Byron’s Op-Ed Pieces

Op-Ed Article, York Sunday News, February 4, 2003

I have appreciated the public debate about the impending war in Iraq. Some writers have shared heart-felt convictions. Others have offered important insights about the political context of our times. As those with different viewpoints listen to each other and truly keep an open mind, we may move towards a clearer understanding. Certainly, this kind of dialogue is good and important.

One recent article, though (“Some Christians Realize War Necessary At Times” 1-2-03 ) struck me as the sort of piece that is not helpful. The article by Charmaine Stevens maligned the character of a local pastor (and others who work for peace), seemed terribly confused about who believes what, as the writer accused people falsely of a whole array of miscellaneous matters. Perhaps most disheartening to me, since the author identified herself as a born-again Christian, was the scant insight offered from a seriously Biblical perspective.

I am so tired of the sort of accusations implied by Ms. Stevens and the accompanying Sunday News illustration showing an ostrich emblazoned with a peace symbol with its head in the proverbial sand.

Very few peace activists can be accused of sticking their heads in sand, just wishing the world to be nice. This caricature is simply inaccurate. The full-page ad sponsored by People for Peace called for meaningful discussion about alternative proposals to war and invited debate about what might be the most effective policies for conflict resolution. From the beginning, our organization has researched and networked with others who have developed concrete proposals and serious-minded ideas to avoid a full-on war. This is realism at its finest, responding to the harsh realities of the situation and seeking effective solutions. We may be wrong about our non-violent principles and perhaps the solutions we propose may not work. But to accuse us of sitting back and doing nothing is nonsense. Accusing those who work for non-violent policies of the sin of appeasement just will not wash, since that is not what we advocate. We think it is illusory to believe that bombing can truly tran sform long-standing injustices or create the cultural environment for decent democratic values to take hold.

The matter, then, is not that anti-war activists don't care about dictators, aggression or injustice, but rather how best to achieve good goals. Those committed to non-violence believe in resistance against injustice, but believe in “fighting” in ways that are consistent with the peace we all desire. Just for an example, if we (rightly) desire to rid Saddam of weapons of mass destruction because weapons of mass destruction are wrong, then it makes no moral sense to use mass destruction to show that mass destruction is wrong. If we (rightly) condemn Saddam for disregard for his people, we cannot then show disregard for his people. Non-violent peace activists do not ignore the brutes of this world, but want to stop them in principled, moral and effective ways.

Ms Stevens' essay was especially convoluted in her attack on liberals and socialists. I am not sure whom exactly she means, and she uses the word without much discretion. (Oddly, she calls Christians who take Jesus' words literally “liberal” as if it is theologically orthodox to detour around His holy teaching.) The peace activists I know cannot be so easily categorized and simply do not fit the assumptions that Stevens holds.

Here are a few of the folks I know who oppose war, none who really fit Stevens' caricature — a devout and prayerful Catholic nun who has meditated on Jesus' love for those who hurt him; a highly sophisticated human rights advocate who intervenes against child sex rings in places like Thailand (who is supported by the Bush White House), the Jesus-crazy Joan Muruskin, who opposes war because the Lord says so; a Buddhist pacifist who sees God in all things and cannot imagine the ecological ruin technological war will cause; a politically conservative libertarian who has big concerns about the big power of the Pentagon; a Pentecostal evangelist who (quietly) preaches in an Arab land and has a missionary's heart for Muslim people; a Jewish rabbi who, inspired by the prophets of the Hebrew Scripture, stands against his own people calling for God's shalom and justice; a black, urban pastor known for conservative theology and rigorous church programs, who sincerely sees racism as par t of the problem with American foreign policy; a white-haired grandmother who, with good Central Pennsylvania common sense, says “We can't just go attacking every bad country that crops up”; an anti-abortion counselor whose passion for the unborn has catapulted her into an exploration of being consistently pro-life and now equally opposes war, the death penalty and world hunger as part of her efforts to “choose life!”

Ms. Stevens' accusations of peace people took a bizarre turn when she accused the well-respected Rev. Joan Muruskin of having views similar to Timothy Leary, the psychedelic drug guru of the late '60s. This hardly should be dignified by a rebuttal other than to say that such a smear is unbecoming of a writer who claims the name of Christ.

Stevens implied Maruskin should help the poor more by not spending time organizing peace rallies. What readers should know is that Rev. Maruskin works for a faith-based development agency and routinely associates with third world refugees. Few people in our area have done more for the hungry and oppressed. And yet she — she who knows the injustices of dictators and tyrants of all sorts, who has seen the torture marks of political prisoners — still opposes war as a faithful or effective solution. Armchair warriors can pontificate about the “necessity” of war; I will listen to Maruskin, who has traveled the globe, cares for the poorest of the poor, and hears well the voices of the marginalized and oppressed.

Stevens correctly reminds us that Maruskin's proclamation of non-violence does not speak for all Christians. However, two remarks must be added. First, for Christians, the truth of any contested doctrine is to be settled with thorough and careful Bible study. Our personal political preferences or who in our families died in warfare, or what seems noble or practical, frankly, is irrelevant in determining God's will. While the public newspaper may not be the place for such Scripture study, this much is clear: the question is less “What about Saddam?” and more about “What about Jesus?”

Christians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh and the Lord of the universe. His is the best interpretation of Old Testament principles. Those closest to Him knew this; his disciple Peter recalled Jesus' non-violence, insisting it is “an example for you to follow.” The great apostle Paul, after having met the Risen Christ face to face, writes “if your enemy is hungry, feed him.” This flies in the face of the so-called realism of most contemporary strategy, but it is what the texts say, and we dare not detour around them. Admittedly, it is not easy to know just how a modern secular state might apply these teachings given to the early Christian community, but it is a hugely significant question.

Secondly, Stevens' reminder that there were wars in the Old Testament is important. It strikes me, though, that often even good Bible teachers sometimes quote a particular O.T. episode as normative in a way that is not theologically sound, is disrespectful to the overall plot of the Biblical drama and seems counter to the trajectory of those texts as they move ancient Israel increasingly toward trusting God. A serious reader of the Old Testament will see a shift from holy war to battles won by miracle to an anticipation of a shalom promised by the later prophets. Increasingly, the Hebrew prophets remind the kings that their violent ways are not God's ways. Indeed, many of the Psalms about justice (which Stevens rightly commends to us) declare that weapons are a false idol and that nations ought not to trust in their military. Indeed, the beloved verse, “Be still and know that I am God” is set in this exact anti-war context (Psalm 46:9-10) and, as rendered in the King James, s ays “cease striving,” meaning “for military superiority.” A close reading of the unfolding progression of the Hebrew Scriptures surely leads towards God's intention to bring peace on Earth. Is it any wonder that that was the song of the angels the day Messiah was born?

Could the revolutionary politics of the Bible and the nonviolence of Jesus work? The Indian Hindu, Gandhi, wrote about the Old Testament prophet Daniel (himself a captive in modern day Iraq) as a model for non-violent resistance in Africa. Later, he turned to Jesus as a model for non-violent resistance to tyranny. Great and fearsome Muslim soldiers turned to non-violence as they campaigned for years against the oppression of their brutal enemies. While Gandhi never accepted Christ as his savior, this titan of the 20th century was astonished that Christians themselves so rarely followed their Lord at this very point.

*****

For meaningful, civic dialogue to be fruitful, peace people must not presume that everyone who supports the President's war plans is a heartless hawk wanting vengeance and mass destruction. A reasonable case may be made that the regime in Baghdad is so horrible that we must intervene. Similar cases could be made in other equally oppressive regimes, and each of these can be debated as to what policy might be most appropriate.

More to the point of this letter, though: I would ask Ms. Stevens and those who share her opinion to stop the shallow caricature that anti-war folks want to “sit idly by” and don't care about oppression. Stop the vague and less-than-useful broadsides against so-called liberals. And please stop the “throw-back to the '60s” line, since many of the good Americans who think oppose this war are culturally conservative and have nothing to do with drugs, free sex or the Woodstock era. And if one is going to talk about the Bible (as I hope we do!), let us try to be well-informed, theologically sound and not just settle for a passing note that there were wars in the Old Testament. God's redemptive Story is much more complex and profound than that and, if well-plumbed, can be a rich resource for solutions that can be both faithful and effective in our broken world.

Letter to the Editor, York Sunday Times, July 11, 2004

As the debate about teaching creationism in public schools continues, there are a few points that I wish were understood. Thoughtful and civil dialogue must be fair and factual; around this topic, much is said that is not true. Here are a few thoughts that might keep the discussion fruitful.

We must admit that no single view of science can be claimed to be the "true" or only one, as if Darwinist evolution is real fact and anti-Darwinists are frauds. There are extraordinary scientists who disagree about everything from fossil evidence to transitional forms; the foundational claim of Darwin — the un-provable notion that the beginning of life happened from nothing by chance — is as much of a metaphysical belief as is the Biblical one. One's views of origins are by definition pre-scientific in nature. Choose your faith — atheistic naturalism or the belief in the Hebrew creation story (or yet something else) — but don't imply that those who don't agree with Darwin are necessarily bad scientists. There are many scientists (including some with deep religious faith) who try to make a good case for Darwinist evolution and there are those who try to argue in a compelling way that the d ata necessarily leads to an intelligent design. Let's be honest about the debate and be clear about what the facts are and aren't. Darwinist claims are under attack from all sorts of quarters and seem to be falling out of favor among many scientists. (Which is to say, Darwinism is simply not a proven fact.)    

Secondly, the matter that faces school districts is one of educational policy. Believe what you want about the credibility of macro-evolution and Darwin's naturalism; it is important that we discuss educational policy in terms of educational justice, not which ideology will rule the roost. Public schools are not allowed to establish a religion, and no one wants that, not even conservative Christians. The question should be asked and answered in terms of what is good education and just public policy.        

A word to those advocating for inclusion of a creationist view in the textbooks: don't make your case in terms of "loving Jesus" or obeying the Bible, since many people in the public do not care about such things. Rather, your concern is a matter of educational fairness and scientific integrity. Make your case that your proposals are in the best interest of students, sound educational policy and truthfulness, and back off the rhetoric of wanting to please the Lord. Such language in the public debate tends to worry your opponents and you would be wise to explain that you don't intend to dishonor the Constitution or impose Christian convictions on anyone.  

And a recommendation for the critics of creationism: don't confuse the issue by implying that those who want a plurality of views represented want to break down the wall of separation between church and state — nobody wants a theocracy here and the pro-creationist folks are not asking for anyone to start a church with public monies. That is a diversion from the real debate about educational fairness and scientific honesty.  While it would be unjust to insist that a Judeo-Christian faith perspective be exclusively taught, it is equally unjust for a secularized, Darwinist faith perspective to be exclusively taught. Don't attack the pro-creationists for wanting their views represented, since you obviously want yours represented.      

Rejecting the assumption of neutrality — as if there are just raw, uncontested facts — and teaching a variety of views seems not only fair, but educationally valuable. The fancy word for this is "pluralism," and it is the backbone of any just policy. Since there are a variety of worldviews and contested ideas about the nature of reality, schools should give them a fair hearing. No religious proselytizing should go on in schools, of course, but that means there ought not be a hegemony of one secularized view, either. An educationally-vibrant and fair-minded commitment to principled pluralism would go a long way to showing that our schools really are inclusive of the convictions of the public, that they are educationally open-minded, and that they intend to equip children to be critical thinkers, aware of the philosophic and scientific debates of our time, guiding them to be tolerant and insightful citizens.  &n bsp;   

This option of educational pluralism and honesty about the differences among us is full of potential not only for the debate about the scientific credibility of Darwinism. Think of the fun debates and deep learning that could happen if students really grapple with the most profound matters of our time — is being anti-war unpatriotic? What makes a painting worthwhile? How does one evaluate the capitalist notion that greed is good? Ought history to be taught from the point of view of the powerful or perhaps ought the poor and oppressed be heard? What sort of novels ought to be read and why? And how does one know anything, really? 

If education is about learning, surely our students will have to become mature thinkers; our teachers will have to be adept at offering the biggest picture possible for the very meaning of schooling, what Neil Postman called "the end of education." If we have noble and worthwhile ends (or to use the current lingo, "outcomes") for our children's schooling, our educators will have to be imaginative enough to handle the fact that there are — gasp! — different views of nearly everything out there. Such educators will surely find it helpful to be honest about the debates about Darwinism. I find it inexplicable that anyone would want it any other way.

Byron Borger
236 East Main Street
Dallastown, PA 17313
home: (717) 246-1137
work: (717) 246-3333
www.heartsandmindsbooks.com

August 2004