Thinking/Praying

Posted on January 2, 2007 by Richard Heyduck

Is there a difference between thinking and praying?

I’ve wondered about that since I first heard the phrase, “Our thoughts and prayers will be with you.” Doubtless, much of our prayer life (at least in the UM churches I’ve been around which feature much in the way of “silent” prayer) consists of thinking directed at God.

Can we pray without thinking? We can certainly say prayers without thinking. I’ve heard enough pastoral prayers over the years that show no outward evidence of thought.

Can we think without praying? We can certainly think with no intention of addressing God or being overheard by God.

Sometimes our thinking and praying do go together very closely. I remember attending a Christmas music program years ago while in seminary. I’ve always lived Christmas music, so I was looking forward to the program. When it began, however, I noticed that a number of students had brought their families – including little kids – who didn’t know how to be quiet. Perturbed, I silently prayed (thought!), “Lord, why did they have to bring their little kids to ruin the music?” Immediately God answered my prayer: “What are you singing about?” I almost laughed out loud. And then repented.

I don’t think I was mature enough at that time in my life to get beyond myself in that kind of situation. If I had been more spiritual, I would have taken the opportunity to pray for those children and their families – that they might hear the voice of God through the program, that they might even hear the angels as did the shepherds 2000 years ago. I could have prayed for the parents that they would have felt the affirmation and presence of God with their little children – and not just guilt for having noisy children (as a parent for almost 20 years now I’ve been there).

That’s the problem with thinking, in my experience. It’s too often about us. Even when other people are involved, it’s too much about us. Perhaps as we allow our thoughts – and I assume that not all our thoughts originate with us; God is at work! – if others to come to the surface, we can use them as prompts to help us enter a conversation with God about how to pray for the people on our minds.

Posted in Prayer, Spirituality | Leave a comment

Old Year, New Year

Posted on January 2, 2007 by Richard Heyduck

From a church perspective last year was somewhat stressful. The church had been thinking for years about acquiring the grocery store property across the street. We knew we couldn’t expand to the south (down town), the east (court house & jail), the west (farmstead museum). North was the only direction we could go. We needed parking and, since the church was growing, more space for our activities.

But it happened sooner than we expected.

We’d just finished renovating the sanctuary and stained glass windows. We were almost done paying 200k to rebuild the pipe organ. Then along comes Oscar, telling us he’s going to retire, wondering if we’re still interested in the property. The church leadership saw an opportunity that might never come again, so we grabbed it.

Acquiring the property is a good thing. Paying for it – and paying for its renovation to a usable state – is a big challenge. I wondered how we would come up with the money to pay for it, for our sanctuary renovation loan, and pay our ever-increasing apportionments. The good news is that we’re making it. We don’t have the money we need yet for the renovations, but we’re paying the note on the property. We also paid our apportionments in full – in December even!

Another piece of good news: The last time the church had averaged 200 in worship was 1966. I’d set that as a goal ever since I arrived. It seemed pretty unrealistic at first, since the church had averaged 135 the previous year. We were close the last couple of years, but we finally made it in 2006.

I’ve said over and over that there are two practical secrets to raising attendance. First, people who already attend can attend more often. Everyone has their particular attendance pattern. Some come once a month, some twice a month. If each of these folks raises their attendance just a little, say, an extra Sunday a month (or even a quarter), our attendance will go up. Second, in addition to people who already come coming more, increased attendance comes from new people coming. Some people will come simply because they’re new in town and have a habit of going to church somewhere. Others – the majority, I think – come because they’ve been invited. Our people have done a great job of inviting these past few years.

So are we ready to be triumphalists? I’m not. We still have a long way to go.

Regarding attendance, while 203 is a great improvement over 135, it’s still less than half our membership. How can a Body work and be healthy when less than half of it is functioning at any given time?

Regarding finances, while we’re keeping up, paying our bills, making progress, there are still a large number of folks who don’t trust God in the area of money enough to tithe.

Finally, both of these areas – attendance and money – have the advantage of being easily measurable. But we don’t have a scriptural call to do either. Oh sure, I’m sure that paying our bills and participating in church life is pleasing to God, but our big command (the Great Commission) is to make disciples. I’m still yearning to make disciples – and to see the church as a whole become a disciple making church. We have activity down. We’re getting better at having a good, optimistic attitude. But life change… that’s what I’m praying for. What will it take to make it happen?

Here’s a stab.

First, it’ll require those of us who are already here being open to God’s work in our own life. We we don’t let God bring change to our own lives, how can we expect other people to seek it or want it?

Second, we’ll have to spend more time in prayer. We can work hard and pull off gimmicks that raise attendance and funds. But only God can change a life. As long as we’re satisfied with few (or no) lives changed, we’ll never pour our hearts out the way Jesus wants.

Third, we’ll have to find more ways to spend time with non-church people and to call them to faith. We’re a bunch of spiritual introverts, so this will take some work. But it’s worth it.

Posted in church growth, Leadership, Local church, Spirituality | Leave a comment

Scripture as Means of Grace – first thoughts

Posted on December 20, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

As theologians move beyond the categories inherited from modern theology, the notion scripture first of all functions as a means of grace has become more popular. Billy Abraham (Canon and Criterion) , Ellen Charry (By the Renewing of Your Mind) encourage us to think this way. Telford Work (Living and Active) seems to be going this way also, but I’m not smart enough to get through the book. In this post, however, instead of dialoging with these folks (or others), I’m just going to think off the top of my head on the subject.

It is insufficient to just say, “Scripture is a means of grace” and think that gets us any where. We’ve marginalized “means of grace” language for so long we need to work on that concept for it to help us.

First, in popular theology, grace has too often been simply understood as what saves us. Following Ephesians 2:8-9 we say that we’re saved by grace, not by works. Surely that’s true, but it doesn’t take us far enough. Grace does much more – just in the book of Ephesians. Grace breaks down the barrier between Jew & Gentile. Grace calls and equips Paul for his ministry. Grace makes us one in Christ. Grace is connected with our remaking in the image of Jesus.

Second, it’s been a long time since “means” language has had a big function in popular language. At the very least, it shows that something is happening. Through X, Y happens. Scripture makes something happen, or, our interaction with Scripture is the occasion for something happening.

What kinds of things happen through Scripture in our lives? Well, those “grace- things” happen. How does it work? is it magic? Is grace some kind of juice that gives us super-spiritual vitamins? (Reading medieval theology has sometimes given me that picture of grace.)

Posted in Bible, Spirituality, Theology | 1 Comment

Al Qaeda, Taliban, et al.

Posted on December 12, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

Jeff Stein has a bothersome habit of asking our leaders annoying questions. Earlier in the year he discovered that numerous leaders in congress and intelligence bureaucracies didn’t seem to understand Islam, particularly the nature of the Sunni / Shia split. To too great a degree our leaders didn’t know which country was dominated by which group.

Stein figured that since a new congressional administration was coming to power it was time to try the questions on some new folks. Unfortunately Silvestre Reyes, incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee didn’t fare any better than his predecessors.  Al Qaeda? “Mostly a Shiite organization.” Nope. Not by a long shot. You’d think the people who made it to the top of the heap, who had to make decisions about our national security – and based on national security findings – would at least know the basics.

But perhaps we Americans aren’t the only ones wallowing in ignorance.

Years ago when we attacked Afghanistan, we did so to target Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. We knew which country hosted both – a no brainer.

Last summer we heard of the Pakistanis making a deal with Taliban-types in Waziristan. How could they, we said? They defended themselves by saying that at least these guys weren’t Al Qaeda. What some seem to have missed is that the Taliban, a movement we take as Afghani, was actually nurtured in the madrassas of Pakistan. The Wahhabism (a Saudi export) of some of the anti-soviets like bin Laden found a home in those schools and raised up a new generation. And now we’re surprised that something that looks an awful lot like the Taliban is takign deep root in Waziristan.

We surprise far too easily.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Churches Ought to Think of Each Other

Posted on December 10, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

Here’s a comment from Tom Peters on how churches ought to think of each other. Except he’s not talking about churches. To put it briefly: if you lead a church it is a good thing for the other churches around you to do well also. Don’t get in their way. In fact, going beyond Peters to the bible, don’t even look at those other churches (even the 800 pound gorillas) as competitors. Look at them as teammates. Cheer them on. Look for ways to help them succeed. And do it even if they insist on thinking of you as a competitor.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Generosity

Posted on December 5, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

It’s nice to see generosity in action. Sunday while I was going around the sanctuary greeting people, a family slipped me a check. “Use it to meet the needs of people.” That’s generosity in action.
Last week when I wrote my newsletter article for this week’s edition I included the comment that we still needed a pile of money for our apportionments (the money United Methodist Churches give to support ministry beyond the local church). But yesterday, before the newsletter even went to press, a family dropped by a check that will cover most of what we owe. That’s generosity in action.

Some people might suggest that I not announce that the need is met. “If you tell people the need is met, they won’t give anymore.” My assumption, to the contrary, is that if I don’t tell the truth people won’t give any more. I also think that generosity can be infectious. As our people see others being generous – which includes holding on to things less tightly – they can learn to do the same.

Today we had our annual ministerial alliance luncheon. Good food and good fellowship. We also conduct a little business at these meetings. Besides electing the new president for the coming year, we also look at the finances, particularly at how much was raised at the community Thanksgiving offering the month before. The offering goes toward meeting the needs of people in the community. We’d just heard that the offering was down from last year. At that point one of the pastors went to visit the salad bar. He came back with a check for $10,000 to add to the fund. Generosity in action.

We see examples of generosity around us. We see God’s great generosity in Christ. What might we learn from these examples?

Posted in Current events, Spirituality | Leave a comment

Arguing as a Christian

Posted on November 30, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

Ilaria Morali, a professor of theology in Rome, tells of a recent encounter in the course of “interreligious dialog”:

Morali: I recall that last year, at the moment of exchange with the assembly, a person in the audience asked me if I could at least accept that Mohammed was the last and greatest of the prophets.

Addressing an audience made up of Muslims, and before answering, I asked him in turn: “If I posed a similar question on Jesus Christ, for example, asking a Muslim professor to admit at least that Jesus Christ is as great as Mohammed, would you think he is a good Muslim if, to please me, he said I was right? You would prefer, I believe, that he be consistent with his faith even at the cost of displeasing me with his answer. I think that you want an answer from me as a Catholic woman and would not appreciate an answer of compromise to please you. You would not consider me a good Catholic Christian. That is why I answer you as any Catholic should answer: with sincerity and serenity.”

I remember that his reasoning touched deep chords in my Muslim colleagues who expressed great appreciation for the sincerity and transparency I showed, and also for my courage in giving them an answer which was certainly not totally acceptable for a Muslim.

A professor said to me: “Dr. Morali, we want to dialogue with true Catholics, not with mediocre Catholics, though this is certainly rather more difficult. Continue like this, please.”

When someone asks you if you’ll at least admit that Mohammed is the latest and greatest prophet they are not merely asking you to “respect” Mohammed, though that’s how we tend to take it in our hypersensitized era. Rather, they’re asking if you are a Muslim. While they not admit that – to you or to themselves – that’s what the question amounts to.

While one becomes a Christian by confessing Jesus as Lord and being baptized into the church, one become a Muslim by another kind of confession” “There is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet.” Pretty simple, isn’t it? If you, as a Christian interlocutor, have already stood up for God, you’re halfway to being a Muslim. Now all you need to add is the part of the confession about Mohammed.

As far as I can tell the professor did an excellent job handling the question. As a perceptive conversationalist, she recognized the import of the question. As a Christian, she refused to speak either explicitly or implicitly against Christian doctrine. As a person who wants to extend the love of God to all people, including Muslims, she also discerned that a simple NO would not have furthered her relations with the audience. Instead, she chose a round about way of helping them understand the context and to see things from her perspective. Some people have intimated that Muslims (or Christians) can’t be reasoned with. While this is obviously true of some people in almost every group out there, her encounter proved that at the very least there are some exceptions.

I think the follow up comment is just as important. Current world Events – not to mention the Great Commission Jesus gave us – compel us Christians to talk to Muslims. This talking will be for the best when we do it as articulate, committed Christians, not just as fearful people looking for an easy peace. There is no easy peace available to us – other than the peace of surrender. And that’s neither easy nor peace in the long term. So if you are going to try your hand at interreligious dialog, the first step is to deepen your understanding of and commitment to your own faith. While we need loving, kind, patient people out there, we don’t need wimps. They won’t do anyone any good.

Posted in Current events, Islam, Theology | 1 Comment

Fear

Posted on November 25, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

We watched Akeelah and the Bee for family movie night tonight. It was a good story. On one level it was depressing: we (society and our schools) expect so little of our kids when they are capable of so much.

The movie, ostensibly about a girl from difficult circumstances working to win the national spelling bee, was really about overcoming fear. Akeelah, the title character, had to overcome a number of fears. But so did her mother, her brother, and her coach. By the end of the movie they had faced their fears – and overcome.

Have you ever noticed how many things we Christians fear? I’ve heard/read an endless stream warning us of the onslaught of secularism & liberalism. If we let down our guard one moment (like we did in the early 1960’s, it’s suggested), the barbarian hordes will finally conquer us. We fight to get prayer back in school (we all know scores of people currently rotting away in penal institutions for praying school, don’t we?). We fight to get the bible back in school (we can’t possible offer enough courses in our churches to meet the huge demand). We’re out to take (back) our culture for God. And we’re afraid that all the powers of the Judiciary, Academia and the ACLU will prevail.

This past weekend I was at the annual meeting of the AAR (American Academy of Religion). While the AAR & SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) focus on religion, their take on religion is quite different from those hungering to take back the culture from the godless hordes. I heard fear at the meeting. Some of my fellow scholars are afraid of those who want to “take back the culture.” Whether they’re afraid of incipient theocracy or that we conservatives will force them all to become United Methodists, I’m not sure. But there was real fear. They see the organized political movements, the networks of lobbyists, the lawyers, and the rich businessmen lurking in the shadows bankrolling it all. How can a few helpless academics possible stand against the hordes? Sure the ACLU is out there, but they can’t do it all. What can we do?

I don’t know if these two groups understand the mutuality of their fears. They take their version of and approach to truth so seriously that the only options are victory or capitulation. With those terms, only victory is acceptable. How did we get to be ruled by fear? What can we do about it?

As to the “how,” I think the organization and power of our educational system has played a major role. Academics tend not to be very cognizant of the intentionality of educational elites in the secularization of American education (see the essays in The Secular Revolution, edited by Christian Smith). While not all academics have consciously intended to secularize national education (on all levels) over the past century, the outcome has been exactly that. Regardless of community mores or spiritual habits, it is essential to the secular ideology that all education be designed using a national template, a “one size fits all” when it comes to how religion is handled. At the same time, the leaders insist that all young people must attend these government schools (unless they’re rich enough to opt out). This enculturation – and it is an enculturation, not a mere learning of facts, acquisition of skills, or preparation for the workforce – powerful because it is the single largest block of time for most children during the year. Is this enculturation compatible with the teachings of the churches & religions? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the churches & religions cannot compete. After all, we say, after going to school 30-40 hours a week, what kind of energy do kids have left for serious attention to anything? better to let them unwind in front of the TV, computer or video games. Or go play baseball if they don’t want to be obese. If a movement fails to win the next generation, it ceases to be a movement. Soon it will only be an odd relect for scholars to pick over and write obscure papers about.

But would it be better if the churches were in charge? Well, sure it would be! After all, the churches are full of honest, good people. we’ll make sure all the kids are praying and studying their bibles. Since all the churches and religions agree on all the important stuff, everyone would get along just fine. Education would be restored to its golden days.

Then again, maybe not. Not only are we “religious” folks not very good at agreeing with each other, we find that we have tremendously different goals for our kids. When it comes to scholarship, some folks think scholarship of any kind is hopelessly “liberal” and to be avoided. Others laud scholarship with their words but ignore it in practice – sometimes because it says things we don’t like, or because it’s simply too demanding.

So what can we do?

In the long run, we need to find ways to pluralize American education. We need to be tolerant of communities and groups educating their children in ways that fit with their vision of the Good. This will cause pain – not only will we (whether the “we” of academia or the “we” of the churches) have to give up power, but we’ll also have to allow some things we think are evil (or at least bad).

I realize this is horribly unrealistic, so here’s another idea.

Let’s up the standards in our government schools. Let’s have kids learn about religion(s) and the bible in as non-sectarian a way as possible. At the same time, let’s make the curriculum completely accessible to the public(s). The churches – at least those that aren’t content with secularism or a LCD religiosity – will then develop a parallel curriculum of their own, training their people (young and old) to interact with the school’s material intelligently and in line with their own tradition. It’d be hard work, It’d be worth it.

In the meantime, I think it would help if more folks would develop a sense of humor. Perhaps bridge people like myself – people with a foot in both worlds – can play a role. At least until we’re branded as traitors (by both sides).

Posted in Current events, Education | Leave a comment

Responding to Wright on the War on Terror

Posted on November 11, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

I am not yet a convinced pacifist, and, after reading Wright’s piece, “Where is God in ‘The War on Terror’?“, (thanks to The Ivy Bush for calling my attention to this article) I don’t think I’m as far down the road as he is.

He offers two solutions at the end of his presentation:

“First, we must work from every angle either to enable the United Nations and the International Courts of Justice to function as they should, or to replace them with something else that can do the same job better.”

Beyond the empirical problem of not seeing much promise in the way the actual UN has worked in the past, there is also the (equally empirical) difficulty that however much we talk about “United” Nationa or an International Court of “Justice,” the nations and their peoples lack anything like a common concept of Unity or Justice. Sure, we project our own concepts on to the world as a whole, whether we’re Americans projecting our understanding of an impartial rule of law that allows individuals to do whatever they want to make money as long as they don’t break the exact letter of the law, or if we’re Islamists seeking the peace and justice of the World Caliphate.

While Wright recognizes that evil “runs through the heart of each of us,” I don’t think he allows enough for that evil to run through the heart of the Internationalist class that runs the UN, ICC, etc. While some of the American opposition to participation in the ICC may be due to wanting to have freedom to do things with no oversight from anyone else because we always know better, I think the bigger reason is fear based on the recognition of sin in others. Since there is, apparently from the way the world now works, no impartial and universal standard of justice, they (we) fear the imposition of a justice they (we) do not recognize as such.

The pursuit of a shared concept of justice sounds like a good thing. I suppose that’s why philosophers have been seeking it so long. The best I can tell is that all concepts of justice (and peace and other large sized goods) come embedded in cultures and narratives. The only way I see (and of course I’m fairly ignorant about most of the practicalities of international relations) making progress on these issues to to step back from them. Since we all agree what peace and justice are good things, yet don’t very much agree on what they mean, it’d be better to step back to a level of cultural engagement where we clearly disagree, where we know we don’t see eye to eye. If we can engage at the level of our disagreements, then perhaps we can gain some ground.

So what happens in the meantime? Do we keep killing each other because our narratives and cultures fail to mesh enough to gives us a shared understanding of Peace and Justice? I don’t think we need to concede that much to our failures and weaknesses. While we might not be able to find a shared concept of peace, perhaps we can find reasons, if only reasons internal to our own cultures and narrative constructions of life, to eschew killing each other.

Wright offers a second part of the solution:

Terrorism arises principally and obviously because individuals and groups sense themselves to be alienated from ordinary process, unable by any imaginable means to effect changes for which they long, locally or globally. The roots of present terrorist movements have been much studied, and they are more complex than politicians and the media often imply. But the way to make sure that the causes of terror are diminished and if possible eliminated altogether is not – of course it is not! – to drop bombs on potential terrorists until they get the point. That is to fight one kind of terror with another, which of course not only keeps terror in circulation but tends to stir up more.

I see two problems here, the first rooted in the second. Wright’s analysis of the genesis of terrorism sound much like the idea that “people are terrorists because they’ve had hard lives and see no way out. We should feel sorry for them and help them feel better so they won’t feel they need to do bad things to get attention/what they want.” While this kind of account seems to fit some situations – I think of the plight of the Palestinians – it doesn’t seem to fit Al Qaeda. When we look at the Palestinians we see a people who have suffered, both from the hardships brought by Israel, but also through the cupidity of their own leaders. They seem to have the choice between Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s notoriously corrupt (at least under Arafat) organization, or Hamas, an organization bound and determined to see the eradication of Israel. While the current status of the Palestinian people is inextricably bound up with the statusof the Israeli people, the alternative responses of wallowing in victimhood (Fatah) or violent eradication (Hamas) seem to necessitate either continued frustration, or, possibly if Hamas gets its way, an evil of the sort the UN and the ICC theoretically exist to prevent (see point #1 above).

But what about Al Qaeda? Is Osama bin Ladin suffering the oppression of not getting enough millions from his father? I think not. From what I see of Al Qaeda their frustration (Sure, I’ll call it a frustration, but that doesn’t legitimate it) is that Islam isn’t ruling the world. Islam is a religion about extending God’s rule over the whole earth. Through the weakness of corrupt Islamic leadership and the power of the Great Satan, Islam has been held in check. But no longer. If we are to relieve the frustrations of Al Qaeda the options – from their point of view – are conversion, dhimmitude, or death. If those are my options, I have no desire to help them “effect change” to relieve their terrorism causing frustrations.

Wright goes on to speak against “fighting terror with terror.” Sounds like a good idea to me. But is every use of force an act of terror? Is every negative consequence/happening an instance of terror? The level of abstraction here is what I see as the second problem in his second proposed solution. Of course, I can’t blame Wright for that. With a “Global War On Terror,” with the counter suggestions that poverty, disease, lack of education, access to internet, cable TV or public transportation are also acts of terror, the concept became an almost useless abstraction before Wright arrived on the scene.

He continues:

The way to eliminate the causes of terror is to seize every opportunity to work together, to talk together, to discover what makes people tick within worldviews quite unlike our own, and in short – as has been said within Iraq, but without much visible effect – to win hearts and minds not necessarily to a Christian worldview, certainly not to a modern secular western worldview, but to a shared worldview of common humanity, incoporating what the great majority of human beings want, genuine justice and genuine peace.

I’m not sure how to answer this. The talking together, the mutual exploration – I’m all for that. In fact I think it’s essential. That’s one reason I blog and read the blogs of people in other parts of the world. “Winning hearts & minds.” Again, sounds great. But not to a Christian worldview? Not to a “modern secular western worldview?” Just where do we find a “worldview of common humanity,” a worldview that (apparently unlike all these other worldviews), finally tells the truth about “what the majority of human beings want” and accurately pictures (again, unlike all the other worldviews out there) “genuine justice and genuine peace?” The whole lot – “what everyone really wants,” “peace,” “justice” are all abstractions here. We only encounter them embodied in a narrative or culture.

I find myself in the context of a Christian worldview. Having read most of Wright’s stuff, I know he inhabits such a worldview also. The Christian worldview offers us pictures of peace and justice. From what I know about Muslim worldviews (and I know enough to know that there is not a monolithic Muslim worldview), they also offer pictures of peace and justice (and “what everyone really wants,” for that matter). While from the point of view of not wanting to see anyone hurt, and being able to get on with our lives with a minimum of worry and interference, assuming we can start with abstracted versions of peace, justice and “what everone really wants” seems like a huge jump to me.

So where do we start? I have no power in international affairs. The only times politicians have asked my opinion, they’ve always framed the questions so they can be sure to get the answers they want. If I have to refrain from living out of my Christian worldview (with its Great Commission outlook shaping my relations with outsiders), then the best strategy I see is playing Socrates: Confessing my ignorance and seeking understanding. While it might not build our self-esteem, strategic ignorance may keep us from being blinded by abstractions and the deceptions they bring.

UPDATE:

Andy McCarthy at The Corner notes a similar reliance on abstractions by the Bush Administration:

It is a fact that the Bush policy is based on assumptions that (a) freedom is the universal desire of all mankind; (b) given the opportunity, Islamic countries are sure to choose democracy despite aspects of their own culture(s) which regard democracy (or enlightened liberty as commonly understood) to be depraved, or at least un-Islamic; and (c) a country is a “democracy” if it holds a few elections and has a constitution, notwithstanding the dearth of democracy’s cultural underpinnings (not least which is a people’s perception of itself as a single body politic of equal citizens sharing a common destiny).

These assumptions are all highly questionable.  And if they are wrong, perfect implementation would not salvage the policy.

Posted in Current events, Theology | 1 Comment

Inscrutable

Posted on November 9, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

How do you know when you’re winning?

In football it’s pretty easy: score more than the other guy. Even if you have more total yardage, more first downs, more aesthetically pleasing uniforms and plays, you still lose if you don’t have more points than the other team.
The timing is pretty straightforward in football also. You have to have the most points at the end of the game to win. Outscoring your opponent in the first half won’t do you any good if he out scores you by enough in the second. Time can be your friend – if you score enough points so there’s not enough time for your opponent to come back.

Baseball is a little different. Sure you win by scoring more than the other guy, but time is irrelevant. You can be leading by 20 runs – a seemingly insurmountable margin – going into the ninth. But with no time limit your opponent is allowed to play all night – to score as many as he can. You have to actually put him out.

In both football and baseball the winner is (under normal circumstances) always clear. You don’t leave the field wondering, “Did we win?” There are other options:

  • “We would have won if those guys hadn’t cheated.”
  • “While the scoreboard says we lost, we won a moral victory.”
  • “We worked hard and had fun, so I’d say we won.”

Each of these options seeks to redefine winning in a way outside the normal rules of the sport. Within the rules, you know when you win, you know when you lose. You can look at a loss as a victory, but it’s still a loss.

What about in war?

We’re stuck in a war in Iraq now. Some folks say we’ve won the war. We deposed Saddam Hussein, we’ve installed a democratic government. Sure, there are still difficulties to be worked out, but let’s let the Iraqis handle that. Since we’ve won we can bring our folks home. I’ve heard the response to this second argument that if we withdraw now, even if we call it a victory, our enemies will see it as our defeat. We need, by all means possible, to keep our enemies from seeing us as losers and themselves as winners.

I understand the notion at work here. If you have a ruthless enemy who is totally committed and fearless, the slightest sign of weakness will embolden him to finish you off. Withdrawing from Iraq at this stage would strengthen the radical Islamist conviction that America is a wimpy nation, afraid of a fight, leading them to multiply the kind of attack they did 9/11. After all, the consequences are only temporary.

I understand this notion, but I don’t think it can rule our actions. If we cannot count ourselves as winning until we have won not only by our own standards but by our enemies, we will find ourselves in a difficult, if not impossible place. Some of those who have declared themselves the enemy of America think that winning is defined by utterly subjecting your enemy: Killing all who actively oppose you, humiliating and subjugating all the rest. So we won’t win, by their standards until we kill every last armed opponent who stands against us, until we’ve completely imposed the American way of life on them, until we’ve forced them all to convert to Christianity.

If that’s what it takes to win in the eyes of the enemy, it’ll never happen. Not just because we can’t do it, but because we don’t want to do it. Americans – whether Democrats or Republicans –  like to think of themselves as performing their foreign service, whether it be fighting in wars, doing relief work, or sending foreign aide, as a blessing to other countries and their peoples. We see ourselves as good guys. Fortunately we’re not at the place where what counts as victory in the eyes of radical Islamists is even palatable to us. If we descended to that level, we have own by their account, but we will have lost by our own account.

At least I hope so.

I can think of one thing that would help us win by our own standards with the possibility of at least “not losing” by our enemies’ standards. But I’m not sure we can do it. What I have in mind is becoming inscrutable. To be inscrutable we would have to:

  • Act like we won.
  • Talk like we won.
  • Show no doubts about our winning.
  • Show magnanimity to those we’ve defeated.
  • Don’t give a clue what we’ll be up to next.

But, as I said, I don’t think we can do this. I don’t think any democracy can be inscrutable. Not only do we talk too much (You can’t talk too much and maintain any air of mystery), but we also lack the social, cultural and political unity to produce or maintain the united front necessary for inscrutability.

Maybe someone else has an idea that will work – that will be “beneficial for all concerned.”

Posted in Current events | Leave a comment