Sand Creek, Osama and Saddam

I’m feeling overwhelmed and confused in this new world of high-technology and global terrorism?  As an individual I feel empowered; I can publish my thoughts on my own web site and email my congressman, but I also feel kind of impotent when I  get their computer-generated replies.  I’m finding it difficult to sort out my responsibilities; as a world citizen in an increasingly global human community, as an American, as a Christian, and as an individual. The only way that I’ve found to manage it all is to understand who I am, and what my responsibilities are, on different levels and within differing spheres.

It helps me to notice that Jesus broke it down.  He identified different spheres of society and differentiated the responsibilities appropriate to each sphere.  He differentiated between His Kingdom and the world, between God and Caesar, between the legalistic Jewish tradition and a deeper spiritual response. For Jesus there were three levels of responsibility; he instructed his followers to respect and obey Governing authority of Rome.  He told them to honor their Jewish religious heritage, but to go beyond it, and he most of all called them to personal relationship and responsibility with their neighbors and their God. In short there was, for Jesus a responsibility to the government, to ones social and cultural affiliations, and finally a deeper, spiritual responsibility to oneself, one's neighbors and to God.

So I have decided that if Jesus could compartmentalize in this way, it’s okay for me to do it too. 

There is not getting around the reality that Christians throughout the ages have always found themselves under some kind of governmental authority or other. Sometimes those governments have been friendly toward their faith, and sometimes not.  All through the Bible there is a distinction between “the Nations” and “God’s people.”  They are expected to operate under two distinctly different standards.  And so I see that it is appropriate for me to differentiate between the responsibilities of secular state, and the responsibilities of the community of God. Most people would agree that it is not proper to “take the law into your own hands.”  That is the responsibility of the state. It is not my place to punish evildoers, no matter how much they deserve it.  But it is the proper function of the state.  It is also the proper function of the state to protect and defend its citizens through the maintenance of a military force. The confusion comes when there's a conflict between  responsibilities as a Christian, and my responsibilities as a citizen in a democracy.  Under what circumstances do I support and perhaps even actively participate in actions which are the proper responsibilities of the state, but which are not normally appropriate to me as a Christian?  To express it in the extreme, could I agree to be an instrument of the state?  Could I "flip the switch",  acting as the executioner of individuals for whom I hold no personal animus, without any knowledge or concern as to their guilt or the justice of their sentence, let alone the secret inner workings of the spirit within their hearts?  To ask the same question in a much more practical and realistic way; could I act as a combatant, applying lethal force upon the citizens of another country against whom I hold no malice, with only partial understanding of the actual rationale and justification behind my being ordered to take such actions?

Where do my responsibilities to the government begin and end?  Where do my responsibilities as a Christian and a member of a human community supersede my responsibilities as an American?  How do I apply human and Christian values to the policies and actions of my government?  Should I trust that my leaders know more than I do and have my interests at heart? When does choosing to “go along” with my government mean compromising personal integrity and spiritual commitment?  When does patriotism become idolatry?

For me the answer lies in the prioritization of the three spheres of responsibility.  But the morally correct order goes against my nature.  Naturally I would think about my governmental, social and religious responsibilities first, because of social pressures and sanctions. Because the sphere of true spirituality is so subtle and esoteric, and often seemingly impractical, so “super”-natural, it is often in practice the lower priority.  

The grace of God turns this prioritization on its head. Only through the action of intervening grace are we able to live out of a central awareness of God's generosity and mercy toward all of human-kind, including our enemies.

I have no doubt about the fact that people like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are enemies.  It is silly to argue about that. They deserve to be punished. The only question for me is how do behave toward my enemies; as a Christian and as an American.

So what about the War on Terror and the War against Iraq?  Lori and I have talked a lot about our thoughts and feeling.  Until recently we have felt kind of isolated and alone in our troubled hearts and minds.  We haven’t spoken much about it with anyone else.  We had wondered why there were only occasional questioning voices in the wilderness of the mass media.  But then, all of a sudden, (it seemed), there were peace demonstrations all over the world. There were even hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in New York City, the ground zero of terrorism. And just as suddenly the pundits seemed emboldened to ask questions about the wisdom and timing of our leaders’ policies.  I've always wondered about the value of demonstrations. But now I think I see; the talking heads of media are silent without a body to support them.  The bodies of ordinary people in the streets has pumped blood into the pallor faces of the pundits and politicians. 

As I consider the question of going to war with Iraq, considering the differing values of the three spheres, Here’s what I come to:

I have the good fortune to live under a system of government that allows more freedom and opportunity than any in the history of the world. I am truly grateful that I am an American. I also understand that the Government of the United States cannot be a Christian Theocracy. The capacity of our nation and culture to embrace and honor diversity of religious and cultural expressions is our greatest strength.  So I  expect the government to act responsibly in its proper sphere; a nation, a secular state.  I am glad that I live under the protections of the American legal system, and accept and expect that if I break the law, I will suffer the consequences.  If I, as a Christian, in obedience to my deepest sense of God's will, disobey the government, I should not think it an injustice when I suffer the consequences.  The government will enforce the law, and if I am a law-breaker as a result of my obedience to God, the best I can do is accept the consequences in the grace of God.

On the level of my cultural, social and religious affiliations, it is really hard to sacrifice my personal comfort, convenience and pleasure that comes along with being in accord with my peers.  Actually,  if I think about what attitudes and actions are most conducive to my own comfort and convenience, then participation in war is definitely to be avoided, but so is overt and vocal opposition to war.  That might bring me into discord and discomfort with my friends at work or at church. The smart thing is polite agreement with the consensus views of those around me, without any actual acts generating forth from such agreement which would put me in harms way.  Affirm that Saddam Hussein is dangerous and must be taken care of, but don’t volunteer to take any actual part in it myself.  And most certainly, do not introduce into the public discourse such topics as civilian casualties.  It is best to agree that it is one evil man that needs to be gotten rid of and “we” (meaning young men and women who can’t yet legally drink alcohol) should do it! 

This is obviously the cowards way.  But I have to admit that I have wanted to wait to express my opposition to war publicly until I "have it all figured out."  I've kept pretty quiet, letting people assume that I am in accord with the war effort.  I kind of like the fact that, as a Methodist I can believe just about anything I choose, as long as I’m tolerant and polite about it.  I can meander about on the back-roads of the ethical and moral hinterlands and avoid the high-speed divided-highway of  right-wing fundamentalist civil religion or left-wing radical pacifism. I feel free to express my ideas, as long as they are courteous ideas and as long as I make it clear that they are "just my ideas,"  and everyone else is free to have their own.  This probably sounds like sarcasm, but I really mean it.  I’d rather struggle with honest diversity than dishonest lock-step unanimity.  I don’t like having to swallow the truth whole.  I’d rather hold an awkward question in my mouth and chew it carefully for a while, roll it around and sort out the bones with my tongue. But then there is the proverb, "If you have to swallow a frog, do it quickly."

Beyond my immediate social awkwardness and shallow comfort, there remains the question of my citizenship as an American.  What do I think and what do I do as one of 280 million participants in this democratic process?  And beyond that, what do believe and how do I behave as a citizen of the global human-community.

First off, the United States should insist that the world community to take responsibility.  The Bush administration is making a big mistake in taking on a Romanesque Pax-American role in the world. Being the lone super-power makes us the biggest target in the world, and the bigger we are, the more inflated the balloon of our importance becomes, the more surface area there is to be popped.  If we relate to the UN in terms of, "if you don’t do it, we will”, chances are the rest of the world will say, “go ahead, you do it.”  If terrorism and Saddam Hussein are really global concerns then we should insist that the world community face these challenges together.  There is a big difference between inclusive leadership that leads by inviting participation and leadership that says, “you are either with us, or against us.”  It will not serve American interests in the long run to dismiss other nations as too weak or small, too poor or old to matter.  That will only alienate us and eventually weaken us.  Many in the world would love to se the United bare all of the costs and take all of the responsibility for policing the world. The one sure thing is that some things will go wrong in a war and decade-long occupation of Iraq. It’s hard to image a scenario which would leave the United States looking good in the eyes of the world.  Killing thousands of Iraqis civilians in the name of liberating them from oppression is a tough sell.  Instituting democracy through the imposition of a Pontius Pilot-style military governor is not the way win friends in the Arab world.

Even a best-case scenario is bound to result in at least as many deaths as the 1991 Gulf War did.  Fighting in the streets of Baghdad is likely to result in significantly more casualties than the aerial bombardment of that conflict.  But as a human and a Christian I have to think also about Iraqi lives.  According to Beth Osborne Daponte, a  Middle East analyst in the Census Bureau's international division, whose normal job was to estimate the populations of other nations, the Gulf War resulted in the deaths of 56,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians. In addition 35,000 people died in internal Iraqi post-war fighting.  Another 111,000 died immediately after the war as a result of the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure. The final death toll; 205,500.

While I do feel my personal responsibility and my responsibility as an American citizen and as a Christian, it is hard for me to muster up much of a sense of responsibility to the Multinational Global Corporate Empire, and I’m suspicious that that sphere has now largely superseded the others.

So, for me it’s about spheres of responsibility, owning up to responsibilities, and prioritizing the spheres. Saddam is a bad guy. He has oppressed his people. He has ill intent toward his neighbors. He is no doubt hiding weapons of mass-destruction. But it is the responsibility of the Iraqis to initiate changes in their government and it is the responsibility of the community of nations to deal with the threat to world peace.

The highest sphere of responsibility is the spiritual one. As a follower of Jesus Christ who desires to worship “in spirit and in truth” I must think and act out of an attitude of prayer.  I’m not a pacifist. To make non-violence or any other principle into a comprehensive governing absolute would be to look to something other than the Spirit of God as the absolute. The Almighty One is enthroned above the law, even above the law that says, “thou shalt not kill.”  But I would have to have clear discernment that the Spirit was directing me to act against that most basic and universal taboo, the taking of a human life.

My a priori assumption is that God is gracious and loving, generous and merciful to all.  I begin with the assumption that I should follow Christ in the way of the cross, the way of suffering and forgiveness.  If the life of Jesus shows us anything it is that obedience to God doesn’t always mean coming out the winner.  It often means losing, even losing your life. There is something wrong when Christians can, without much agony of spirit, without much prayer and fasting endorse the killing of  innocent civilians.   

As I think about the proper prioritization of the spheres of responsibility there is one historical model that seems to embodies it all for me. I have long been fascinated by the characters and events that surrounded the Sand Creek Massacre which took place just a little to the north-east of Trinidad.  It is particularly interesting to me right now because I see so many parallels between the situation then, and the war against terrorism and the looming war with Iraq. There is a big difference in scale between little Sand Creek in eastern Colorado and the great Euphrates River ran through the ancient city of Babylon and now runs through the city of Baghdad.  There’s a big difference between a small band of Cheyenne Indians and the nation of Iraq, but there are similarities in the essence of events, then and now. Here’s what led to the Sand Creek Massacre:

For millennia the American West had been a vast wilderness peopled by native nomads and governed by tribal chieftains, not unlike the warlords of Afghanistan and Iraq.  The different tribes fought with each other over hunting grounds and stole one another’s horses and wives.  But in 1859 gold was discovered in Colorado and by 1864 a mass migration of fortune-seekers had created the burgeoning Wild-West town of Denver. In the Middle-east it was oil instead of Gold that brought the rest of the world to desert, and Kuwait City was its boom town.  Most of the native population of the American West welcomed the newcomers and were fascinated by the new technologies that they brought with them.  But a few Indians saw the White men as invaders who threatened their way of way of life. Crusaders guided by the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a notion that they were acting as the instruments of God to establish the “Kingdom” on the as-yet-undefined wilderness and its savage inhabitants.  Today’s version of this doctrine is the displacement of Islamic fundamentalists and dictators and the imposition of democratic models upon the Mesopotamian sands.  Some of the Native Americans became renegades, terrorists who operated outside of the control of their tribal governments. They committed atrocities, terrorist acts against innocent white settlers.

(There is nothing new about terrorism; the Barbarians used terrorism against the far-superior military might of the Romans when they were the worlds only super-power, American revolutionaries shocked the genteel sensibilities of the British by using “uncivilized” guerilla tactics against them, and during the Viet Nam War, while the uniformed North Vietnamese regulars waged war openly,  according to the rules,  the Viet Cong warred covertly and were indistinguishable from the civilian population.)

Indian raids caused disruptions in communications and commerce for the people of Denver who lived in daily fear of attack. They were impatient with liberals in the East, who like the “old Europe” Germans and French, advocated for a more enlightened, patient and tolerant approach. Finally a strong leader emerged who was willing to act against the renegades and in defense of the people of Denver.  Colonel John Covington had been a Methodist minister and a Civil War hero.  He had also been an ardent abolitionist, but black slaves in the South were Christians; the Indians were not. “Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians!” he said, “I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means, (tactical nuclear weapons), under God's heaven to kill Indians.”  The public wanted to see some decisive action and Chivington seemed like just the man to do it. He set out from Denver with the Third Colorado Cavalry to root out and destroy the renegades (Al Qaeda.) But he couldn’t find them. They were stealthy and indistinguishable from the rest of the native population.

Meanwhile the Cheyenne Chief, Black Kettle, and his people were encamped along the banks of Sand Creek in accordance with peace terms set for them a few months earlier during peace counsels held outside of Denver.  Sort of like the Iraqis waving the protective banner of the UN weapons inspection regime. But it was suspected that renegades were being harboring within Black Kettle’s camp and that he was hiding caches of illegal weapons. Besides that, the Indian leader was also “playing games” with the government, making peace as winter moved in so that his people could receive food and blankets to get them through the winter, (like the UN food for oil deal.) Chivington was sure that with the coming of Spring, the Cheyenne would return to the war-path.

After months of frustration, just before the expiration of their allotted time to root out the renegades, the Third Cavalry still had not engaged the enemy. Chivington’s pride would not allow him return to Denver without a victory, so he moved on Black Kettle’s camp. With 150,000 troops deployed in the Persian Gulf region, I fear that other egos in our time will not return without a victory.  On the way Chivington placed William Bent and his family under house arrest at their homestead at the mouth of the Purgatory River. He was afraid that they might warn the Indians, and so it was deemed necessary to “suspend their civil liberties.”   

Black Kettle had promised to behave and he in turn had been given a pledge that he and his people were safe under US Army protection. But Chivington was sure that he could not be trusted and that it would be fool-hardy to wait for hard evidence of his collusion with the renegades.  He launched a “pre-emptive strike.”   

Chivington’s victory was swift. At dawn on November 28^th, 1864 he led his 700 troops with the superior technology of four blazing howitzers against Black Kettle’s unsuspecting encampment.  It was a dramatic demonstration of “overwhelming force.”  Black Kettle raised an American flag that had been given to him as a token of the Army’s peaceful intention, along with a white-flag of surrender, but to no avail.  The raid resulted in the deaths of at least 137 Indians, mostly women and children. Many atrocities were later reported by a few soldiers who refused to follow Chivington’s orders.

The Indians who managed to escape the slaughter were eventually rounded up and sent off to reservations and prisons, some as far away as St. Augustine Florida, the nineteenth-century version of detention camps.

Colonel Chivington returned to Denver as a conquering hero, appearing on stage with his display of 100 Indian scalps.  But his glory was short-lived. He was soon the subject of a Congressional inquiry which denounced his actions and forced his resignation.

Chivington’s pre-emptive action to punish those who were thought to harbor terrorists and supply them with weapons did not put an end to the terrorism.  It enraged and unified other tribes and resulted in increased terrorism and 25 years of Indian wars which finally ended only after the complete extermination or imprisonment of the native population of the American West.