Can We Convert to Moral Commonality over Military and Economic Expansionism?

My Aunt Joanna sent me an article today reprinted from www.Mises.org   Ralph Roico wrote it in 1995, but it's pertinent still.  It's called America's Will to War:  the Turning Point. He describes a military expansionism beginning in the late 1900s which was contrary to the spirit of America's founding fathers. 

I wrote my first major paper ever in high school on "American Involvement in the Spanish Civil War."  My history teacher told me when I turned it in that she found it an odd title, since America had been officially isolationist in that conflict. She learned from my paper that while that was the official political position, many Americans were engaged in the conflict.  The "Lincoln Brigade' were American fighters opposed to Hitler's expansionism.  Ernest Hemingway placed his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls in this setting.  Hitler supplied Franco's regime with weapons, and tested their new weapons in Spain against the 'freedom fighters,' to be used not soon after in other parts of Europe.  I think this is indicative of the 'American' experience.  We have been 'engaged' in conflicts many times in ways not 'official,' even clandestine to the American public.  Another example is the trainers on the ground in Vietnam not long after the French left.  I imagine we have CIA operatives in Libya and other places in North Africa already, though no ground war is declared.  I had a church member some years ago who was an army ranger working for the Defense Mapping Agency, which is headquartered in Saint Louis.  Though he of course did not tell me so, I deduced that he and his comrades regularly were sent secretly into potential future war zones to map terrain, or to 'assist' other nations. 

Yes.  I believe America is militarily engaged beyond our sustainable capacity.  Nothing else (except maybe the rising cost of health care) presses the federal budget more.  We have already spent as much as $6 billion in Libya, while Congress quibbled over $38 billion vs. $60 billion total in 'paper' cuts for the balance of fiscal 2011.  

But why?  While Roico says it was earlier, I think World War II was the major turning point.  First, there was the humanitarian crisis.  I think most Americans feel it is immoral to allow a government to annihilate whole populations. But of course, we have intervened some places and not others.  Why?  Because the second motivation and criteria is economic.  Uganda, for example, represented no great economic interest.  Raico hits on this point:  "This policy by no means entailed the "isolation" of the United States. Throughout these decades, trade and cultural exchange flourished, as American civilization progressed and we became an economic powerhouse. The only thing that was prohibited was the kind of intervention in foreign affairs that was likely to embroil us in war."  I think he and I differ in perspective a bit, though maybe not as much as you might think.  I think behind the scenes we were very much 'embroiled' well before World War II, for the very purpose of economic expansionism on the part of American corporations. We Americans greatly benefitted as our economic strength grew well into the past decade.  But as Roico points out, we have increasingly been 'embroiled in war.'  

I think the big change is that we really no longer have an "American economy.'  The economy is global.  the corporations, American in rootage, are no longer 'American.'  But they still enjoy the level of influence they have developed over previous decades.  Our campaign financing system favors their influence.  Leaders who seek to govern in the interest of the general American public or even the general global public, whether Republican, Democrat, Socialist or Independent, have to cow-tow to global corporate interests.  The underlying assumption, which Roico seems to advocate, is that what is good for these global corporations is good for the American public.  I just don't agree with that. I think the whole system and situation has changed.  I think we have to find effective ways to rebalance the 'common good' (which now is global, not 'American') with corporate profit motive. I do NOT believe capitalism is always going to work in the best interest of citizens.  Often, yes.  But not always. 

So, the big decision our Congress now faces is to what degree we will continue to put the marbles into military expansionism to protect corporate expansionism.  Roico and I agree, I think, that we can't stay on this path. I agree with him that business mostly wants 'peace and quiet.'  Stability and predictability are in the best interest of business.  But we now live in a future-shock world.  Like it or not, I think, those days are over.  Everything changes too quickly, over and over again.  I think business adapts better than government, and increasingly government leaders are learning from business leaders.  

We religious leaders need to regain our influence, even in this increasingly secular environment, for the good of all.  You would expect me as a clergyman to place priority on what I believe is the most important concern: core values.  I find across the political spectrum people of sincere faith are committed to protecting human rights, protection of the environment, government which is truly representative of people for the common good, and economic sustainability over quick corporate profit.  I appreciate Jim Wallis' work and writing.  Consider reading his recent book, Rediscovering Values: A Moral Compass for the New Economy.  In think Wallis' greatest contribution was in one of his earliest books, The Call to Conversion. He challenged us to grow to see religious conversion not so much as just personal faith acceptance, but as life-long turning of our lives toward the common good.  Methodism's founder John Wesley called in Sanctifying Grace.  What do you think?  Can we convert the world's approach to politics and economics?  I think so.  Jesus called it The Kingdom of God.    

Why is it that I can edit the world’s largest encyclopedia, but I can’t edit church?

Pastor’s page

Why is it that I can edit the world’s largest encyclopedia, but I can’t edit church?

Rev. Landon Whitsitt raised this question in The Alban Weekly.  Did you know that every week 13% of all internet users in the world visit Wikopedia, the open-source online encyclopedia?  It’s the seventh most-visited site on the internet.  The word “Wikopedia” has become synonymous with “encyclopedia.” Growing up we went to the World Book, or Encyclopedia Brittanica, when we wanted full information on any subject.  My parents spent good money to have both on the home shelves.  But they became outdated.  We took the old World Book set to our house for our kids to use.  Bridget flunked a sixth grade science report because she wrote there were six phyla of fungi.  By then there were seven.  Now Wikopedia says scientists have identified one subkingdom, seven phyla, ten subphyla, and over 1.5 million species, only 5% of which have even been classified.  Bridget learned her lesson.  Now she consults Wikopedia instead. So do I. 

Every day 135,000 Wikopedia users update at least one article.  This is what is meant by “open-source.” Wikopedia is literally being re-written every day by its users.  Staff reviewers work hard to check the facts, but reading you will notice those parenthetic notes:  “source needed.”  The work of scripture scholars over the last 150 years or so has been similar though not so rapid.  But the pace is accelerating! Every day Bible scholars uncover new archeology, new ancient texts, new comparisons between writings set in new original contextual evidence.  Our understanding of even basic tenets of faith are being challenged by new evidence every day.  Part of the preacher’s task is to assist the congregation in assessing and assimilating, applying tools for learning. So, just as was true for the early Christians who adapted Jewish faith and teaching, we also are adapting the faith for a new time. Always have.  But now the pace is astounding.   

The church has never been known to change as quickly as some other institutions of society. That may be for the best.  Isn’t the point of church to be a place where the Divine Truth is guarded and passed down from generation to generation? How can this be accomplished if we open the doors and allow anyone to contribute? But ponder, with Rev. Whitsitt, who it might look like to be a Wikicclesia, an ‘open-source church,’ in these rapidly changing times.  Whittsitt asks, “How do we as the church expect to be the least bit appealing to people who increasingly go through their day knowing they can “wiki it’ on their cell phone?” Anyone anywhere can log on to the Internet and edit the world’s largest encyclopedia. They can contribute to the “sum of all human knowledge,” as Wikipedia describes it. They can offer their gifts of knowledge to the world and to generations to come. Yet we expect them to walk into our churches and simply take what’s handed to them and do it the way we say they should? I don’t think so.”

 

What if ‘wiki’ were the world as you know it, and you then walked through the door of almost any church, and it quickly became apparent that your job was to sit down and shut up—that your job was to listen and be spoon-fed what you needed to think and believe? To ask the obvious question again: Why is it that I can edit the world’s largest encyclopedia, but I can’t edit church?  This is the experience now for young people growing up in a new learning reality.  Even Saint Paul said everyone’s contribution is vital.  How can we guard and continue to communicate the deep truths of the ages, while open-sourcing?  I trust the Hoy Spirit can handle that, and help us.

Rev. Mark Harvey