Print this articleLetters to the editor
(Re: “Does one mistake deserve another?,” Kerux, Feb. 5, 2007)
There are a number of points where I disagreed with Chad’s argumentation and assertions, but for the sake of brevity, I will try to limit the scope of my response. I also want to be clear that my response is purely political, not ecclesiological.
Chad says that the current war should not be compared to WWII, but he doesn’t really say why, other than that this war is tougher than projected, and there will be a troop increase. Millions of lives were lost in WWII. I don’t think that arguing against the comparison on the basis of difficulty is very tenable. Not only that, but troop increases were constant throughout WWII. These were not always troop increases to bring more force; many times it was simply to replace the thousands upon thousands that had been killed. Would Chad consider this also to be “evidence of the naivety of the government's plan in the first place”? And if so, would this thereby undermine the justification of our involvement in WWII?
I think a number of comparisons to WWII are uncanny. Hitler’s goals and the goals of radical Islam are parallel in many frightening ways. Hitler wanted to take the world by force, subject everyone to his ideology, and destroy all human beings he deemed inferior (especially Jews). The voices of radical Islam have expressed nearly identical goals and have given us more than sufficient reason to believe that they mean what they say.
History offers us some pretty clear lessons. England’s Neville Chamberlain tried appeasement and diplomacy during the 30’s. The result was horrific. It took the moral clarity and unwavering fortitude of men like Winston Churchill to see Hitler for what he was and to deal with Nazi Germany the only way possible: with force. The dissenting voices at the time may have had laudable intentions (e.g. the absence of war), but they were wrong, dead wrong. We’ve seen the same destructive appeasement in the late 70’s toward the Soviet Union, Libya, and Iran as well as in the 90’s toward North Korea, Iraq, and al Qaeda. In all these instances, appeasement and/or failed diplomacy led to more cruelty, more conflict, and/or more death. In all these instances, the U.N. has not been the “better alternative” that Chad suggests it is.
I think that Churchill’s quote is incredibly applicable to the current war. Abandoning Iraq would be absolutely catastrophic and would embolden an enemy with Hitler-like objectives. Despite the best efforts of many to caricature George W. Bush and the current war, we did not invade Iraq with Toby Keith’s extreme patriotism (which Chad rightly condemns). We fight an enemy that parasites on other nations, which is why (as Bush has said from the very beginning) such nations are relevant to the war on terror. It’s also a caricature to say that the US was “pushing its agenda on the rest of the world.” Saddam was defeated by a coalition of forces after years of subverting U.N. resolutions. There remains good evidence that Saddam was not only pursuing WMD’s, but as some of his top officials have said, he had them and shipped them to Syria while he dodged weapons inspectors.
War is terrible. War is horrific. But in a world of depravity, history has shown us multiple instances where military intervention was the only option. I believe the war on terror to be just such an instance.
Craig Hoekema, M.Div.
(Re: “Editorial: Violence against worship in the name of curriculum?,” Kerux, Feb. 5, 2007)
There are many reasons students do not attend chapel. For one, this quarter none of my classes happened on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Second, I think many students don't really feel ownership concerning chapel. Chapel, at least I sense this, is run by a select few within the seminary. Students not in contact with this select group will rarely get asked to preach or share at chapel. And I fear, with such theologically critical eyes watching, many probably do not want to preach or participate in chapel. To be fair to the worship planners at chapel, they can't include everyone... The worship-planning group then has to cater to the group at the seminary that creates the least opposition. They have to be carefully planned to not be offensive to any one group within the seminary.
So in the end, I would guess the "middle of the road" crowd (whatever that is) consists of the majority of chapel attendees, while the more culturally and theologically dissimilar on all possible spectrums find chapel to not really connect with them. And third, as you already mentioned in your article we have work to do, why not do it during chapel? Nice talk about community won't make the work go away, and besides we are already highly involved Christians, right?
Henry Reyenga, M.Div.