turned a large portion of the management people into supporters of the Allies. Those people were not followers of either the Emperor or the Führer, they were simply scared out of their wits and caught in a system they thought they could not change. You can read the horrendous arguments that broke out in the USA at those policies! Yes, just like today, we wanted to judge black and white. We wanted to create an underclass of permanently unemployable (or incarcerated) people because justice had to be done. But, both those men knew that the long-term stability of those countries was more important for our security than the punishment and impoverishment of them. And, they also knew that gratefulness is a better teacher of repentance than punishment. Uhm, Jesus knew that too; just look at the Samaritan woman or the woman caught in adultery. The end results were both a Germany and a Japan that were psychologically changed and freely chose to become our allies. In fact,  major European wars have stopped. There has been no major European war since then. Sadly, the same has not been true in Asia outside of Japan, but notice how stable Japan is.

So, what does this have to do with the Middle East?

===MORE TO COME===

Related posts:

1. MacArthur, Marshall, and the Middle East
2. Faith comes by hearing
3. Some unpolished thoughts on the Middle East

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) — A fatwa, or religious ruling, issued this week is roiling theological waters after it took aim at those notorious for targeting others: terrorists.

The anti-terrorism fatwa by renowned Muslim scholar Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri pulled no punches, declaring that terrorism was “haraam,” or forbidden by the Quran, and that suicide bombers would be rewarded not by 72 virgins in heaven, as many terrorist recruiters promise, but with a suite in hell.

Qadri, the founder of the Minhaj-ul-Quran International, an Islamic movement with centers in 90 countries, told a news conference in London, England, on Tuesday that his decree categorically condemns terrorism and suicide bombings in the name of Islam.

“Until now, scholars who were condemning terrorism were conditional and qualified what they said,” Qadri said in a phone interview, noting that his 600-page ruling left no room for interpretation. “I didn’t leave a single, minor aspect that, in the mind of radicals or extremists, can take them to the direction of martyrdom.” . . .

Father Orthoduck was glad to see the action above. It should have a good effect among the non-jihadists, and make recruiting significantly harder for the terrorists. Please notice that this was issued by a leading scholar from Pakistan, a country full of jihadists. And, please do go and read the rest of the article on CNN. Father Orthoduck would like to echo another poster and say to the Iman:

To Muslim scholar Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri: Assalamu Alilkum Wa Rahmatulah Wa Barakatuh (meaning peace, mercy, and blessings be upon from Allah) And thank you!

Frankly, the terrorists have done it to themselves and helped us to redeem a mistaken act. We had and have significant world support for the invasion of Afghanistan. At the time of that invasion, there was no general Islamic support for the Taliban or the Al Qaeda. But, when President Bush (son) decided to invade Iraq, we lost some significant support from the Arab world. And we did not just lose support from outside the USA. I have cited in other posts the strong opposition of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to the invasion of Iraq. Both they and the Pope went on record saying that Iraq did not qualify as a just war. But that is not my point.

After the invasion of Iraq, Arab support was on the side of Al Qaeda. From terrorist in 2001, they quickly went to being almost heroes. Their opposition to what was unanimously seen in the Arab world as an illegal American invasion started looking like the underdog fighting an evil bully. Suicide bombing directed against USA troops was seen as a heroic self-sacrifice to permit the self-determination of an occupied people. IED’s were seen as the only way to fight an empire with overwhelming firepower. If you read the stories from back then, there were even places were Al Qaeda was providing food and infrastructure to villages in outer parts of Iraq. Had they kept on this course, the current situation in Iraq would be much more difficult.

But Al Qaeda made a major mistake. C.S. Lewis has pointed out that evil often makes the mistake of over-reaching itself, of getting greedy for more and more gain and power, thereby ruining their plans. Al Qaeda began to treat everyone who was not actively helping them as though they were enemies. They thoroughly applied the idea of, “he who is not with us is against us.” They began to suicide bomb fellow Muslims. It did not matter whether or not the persons killed had any involvement with the Americans. The idea was to sow such terror that the populace itself would rise up against the invader just to get relief from the bombers. But, it did not work that way. Instead, the people began to turn against Al Qaeda.

The fatwa above is a sign of what is slowly becoming a general rejection of Al Qaeda among your average Muslim. This is not to say that Muslims are now in agreement that the USA invasion was correct. You would be quite mistaken if you thought that was true. Rather, we are being seen more and more as the lesser of two evils. If we are fortunate, we may someday make it all the way to no longer being perceived as evil, but rather being perceived as good. Insha’Allah.

Related posts:

1. Some unpolished thoughts on the Middle East
2. Hearing ourselves through the ears of others
3. More about Christians fleeing Iraq

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.