Whale Wars

Recently I came across an intriguing documentary series called Whale Wars. At the time I was trying to find a good show for my kids to watch, and since Zeke likes whales (excuse me, humpback whales) I thought this looked like a good one. I was surprised then to see preview scenes from the show which looked much more like modern day pirate ships in battle, than a documentary about whales. Indeed I quickly figured out the premise of the show. The show follows a non-profit environmental direct-action group called Sea Shepherd. On the show they are engaging in direct action activism against Japanese whalers in the Antarctic. The Sea Shepherds intentions are to stop what they call illegal whaling activities. To do this they use whatever non-violent tactic they can to physically stop the whalers from killing whales, hoping to cut into their profits enough to cause them to abandon whaling.

First of all, I highly recommend everyone to watch this series, its amazing. Even if you don't agree with what Sea Shepherd is doing, its an enthralling saga. It has forced me to reflect upon my stance on two issues: Environmentalism and Direct-Action activism. First, environmentalism.

There are probably lots of different definitions of the word, but what I mean by enviromentalism, is the general idea that we ought to protect the environment from harm. That includes plants, animals, soil, rivers, humans, etc. It is looking out for the health of the planet, human, non-human, living, non-living. Everything.

The reason to protect all of these things from harm is from my perspective, simple; God created the eco-system to be a perfectly balanced system which sustain all life on earth. For example, to destroy an entire species of animals is to destroy the balance in the eco-system that God created. Which is to destroy that which God called, "Good." Indeed what we have found in studying the environment is that the Eco-system is heavily vested in the preservation of plant and animal species diversity. And to sustain that, we must have quality air, water, and earth.

The problem lies in humanities insatiable desire to plunder the earth for whatever reason. This problem has been around for thousands of years, but it has been taken to a whole new catastrophic level with the introduction of the industrial revolution. With the use of fuel burning machines and technology, we can now plunder the earth at an unprecedented rate. This is a major problem for us humans. We are completely, 100% reliant on a healthy Eco-system. If the environment is destroyed, so is humanity. If the environment is unhealthy, so is humanity. Thus environmentalism is finally concerned with human life, and healthy human life at that.

My conclusion: Since God created the environment to sustain life on earth and commanded us to care for it, and because human life is 100% reliant on a health eco-system, I must protect it from harm. I guess I am an environmentalist of sorts.

Now as for Direct-action activism. This is a new idea to me. My understanding of direct-action activism is that it originates with the "monkey wrenchers." These were people who intentionally tried to sabotage their employers by disabling equipment used to make products, and thus cutting into their profit. The goal was to make the profit driven owner of the business to realize that his workers were not going to stand for unfair wages and treatment. This is different and distinct from protesting or other forms of activism which simply strongly request employers to do the right thing.

In the case of the Sea Shepherd campaigns against the Japanese whalers, this means trying to disable their boats by getting ropes caught in their propellers, throwing stink bombs onto their decks to make uncomfortable working conditions, and possibly tainting the whale meat so it can't be sold for food. All their tactics are non-violent and every effort is made to ensure that nobody is ever injured in these campaigns.

It should be stated that whaling has been outlawed. The only exception to this law is that whales can be killed for research. And as a part of that law, when whales are killed for research, the researchers are not allowed to waste any part of the whale. So they sell the meat on the open market in Japan. After studying it more in depth it becomes quite apparent that these Japanese whalers are not concerned about research, as they say, but are in it for the multi-million dollar pay off. After all, is it even possible that in order to research whales, the Japanese must kill 1,000 whales every year, which is their self-inflicted quota?

It should also be stated that Sea Shepherd sails under a U.N. charter which allows for non-government organizations to enforce law on the open sea when no government entity is enforcing the law. The problem is that no one can decide who is right. The whalers and Sea Shepherd are therefore left to fight it out in the Antarctic. Hence, 'Whale Wars.'

But aside from the question of who is right in the situation, I have to ask whether I agree with direct action activism or not. I am on the fence. It certainly seems like at the very least, Sea Shepherd have (A) saved whales and (B) raised awareness of whats going on in the Antarctic. They have certainly caused me to think about how I need to be treating the earth. So it seems successful. I will also say that I find myself in strong support of Sea Shepherd. That's not to say that all environmentalists are. For instance, Green Peace is an outspoken critic of Sea Shepherd. They are in favor of indirect forms of activism, like protesting and raising awareness through taking pictures. Perhaps all forms of activism should be encouraged except that which does harm to humans, plants or animals. They are complimentary.

So there you have it, check out Whale Wars and let me know what you think.

Peace on Earth,
Brandon

More on Anarchy

After my last post on the subject of anarchy a good friend of mine who has never considered himself to be an anarchist has been asking me a lot of questions and has helped me to articulate my thoughts on anarchy. I would love to share more about what many call, "Christian Anarchy."

Let me make clear, that this is not some 'baptized' form of anarchy, like you might think of 'christian t-shirts' or 'christian wrestling.' No, this is more like a theology, ideology and most important, a way of life. Christian Anarchist are not attempting to take a purely secular idea and try to fit Jesus into it or vice versa. Anarchism is simply a good description of the teachings of Christ. Much like you would say 'love' is a good description of Jesus' teachings.

Teachings like, "love your enemies," "do good to those who harm you," "when someone asks you to go one mile, go two," "do not resist an evil doer," "give to those who ask of you," etc etc. In fact, i would challenge anyone to find a teaching of Jesus that is not in line with Anarchism. They don't exist. Anarchism, or the idea of not ruling over others, is a good description of Jesus' teaching.

A large part of Christian Anarchism is the idea that there is to be no authority, save the authority of God. He is the creator and origin of life, He is good and pure, He transcends time and space, and greatest of all, He is love and thus He is the only One worthy and capable of authority. He is The Authority. (I imagine the word authority comes from the same root word as author. this would mean something like, the author of a book has authority over the book, and thus the author of life, has authority over life. hmmm)

The interesting thing about God is that his use of authority is anything but what we have come to understand authority as. His 'rule' is far different than what we think of 'rule'. He is the King who intentionally places himself at our level. He works within our framework, he works within our systems. He relates personally to humanity. He has even demonstrated that he is willing to be swayed by human requests.

He is the God who came to earth and cared nothing for and even resisted the idea of ruling over humanity. Instead he chose to serve humanity as if he were a servant. Who is this God? I can hear myself asking the same questions the disciples were asking. "If this man is who he says he is, clearly he would be the best man for the job of King. Lets militarily place him in authority." But for whatever reason, he says 'no.' Whatever 'authority' and 'rule' mean to Him, its much different than our conceptions.

(For a good read on this idea of hierarchy in the trinity and with humanity, check out The Shack. It gives an amazing argument for anarchical relationships and describes well how we are caught in a hierarchical mindset, which finds it extremely difficult to imagine relationship without hierarchy. But the fact is, truly loving relationship by necessity must be without hierarchy.)

Anarchism for followers of Jesus means relating to one another in a non-coercive manner. In a loving manner. And our source of authority, is Yahweh, The Living God, the Creator of the universe who was revealed in Jesus the Messiah. Furthermore, since control of our behavior is not external, it must come from within. It is a fruit of the Spirit: self-control. Even God who is The Authority, will not force us to do anything, but calls us to live righteously, in love. He commands, but does not force, good behavior.

Likewise, let us call ourselves and others to a life of sacrificial love, but may we never force others into it. It wouldn't work even if we tried. May we remain Anarchists.

Baruck Attah Adonai Eloheinu melek Ha olam.
Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe.

May The Lord have mercy on us all,

Brandon

On Anarchy

For about ten years now i have been studying anarchy off and on. I recall ten years ago being at a Christian music festival and finding a flyer advertising the time for a speaker, who was to speak on the relationship between Christianity and Anarchy. The speaker was Andrew Mandell. Besides speaking on anarchy, he is most well know for being the lead singer of the celtic punk band "Ballydowse," as well as singing for the old school punk band, "Crashdog."

I remember holding the flyer and thinking, "now these punk rockers have taken it too far." But i said that without knowing a single thing about it. Later i heard Andrew Mandell talking to a crowd of 5,000 people say, "Anarchy is about self-control, not chaos." I didn't know what he meant at the time, and immediately decided he was wrong. My opinion has changed since then.

Anarchy is the lack rule.
It is necessarily non-violent.
It is completely non-coercive.
It is a line of thought that steers people away from ruling or controlling others.
It trust others to make the right decisions.
It trusts that even when people don't make the right decisions, all will be well in the end.
It puts no stock in power, pride, control, domination.
It says that if anything is going to be done, its going to have to start with me.
If there is to be order, i must control myself.
If there is to be peace, i must choose to live at peace with others.
If i have a problem with someone, i go to them rather than their superior.
If i feel change is needed, i must live out that change.
If i dont want trash all over the city, i must go pick it up.
If i see a problem with people not having their needs fulfilled, i must go and fulfill their needs.
I must never take the opportunity to be above another.
I must respect everyone.
I must give all the dignity they deserve.
I must never use psychological tactics to persuade.
I must not use more than i need.

Anarchy is a personal choice that all of us can choose. It is the choice to everyday place ourselves underneath others. to humble ourselves. to forgive. to love. to be kind. Anarchy is not "to be against authority," it is, "to not be authority."


today i will strive to be an Anarchist.

Who is us?

Sounds like a strange question, but i'm wondering, who is 'us?' That word can be used in such a diverse manner. It can mean, me and my dog. Or all of 'us' living in Chicago. Or quite broadly, as in all of 'us' in the world.

Us; we; our; etc. Who are 'we' talking about here?

"Get to the point," you may already be saying. This question comes to mind when i think about the 3,000 people who died in the 9/11 attacks. And then when i think of the 300,000 people who died in the tsunami a couple years ago in southeast Asia. It was brought to my attention that we don't mourn the 300,000 as much as the 3,000 because they are not 'us.' Presumably under this definition of 'us', we are speaking of Americans. Though i suppose it could mean, "North Americans," or "Westerners," as well.

SO who are 'we'? Are we Americans? or perhaps are we humans? Earthlings? Children of God? Humanity? However we define, 'us,' I think we all have to recognize, we humans, are all in this together, whether we like it or not. We are all God's children, and as i tell my kids all the time while they hit and yell at each other, "You are brothers, act like it. Brother don't hurt brothers or make them feel sad."

They seem to get that, now if only We could.

Surviving the Woods

Its a tradition with most to give gifts for birthdays. It is, however, not the tradition in our family. Leastwise not with me. I always ask for an experience, and most frequently for a camping trip. This year was no exception. But i did not want a camping trip per se, but a Survival Trip!

So at about 2 pm on Saturday afternoon my wife drove me to the top of a mountian in Appalachia, dropped me off and said, "I don't even know what to say. Ummm alright, bye. love you." And with that she drove off. Leaving me with my clothes and a backpack with the following items: 1 gallon of water; 1 lb. of Trail mix; a knife; a sleeping bag; a metal cup; and an edible wildplant guide and mushroom guide.

My inspiration was defintely Les Stroud from "Survivorman" and Bear Grylles from "Man Vs. Wild." In reality i could be more amptly compared to Christopher McCandless from "Into The Wild," and that couldn't have been comforting to my worried wife (Christopher didn't make it out alive, due to misidentifying and consuming a poisonous plant).

But unlike Christopher i had the safegaurd of companions. Nathan, Micheal, Landon and my younger brother Kyler. When they met me at the top of the mountain, we headed out on foot into the woods. first down into a valley following a dried out creek bed, and then up another mountian just about to the top where we found a nice dry spot to construct our survival shelters. This 3 hour hike nearly killed me due to an extreme lack of previous physical excersion. But the others seemed to do just fine. whatever.

So we started a quick fire and began to construct a large basic lean-to shelter. This constisted of one long thin trunk of a tree being propped up horizontally about 5 to 8 feet of the ground and leaning on one side a bunch of branches to form a bit of a hide out. To make it "waterproof," we added pine branches. By this time it was dark, we were tired and not soon after that everyone was fast asleep. Well everyone except for me. I wound up staying up most the night adding wood to the fire. But i probably got a good 2 hours of extremely uncomfortable sleep on the ground that night.

The next morning Nathan (wearing a tshirt, and boxers and a belt holding a knife which was longer than his boxers) and Micheal decided to make a second shelter, while Landon, Kyler, and myself were sent out on hunting duty. After making our way through a hellish patch of thorned briars and circling half way round the mountain we returned with little more than some mushrooms which i was unable to indentify, so they went to waste. Though Landon did eut a small salamandor and I feasted to my hearts content on an inch worm. Oh and we found water, which we collected to drink after boiling.

The rest of the day was spent make pine needle tea, attempting to make fire without the use of a lighter, attempting to capture a deer, cooking and eating a small turtle, improving the shelters and sharpening spears. It was a day of testing survival tactics. Some worked, others failed, and none of us were looking forward to the sun going down.

Another sleepless night.

By morning the clouds were rolling in and we were rollin out. The hike back proved to be about as bad as the hike there, with the only possible exception being the pounding rain that decided to grace our ascent to the top of the mountain where we started. Actually, i absolutely loved the rain. I don't know why. It just felt great to be at the mercy of mother nature. We have done such a wonderful job in life of protecting ourselves against her.

I, of course, was the last one to make it up the mountain, but i felt great in the end. I was hungry, thirsty, soaked, terribly tired, and my leg muscles were sooo soar, but i felt great. For a moment it all felt right. Like a wrong had been corrected. Upon further reflection i think im coming across some answers.

I couldn't help but think while in the woods about the Natives who may have lived here or at least passed through at some point. The People who lived here in America for God only knows how long, before the European invasion. I have long felt the weight of their lost lives on my shoulders. Like when God tells Cain that he hears Ables blood crying out from the soil, the blood of the Native Americans cries out.

We have so quickly forgotten about the mass genocide that our European ancestors carried out on the people of this land. And my how my mind boggles when i think of how effectively we have silenced Their ancestors by handing out hush money.

And not only the mass genocide on the people, but the raping and ravaging of the land. The Natives respected and took great care of the land, taking only what they needed and not over indulging. Not so with the westerners. We came in and treated the land and animals as if they were expendable. As if ours very lives didn't hinge upon the their health.

In only a couple hundred years we have managed to tear this place a part.

Furthermore, on this trip i realized that half the world lives in this hand-to-mouth fashion. It was hard for all of us pampered American boys to survive two days with reletively comfortable conditions, while many live like this their entire lives.

I suppose in that moment of being hungry, tired, thirsty, wet and soar, i felt justice. It felt like for that moment all was fair. And i could be at one in spirit with those who lived in this land before and us and with those today who continue to struggle through life with so little.

May God have mercy on us all.

His redemption is so sweet.

Brandon

It comes from within

The happy are happy.


The angry are angry.


The annoyed are annoyed.


The content are content.


etc. etc. etc.

Jesus and Non-Resistance

I thought i would post some of the papers a wrote for my college courses. I have a feeling some of my thoughts have changed slightly on things, but i hope they are interesting for you. Heres the first one....


Throughout Christian history the teachings of Christ found in the four gospels of the New Testament have been dissected, as to what He was trying to say, debated, on how we should apply them to our lives, and diluted, when we feel that they are just to hard to live out. The most dramatic example of this is Jesus’ teachings on non-violence. The church’s stance on this issue has gone from one extreme to the other and everything in between. From the early church to the post-modern church, Christians have had an interesting journey wrestling with the concepts of violence and non-violence.
The foundation of the great debate starts with the words of the Messiah. His stance on non-violence is clear from passages such as Matthew 5:9,

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Matthew 5:38-39, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for and eye, and tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also,”

and Matthew 5:43-44, “You have heard that it was said, ’You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

After reading such direct commandments it is very difficult to understand how people who call themselves followers of Christ could ever conceive of living a life as anything other than a pacifist. Not only in his words did he uphold a non-violent stance, but also in his actions, such as the time when he was arrested found in Luke 22:49-51, “When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said ’Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’ And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, ‘Stop! No more of this.’ And he touched his ear and healed him.” The act of Jesus not resisting the arrest, and later the crucifixion makes it overwhelmingly obvious that Christ lived as a model of what Christians are to be and that His Kingdom is nothing like the kingdoms of this world. However, as time will show, it does not take very long for Jesus’ life to be misinterpreted and for the church to get way off course.
The early church understood the message of Jesus, and lived it out in spite of heavy persecution. In his book, The Secret Message of Jesus, Brian McLaren states the position of the early church to non-violence through the words of an early Christian leader, Tertullian, “Confessing ‘Jesus is Lord’ means taking Jesus seriously as Lord, as the authority for the believer: Caesar commands us to kill our enemies, and Jesus commands us to love them. Caesar makes use of torture and chains, Jesus calls us to forgiveness and holiness” (151). So how did the church get from there to here? Most put the responsibility of the change on the Roman emperor Constantine who brought Christianity mainstream in the fourth century. “The orientation quickly changed when the Roman emperor Constantine claimed to convert to Christianity in the early fourth century… Gradually, Christians felt themselves protected by Rome’s swords, not threatened by them. It grew harder and harder to criticize or distrust something that contributed to their own feeling of security. Eventually - this is hard to imagine, but the full truth of it must be faced- the church itself used the sword to force conversions and execute heretics” (McLaren 153-4).
In time the church found they needed justification for some of their unorthodox methods. What was quickly developed is known as the, “Just War Theory.” This theory was first introduced by Augustine of Hippo in The City of God and was later refined by Thomas Aquinas in his book, Summa Theologica. “The just war theory gave seven criteria for a “just war” : a just cause for the war, a legitimate authority declaring war, a formal declaration of war, the goal being a return to peace, recourse to war only as a last resort, a reasonable hope of success, and means proportional to ends” (McLaren 155). Obviously very few, if any, wars waged in the name of God have ever fit this criteria and yet Christians today still use this theory as their reason for war support.
So how have any modern day Christians come to the persuasion of non-violence? It began with a group of Reformers in Switzerland who wanted to move towards a more literal interpretation of the Bible. This group of Reformers is later known as the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists were birthed out of dissatisfaction with both the Catholics and Lutherans in their method of compromising on scripture to meet worldly wants and needs. In the beginning there were some sects of Anabaptists that were very violent, but they soon died out and what was left was a body of believers who, like anything else Christ said, took the teachings of loving your enemy literally and applied it, in an uncompromising fashion, to their lifestyle. Something that makes the Anabaptists unique in their theology is that they view scripture through the lens of Christ, not Paul or the Old Testament prophets. “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” ( I Corinthians 3:11). In this they suffered immense persecution and alienation from much of Europe for centuries to come, much of the time being uprooted from their homes only to find themselves in yet another area of immense hatred that sometimes led to martyrdom.
In what seemed to be a blessing from God as relief from all their suffering, Dutch Mennonites (descendants of early Anabaptists) were invited to take up land in Prussia and Southern Russia (Ukraine) in the 18th century. This seemed to be an answer to prayer since they were promised almost complete autonomy which included religious freedom and exemption from military service. However, in the early 1900’s with the outbreak of the first World War, the situation for Russian Mennonites started to become rather complicated. They welcomed the German invasion of their villages with open arms, seeing the German soldiers as their kin ( the Russian Mennonites continued through the centuries to keep German as their primary language, with many of the villagers never bothering to learn Russian) and as saviors from the Russian government that had been oppressing them for a couple of decades. While amongst the Mennonite villages, the German soldiers provided the Mennonites with weapons and trained them in “self-defense units”. This was the first time in their history that Mennonites had compromised on their non-resistant values. Many villages refused to take up arms, staying firm in the ways of their Lord. In his memoir, A Russian Dance of Death, Dietrich Neufeld revisits that painful mistake, “For the Mennonites the blunder of abandoning pacifism for militarism was particularly incriminating. Have we not always, with justified pride, pointed to our 400-year tradition, which signified a strict pacifism? And at the very moment when, as a result of a bloody war without parallel, militarism had been exposed in all it’s worst aspects…then we abandon our noble position. A Mennonite who surrenders the fundamental idea of peace and affirms war has judged himself” ( Neufeld 79-80 ). Many may look back on that time in history and find the actions of the Russian Mennonites justified, but as it turned out all their compromising did for them was bring even more loss of life to their villages.
Many followers of Christ today would say that if you truly loved someone, then you would be willing to kill for their safety. And on a more global scale, if a cruel dictator is murdering thousands of innocent people, then it is the world’s and the church’s responsibility to stop them. But that is all going on the assumption that we are like God, and that we obtain complete control. John H. Yoder shows a powerful example of what seemed to be a justifiable violence in his book, What Would You Do?. “The plot against Adolf Hitler’s life, for example, in which the well-known Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was implicated, is often cited as an example of the need for exceptions to the moral prohibition against violence. Yet Bonhoeffer’s effort failed…By the criterion of probable success that attempt was wrong “ ( 15-
16 ). In such dire circumstances humans often feel that they need to take the situation into their own hands. And defense for others is a natural response, but not one that Christians are called to act out if it means taking the life of another. Christians are called to obey the commands of Christ, and trust that He has not led them down the path of destruction, but the path of true life.
The call to non-resistance in a Christian context cannot be practiced without the understanding of the nature of Jesus’ Kingdom. Anyone can take the above scriptures mentioned and say they were meant to be metaphorical, or that it was just for those people in that culture. But pacifism is just one of the many facets to this upside-down Kingdom. Christ was very clear that he was coming to establish his heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. If he had thought it beneficial to bring about justice through political means he would have done it. There was plenty of opportunity for him to do so. But God’s definition of justice is sending his son to die on the cross for the filth and depravity of the world, so that justice is served, and all have a chance for eternal life through Christ. Jesus called all believers to do things like dying to one’s flesh, being in the world but not of it, pacifism, and many more impossible tasks. But that is just the point. It is impossible to obey anything Christ taught without his grace, so that he may truly be the King of our lives.
The church has gone through so many degrees of violence and non-violence it is not difficult for any one person to look at history and judge what is the best course for Christians to take on this issue. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed his opinion on this issue, “Through violence you may murder a murderer, but can’t murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can’t establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that “ (Quoted in McLaren 154). It seems very clear why Jesus commanded all who want to follow him to not lead a life of revenge and worldly justifications. But even if it all seemed better to do things the world’s way and to ignore what Jesus said, should Christians still live out the seemingly illogical option? The answer is, “Yes.” Understanding is always very helpful, but the church is not called to thorough understanding. She is called to obedience. As the living God incarnate, Jesus’ life and words come before anyone else, and proceeds all others. The whole point of being a Christian, is to follow the One who’s name is so proudly worn.
In conclusion, the church no longer has the excuse to tie itself to the patriotism of worldly kingdoms, because Christians belong to the Kingdom of Heaven and are thus aliens to this world. And as such it does not war with fleshly tools like fists and bombs, but with love and prayer. When Jesus said, “Take up your cross and follow me,” that was a big hint that this life would not be easy, and probably filled with some suffering. But everything pales next to the enduring love of God.