Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

At 11:22 AM 3/3/2006, George Murphy wrote:

>It might be worth noting that with respect to many issues orthodox
>Christian teaching is a matter of staying on the road (if not
>exactly in the middle) rather than falling off on one side or
>another. Christology depends on avoiding both docetism &
>adoptionism, the Trinity requires avoiding both tritheism &
>modalism, &c. "Having the courage of your convictions" can
>sometimes mean emphasizing one aspect of the truth at the expense of
>others & ending up in heresy.
>
>Shalom
>George
><http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

### The only ones who are destined to "fall off the road into the
ditch" are the ones who aren't on God's right hand". :) ~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:tdavis@messiah.edu>Ted Davis ;
><mailto:asa@lists.calvin.edu>asa@lists.calvin.edu
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:38 AM
>Subject: Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars
>
>At 09:50 AM 3/3/2006, Ted Davis wrote:
>
>>[snip] "...I offer it as an apology (in the older meaning of that
>>word) for staking out a middle position on ..." [snip]
>>Harvard-Bound? Chin Up by David Brooks [snip]
>
>
>## Those who stake out a "middle position" on the highway get no
>respect and usually do wind up getting run over by those who have
>the courage of their convictions who are "going somewhere" on the
>left or the right of them.
>
>Here's another great article David Brooks wrote over a year ago. He
>talks about these "people who have the courage of their convictions"
>on both sides. You may want to post it on the wall, too.
>
> ~ Janice ... who knows that David Brooks is definitely not viewed
> as a "middle-of-the-road-moderate" by those going down the left
> side of the road. :)
>
><http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325947/posts>Ideals and Reality
><http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325947//^http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/opinion/22brooks.html?hp>NY
>Times ^ | January 22, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS - OP-ED COLUMNIST
>Posted on 01/22/2005 12:27:50 AM EST by neverdem
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325947/posts
>
>
>If you want to understand America, I hope you were in Washington on
>Thursday. I hope you heard the high ideals of President Bush's
>inaugural address, and also saw the stretch Hummer limos heading to
>the balls in the evening.
>
>I hope you heard the president talk about freedom as "the permanent
>hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the
>soul," and also saw the drunken, loud and privileged
>twentysomethings carrying each other piggyback down K Street after midnight.
>
>What you saw in Washington that day is what you see in America so
>often - this weird intermingling of high ideals with gross
>materialism, the lofty and the vulgar cheek to cheek.
>
>The people who detest America take a look at this odd conjunction
>and assume the materialistic America is the real America; the ideals
>are a sham. The real America, they insist, is the money-grubbing,
>resource-wasting, TV-drenched, unreflective bimbo of the earth. The
>high-toned language, the anti-Americans say, is just a cover for the
>quest for oil, or the desire for riches, dominion and war.
>
>But of course they've got it exactly backward. It's the ideals that are real.
>
>Two years from now, no one will remember the spending or the
>ostrich-skin cowboy boots. But Bush's speech, which is being derided
>for its vagueness and its supposed detachment from the concrete
>realities, will still be practical and present in the world,
>yielding consequences every day.
>
>With that speech, President Bush's foreign policy doctrine
>transcended the war on terror. He laid down a standard against which
>everything he and his successors do will be judged.
>
>When he goes to China, he will not be able to ignore the political
>prisoners there, because he called them the future leaders of their
>free nation. When he meets with dictators around the world, as in
>this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm
>relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can
>be successful.
>
>His words will be thrown back at him and at future presidents.
>American diplomats have been sent a strong message. Political reform
>will always be on the table. Liberation and democratization will be
>the ghost present at every international meeting. Vladimir Putin
>will never again be the possessor of that fine soul; he will be the
>menace to democracy and rule of law.
>
>Because of that speech, it will be harder for the U.S. government to
>do what we did to Latin Americans for so many decades - support
>strongmen to rule over them because they happened to be our
>strongmen. It will be harder to frustrate the dreams of a captive
>people, the way in the early 1990's we tried to frustrate the
>independence dreams of Ukraine.
>
>It will be harder for future diplomats to sit on couches flattering
>dictators, the way we used to flatter Hafez al-Assad of Syria decade
>after decade. From now on, the borders established by any peace
>process will be less important than the character of the regimes in
>that process.
>
>The speech does not command us to go off on a global crusade,
>instantaneously pushing democracy on one and all. The president
>vowed merely to "encourage reform." He insisted that people must
>choose freedom for themselves. The pace of progress will vary from
>nation to nation.
>
>The speech does not mean that Bush will always live up to his
>standard. But the bias in American foreign policy will shift away
>from stability and toward reform. It will be harder to cozy up to
>Arab dictators because they can supposedly help us in the war on
>terror. It will be clearer that those dictators are not the
>antidotes to terror; they're the disease.
>
>Bush's inaugural ideals will also be real in the way they motivate
>our troops in Iraq. Military Times magazine asked its readers if
>they think the war in Iraq is worth it. Over 60 percent - and
>two-thirds of Iraq combat vets - said it was. While many back home
>have lost faith, our troops fight because their efforts are aligned
>with the core ideals of this country, articulated by Jefferson, Walt
>Whitman, Lincoln, F.D.R., Truman, J.F.K., Reagan and now Bush.
>
>Americans are, as George Santayana observed, "idealists working on
>matter." On Thursday in Washington, the ideal and the material were
>on ample display. And we're reminded once again that this country
>has grown rich, powerful and effective not because its citizens are
>smarter or better, but because the ideals bequeathed by the founders
>are practical and true.
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 3 11:30:02 2006