Post Edited (TGB) : 6/19/2006 5:51:41 PM (GMT-5)

Maybe it might help to say that "all theology is a matter of emphasis" again?  It seems that you saying that the warfare motif is all about the battle but not about "freeing" or "liberating."  In that it centralizes the struggle--put's it front and center. 

However, I really don't see how your view doesn't essentially do the same.  I see God's teleos, His objective, and his love in what you are saying Meph Man. However, in the process God has to "subdue as a part of his struggle or war."  Sure, there may be the tendency towards depersonalization, but that is found in having a "take over" mentality and that is what I had in mind when I asked about dominion.  It is not necessarily the war that gives us this seige mentality but rather skewd thinking about dominion--which equals domination that does.  THAT seems to me to be where the problem lies.

Again, I don't want to sugar coat the war itself.  There's a real war.  There's REAL FREAK'N STRUGGLE against not only a what BUT a WHO.  But I don't find domination as a necessary outcome of a warfare worldview.  I can see the danger and the temptation towards this as you say.  But again, that lies elsewhere.  If we are going to speak of a warfare worldview then we also have to incorporate sound thinking about the objective of it in the first place.

Again, I don't want to change the language.  I also don't want the skewd appendages that we add to the warfare worldview.  If we are going to have a warfare worldview, it had better be with a proper understanding of the proper objective.  Think'n of Iraq here people.

Post Edited (JEE) : 6/19/2006 8:36:35 PM (GMT-5)

I honestly don't think it's possible to hold a warfare view long term...and NOT have this sense of domination over one's enemies (persons) come into play.

Right.  Not as long as said warfare worldview has the under girding presupposition of domination lining it through and through such that one cannot distinguish the two (warfare and domination), which is what I think is the case here.

You seem to really believe that we can actually see ourselves as warriors who are in a "winner-take-all" war against personal enemies (demons) and pawns of those enemies (humans)...and NOT fall into the trap of depersonalizing those enemies or their pawns.

Do you really think this is possible? What bolsters your belief that this can happen? Are there some instances you have of people in war who have done this?

I believe this can be done yes.  I think of some of the Vietnam war movies I have seen where a company of soldiers will enter some village fighting the enemy and after they capture the enemy you always have that ONE SOLDIER who goes bezerk because he “can’t stand the commie bastards” and starts killing “innocent captive(s).”  (At this point depersonalization of the prisoners occur in the mind of this soldier).  The other soldiers will jump to the defense and rescue of the prisoners (whom just days or hours before had just been shooting bullets and throwing grenades and planting land mines upon them) urging this one soldier to get a hold of himself and that these prisoners are POW’s, not just the enemy.  This particular soldier’s comrades will urge him “not to take it personally.”  In one very real sense there has to be this distinguishing of “enemies of the USA” (my Kingdom [of God]) and **MY** own PERSONAL enemy (another form of depersonalization used in a healthy way?). At the point where the comrades do this (“help” the enemy), there is the recognition on the part of the company that though the enemy may be looked down upon--a “commie bastard” and they have ill feelings toward said enemy, the enemy is still very much worthy of life.

It’s amazing that EVEN IN WAR this can still be done (total depersonalization doesn’t take place).  Not everyone “loses it” like the one lone ranger such that the enemy is completely depersonalized.  As is the usual fare, this one “loose cannon” (and there’s a historical reason to this phrase) is the exception and not the rule. 

And we see some of this in our modern context with Guantanamo Bay.  Regardless of how so-called terrorists have behaved in the rest of the world, these prisoners have not been completely depersonalized.  When we hear of some inhumane treatment toward these prisoners (which is where the depersonalization occurs), it isn’t simply those far away in the US who bemoan this fact to the government, but discipline is meted out by those military officials who are very much a part of this real War on Terrorism.  In other words, these military officials have not “lost it” with regard to the humanity of TERRORISTS—else if they did, they wouldn’t give a rat’s A%& how they were treated as prisoners of war and no discipline would be carried out against those guards who have done the mistreating.

Yes, war tends to “change us” such that we (are tempted to) depersonalize or dehumanize the enemy (which is why war is so evil) even for generations afterward, but it is not to say that this is the INEVITABLE RESULT of war.

When thinking about a “warfare worldview” though, it is a warfare worldview separated from a proper understanding of dominion which results in domination and depersonalization of the enemy me thinks.

seriously mephi, are you really THAT concerned about the possible depersonalization of satan in doc's wwv?

just the fact that you know he distains violence etc shows me that he does a good job of keeping the categories distinct. warfare is about satan/powers/principalities.. there are no implications in docs view that contribute to the christian triumphalism he's tryinig to oppose. come on. don't make me come over there

Corey said:

Even when staying within the line of duty, depersonalization is common, perhaps even necessary as a coping mechanism. The weight of killing has to be displaced somehow, or it could drive them mad.

First, I never did say that depersonalization does not occur in war.  As a matter of fact it DOES occur AS YOU SAY (however this is not to say that depersonalization occurs only for these reasons).  However, there are those who even though they have killed in war, continue to have nightmares, hot flashes, psychological torment, etc because depersonalization has not really taken root.  The gravity of taking a life weighs heavily upon them-- in some cases for the rest of their lives.

The video clip is clearly an example of depersonalization (“it’s like a turkey shoot”) and this is something that is common, as you say, in war.  It’s sad, but this is again is not necessarily inevitable even as my examples have shown.  FWIW, I’d think that most soldiers don’t feel pretty good about what they’ve done.

Meph Man said:

1) I have reason to believe that depersonalization doesn't just show up in people going "berserk." It comes in many, sometimes insidious, different forms. From looking the other way to songs sung as people go out to battle, there's lots of different ways this takes place. It seems to me, oftentimes, that when something like a My Lai or possibly Haditha occurs, it's a flashpoint that built up over time.

Yes.  This is what I was saying about depersonalization taking place in “actual sinful realities of everyday living."  Listen, I’m not saying that Christians haven’t gone to extremes when they have left their church services “pumped up” with a sense of a “triumphalistic siege mentality” as they go back out into the world.  That’s just a result of bad teaching about the warfare worldview.  I don’t place the blame on the warfare worldview itself.  It’s clearly taught in scripture.  I’m starting to think that we may need to go back and make some correctives in this area, no thanks to some of the concerns you bring to the fore.  But again, whether you like it or not any talk about God “subduing as a part of his struggle” (even annihilating or vanquishing of the enemy) is essentially no different than the warfare worldview.

2) I find it hard to believe that it's only a few people that end up suffering from such depersonalization. In my view, it seems more widespread than what you seem to be articulating.

Are we talking about real human conflict or a “warfare worldview?”  Also, there are times when depersonalization can (at the right moment) be a good thing and have potentially positive effects on those who are depersonalized i.e. my example of the lone ranger soldier who takes matters into his own hands.  It might help this soldier to know that his enemy is not REALLY HIS enemy but is someone, though on some level, “less human,” in his eyes is not John Smith but, “prisoner #975682.”  This, to be sure, is not the most ideal way of looking at others, but nonetheless is a necessary course to take given the circumstances.  No?

 3) As I've looked at it historically, part of the insidious part of war is to get people FIRED UP (via music or other propaganda) about HOW BAD the enemy is and HOW GOOD you are for wanting to fight them. It's the nature of the beast. It's part of how you keep the morale going. And you can't tell me that THIS doesn't help.

Well, because our vision is limited we can’t see the war for the battle.  And the fact of the matter is that some battles are necessary because the evil is REAL and the cancer needs to be eliminated.  You don’t want to start ignoring “the cancer” do you?  Granted there are times when we think we’re right and the enemy is wrong.  But again, in the WHOLE SCOPE OF THINGS this shouldn’t be our posture.  However, again, I’m not all against “pumping people up” and saying we have a real enemy and are in a real war.  That in itself is not where the problem would lie.  That can be a good thing.  So of course it helps.  Again, I understand you don’t like some of the negative implications of a warfare worldview, but that doesn’t seem to me to be a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

4) We don't even have to go to actual war to see these kinds of things we are talking about. You can easily look at POLITICAL issues and how they are often framed here in America. Once either side starts throwing around "war" language, just watch what happens! You know what I'm talking about. Or even in Christian circles. There's a war on the unborn. There's a war on the traditional sense of marriage. Blah, blah...

Dude, we have ample empirical evidence, I believe, that shows us that warfare atmosphere mainly charges towards zero-sum thinking, the idea of "redemptive violence, and domination over one's "enemies."

No.  It is a “warfare worldview” SEPARATED.  See what I’m saying?  Again, thanks for pointing out the extremes.  Maybe we need to REARTICULATE the “polemical language” without those negative connotations and within the proper understanding of dominion and not “siege.”  But, I don’t see how you can ever TOTALLY get away from the language as you yourself have not quite done.  Remember, we are not actually engage in a guns and tanks and missiles and rocket launchers type war here.  And so the “zero-sum” thinking is not going to be quite the same as we see in that video above.

But I recognize the grave ills of it enough to know that "war" and "war language" is NOT conducive to fostering a context of sustained conflict of wills WHILE whole-heartedly loving PERSONS who embody an enemy principle or belief.

Again, I realize I’m in a conflict.  I don’t depersonalize others simply because of the language (though I may because I’m in the war itself) but the language has a place and for variously good reasons.

If we know this...AND...there IS another framework that we can use that
1)doesn't remove the sense of urgency or importance,
2) encompasses the FACTS of warfare, yet
3) possibily provides a context which can, overall, diminish the opportunities inherent in the belief to depersonalize or have a sense of domination of person enemies...

why wouldn't we AT LEAST wanna try it or think it through??

But essentially, you really haven’t provided another framework without the same temptations at depersonalizing.  I’m simply saying, rearticulate without the negative implications.  We must do a better job at that.  That may mean reexamining the nature of the war itself.  Hmmm…

As I'm thinking about this, I think I'm gonna have a serious dialogue with Doc about this. As he is someone who have a REAL disdain for violence and "war-like" thinking, I wonder does he realize how much his framing of things may CONTRIBUTE to the type of Christian triumphalism that he seems to want to oppose!

Hmmm...

Man, I wish we would hear from Greg.  I miss his voice here.  Maybe you can encourage him to come back on for this.  I think the ramifications that McLaren brings up are important in terms of contextualization and “dancing with modernity” which is why I don’t want to see Tom give up so fast.

Post Edited (JEE) : 6/22/2006 5:01:36 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (JEE) : 6/22/2006 7:12:28 PM (GMT-5)