Stones Cry Out

Suppose you were on a playground where a bully was throwing rocks at a bunch of other kids. You go to stand with the other children to help protect them. In the process, one of the other children decides to start throwing rocks back at the bully and - just as one is about to hit you - the bully pushes you out of the way.

Are you grateful to the bully for stopping the rock from hitting you? Sure, I suppose. But it was the bully's fault, at least partially, that the rock was being thrown in the first place so your gratitude may be somewhat tempered by reality.

I'd guess that the three are grateful to the group that rescued them, but they/we have a problem with the bullies that sent them there in the first place and so, I'd suspect, their gratitude is tempered.

I understand that some of you don't think the bully analogy is apt, but for those who do think it apt, then it's perfectly clear why they may not be gushing over their "saviors."

And, to be clear, this is not a put-down of our troops but rather a critique of those responsible for the policies.

I'm, of course, one of those that thinks your analogy is incredibly inaccurate.

I saw this covered on Nightline last night, and the CPT group in general is expressly not thanking their rescuers. They may admire their courage, but they will not thank them. It's not tempered, it's non-existant.

CPT members go to conflict zones like Iraq expressly stating that if they are abducted they do not want to be rescued by the military or any violent means.

I have yet to hear details on the rescue operation - were Iraqis killed in the process?

These folk are non-violent warriors. They bravely and selflessly step between combatants to work for justice, as they believe this is their call from God, to follow in Jesus' steps and be a peacemaker. IF soldiers are threatening harm to others to rescue them, they want no part of such a rescue. IF soldiers themselves might be harmed in a rescue, they want no part of such a rescue.

For us pacifist types, it has nothing to do with gratitude and everything to do with peacemaking and justice.

Maybe it would help to remember Jesus at the Garden when Peter pulled his sword to "save" Jesus from the Roman terrorists and Jesus told Peter to put away the sword without a single word of thanks! How ungrateful, right?

It seems to me that the folks at CPT have twisted the concept of “forgive your enemies” to the point where part of it for them now includes, “resent your friends.”

The net effect is that they give the appearance of loving their "enemies" and hating their "friends." A rather bizzare interpretation of scripture indeed.

And what source do you have for suggesting they hate their friends? Where did they say, "I really hate those soldiers!"?

I'm guessing you're confusing righteous anger over an unjust war with hatred for the soldiers. I know of no peacemakers who hate any soldiers or "terrorists" - that's the point. We love those who disagree with us and seek just solutions to our common problems, not violent solutions.

I'm not against their good intentions nor their good work. I am questioning their view of their surroundings. Taranto notes it and they said it on Nightline as well; they were "released". No they weren't. Their captors did not do anything out of the kindness of their hearts. They were rescued by guys who, while no kidnappers were around at the time, were willing to do violence to get the job done and free them. This distinction seems to be lost on them.

I agree that violence is to be avoided when possible, but sometimes you just have to clear the temple.

Dan,

I never claimed that they explicitly say “I really hate those soldiers!” However, having spent some time poking around their web site, it seems pretty clear to me that this particular groups overwhelming tendency is to “get in the way” of US and other western military operations.

Now perhaps that is because those are the only forces that they can reasonably expect to bother trying to see that they don’t get killed. (I’m thinking Saddam’s Republican Guard would not have hesitated to shoot them if they attempted some similar operation to keep his folks from, say, gassing some Kurds.)

Regardless of the reasons for the places this group chooses to operate, the net effect is that they give the appearance of loving their "enemies" and hating their "friends." But I already said that above.

I’m not interested in debating the merits of just war theory and whether Iraq qualifies. That’s not my point.

But by originally claiming their folks were “released” and then changing it to “freed” after an outcry seems to indicate that they have much more sympathy with the folks who kidnapped them (their so called “enemies”) than with those who rescued them (people I’d think would naturally be seen as their “friends”). Looking through the web site only serves to reinforce that indication.

Chris, you said originally,
"The net effect is that they give the appearance of loving their "enemies" and hating their "friends." A rather bizzare interpretation of scripture indeed."

And my only point is that you were doing what many people try to do with people with whom they disagree: You're trying to misconstrue their message. You say that they give the appearance of hating their friends, when we know that this is not the case.

It's a classic strawman tactic, done for the intent of denigrating the CPTs: "If these people hate their friends, they must be nuts - why should we listen to what they say?"

This is what I object to in your comment. If you want to argue against the brave approach they take on peacemaking, then do that. Don't offer up a strawman attack, that is beneath us as citizens and believers.

Dan,



So by your reckoning, folks should disregard the overall content and impressions of all the things that are actually posted on the organization’s web site (what they actually say) and attribute to them something else that makes more sense to us (what they really mean)? I’d rather stick to objective reality rather than move off into conjecture. Talk about a straw man!



I used the terms love and hate to emphasize the point that, based on the evidence posted on their web site, the sympathies of this group appear to me to be much more closely aligned with whatever people find themselves in opposition to US and western military or law enforcement personnel.



They claim to be against all violence with the mission to “get in the way” between opposing combating entities. Yet I find it telling that, of the 39 conflicts in the world listed at GlobalSecurity.org, I see on their home page that CPT pretty much exclusively “gets in the way” of US other western operations.



Forgive me perhaps for being cynical though I really don’t have much of an issue with their methods. I respect folks who are willing to die for what they believe.



But by choosing to become involved in the selective manner around the world that they have, they demonstrate that, truly they are more about being against US and western operations than they are about being for genuine peace and helping save lives.



This particular incident is evidence that they identify more strongly with those who would do them harm than they do with those who would give their lives to see them safe. The whole way they handled their press release about this issue demonstrates my point far better than anything I could add.



Hence I made my observation that they “love their enemies” but “hate their friends.”

"Yet I find it telling that, of the 39 conflicts in the world listed at GlobalSecurity.org, I see on their home page that CPT pretty much exclusively “gets in the way” of US other western operations."

I'm not intimately involved with the organization but I suspect that they primarily target the US because they perceive the US to be the main threat to world peace. When you're choosing what to tackle, the daring always take on the most difficult challenges.

Do you remember that poll that suggested that, globally, those questioned found the US under Bush to be a greater threat to world peace than Saddam?! I'm sure you disagree, but a goodly number of people around the world find Bush's US to be a serious threat. And so, we act upon where we believe the threat lies.

And as to your question:
"folks should disregard the overall content and impressions of all the things that are actually posted on the organization’s web site (what they actually say) and attribute to them something else..."

I'm suggesting you go by what they actually say and not what you perceive they mean. If they say they hate US soldiers, then feel free to talk about that. If they don't say that, don't misread something into what's not there.

Dan,

Thank you for clarifying something for me. When you said, “but I suspect that they primarily target the US because they perceive the US to be the main threat to world peace,” I think you nailed the exact point I struggle with regarding the CPT organization and what I see on their web site, but couldn’t put my finger on.

They use language that implies they are a missionary organization. For example, from their mission statement, “We believe that the mandate to proclaim the Gospel of repentance, salvation and reconciliation includes a strengthened Biblical peace witness.” Yet their actions show that they are really a political organization.

They say, “CPT’s ministry of Biblically-based and spiritually-centered peacemaking emphasizes creative public witness, nonviolent direct action and protection of human rights.” Its very noble sounding. No reasonable person would argue with that.

The trouble is the only direct action they are willing to take is to “get in the way” of the US and her allies. By routinely interfering with predominately only one political bent, they demonstrate clearly that they are really a political protest organization hiding behind Christian missionary language.

As a Christian, that apparent duplicity really bugs me. I would be much more comfortable with them and what they are doing if they clearly chose to be one or the other.

Chris, what may seem political to you is missionary work to us. Just as Jesus' followers oftentimes didn't understand why he insisted on confronting the political leadership of his time (and some who wondered why he didn't do it more directly and violently), those who believe in peacemaking as part of our mission do not do so for political reasons but for gospel ones.

A further reason we often target the US is that, for some of us, we are US citizens and we have a responsibility to hold our leaders accountable and encourage them to do the right thing. (I realize that CPT is not solely a US group, but it is primarily a Western group and therefore we are working with our leadership.)

Missionaries who don't show gratitude to people who don't think like they do. There's an oxymoron in there.

I don't know what you're not getting, Doug. I understand fully that you disagree with their mission (or at least how they're carrying it out), but I would think that you can understand that because of their love for US soldiers and for Iraqi insurgents, they don't want violence used towards either group and aren't grateful for those who do use violence, even if it is in an effort to help them.

What if a Christian fella was lonely and a prostitute offered him her kind of comfort - ought he be grateful that she offered him something he didn't want?

Another bad analogy. The "comfort" the CPT people got wasn't just offered; it was accepted. They accepted the help, no shots were fired, and they still didn't say thanks.

Actually, in an addendum to their original statement recently they added what amounts to an "oh, by the way, thanks guys". I still find it hard to believe that their initial press release and interviews on Nightline left out what should have been on the top of the list.

So, are you still hung up on the lack of gratitude? Will you chastise Jesus too, for not being sufficiently thankful to Peter for cutting off the servant's ear?

Did Jesus accept that opportunity to escape, as Peter intended? Sorry, but you're batting 0 for 3 with analogies.

And yes, I'm still "hung up" on something as simple as expressing gratitude from people preaching love. I applaud their intent, even if I don't agree completely with their worldview or with their specific interpretation of scripture. But all I'm really asking is that they live up to their own principles, not mine. I'm not asking them to submit to my wishes. I'm asking them to live up to their ideals, because it reflects badly on Christians in general and God's messsage specifically.

"But all I'm really asking is that they live up to their own principles, not mine."

And that's what I'm saying: They are living up to their own principles. They don't want deadly violence used for their defense and so they may not express appreciation to those who'd do so.

From your point of view, you don't buy the analogies, but from our point of view, they're apt. That's all I'm asking is, can't you see from our point of view, we have cause to not express gratitude.

I'm talking about stepping out of your own shoes for a bit and in to someone else's.

And as I've noted, your analogies fall apart with the slightest touch. They accepted help from men willing to do violence to rescue them. This is not the case with Jesus and Peter (Jesus refused the aid) nor with the Christian and the prostitute (same deal). I could take apart the bully thing (I think you have people cast in the wrong roles) but I know that wouldn't move you. If analogies that don't fit the situation seem apt to you, we don't have much of a common ground here.