Integral Mission Blog

By C. René Padilla 

I had my first lesson in “Might makes right” when I was in primary school. One of my peers in a class of about thirty kids made a name for himself because he was able to  beat anyone who dared to stand in his way. He was tall and strong, the class bull. Most of our classmates made every possible effort to insure his friendship or at least not to be an easy object of his wrath.

I learned the meaning of “Might makes right” one day when the bully was dealing in a rather unfriendly fashion with one of my friends. “That is not right!,” I protested. That was enough—before I could realize what was happening, his might fell upon me and, with a sore cheek, I was reduced to silence. That was, of course, his way of proving that he was right.

Guess what most of my classmates thought about the strong boy. Some of them obviously wished to be like him: they were attracted not so much by him as a person, but by his ability to impose his own way. The large majority of the kids, however, despised or even hated him, but made sure that their feelings remained unknown to him.

Could it be that the reason why “people hate Americans” is that in the classroom of nations the United States oftentimes exhibits the kind of behavior that people associate with the idea that “Might makes right”? In answer to this question, let me make two comments.

In the first place, we must make sure that the question “Why do people hate Americans” is regarded as a real question, not as a statement of fact. If it is regarded as a question, the way is open for an honest inquiry into the reasons behind a very common attitude toward Americans in general. If it is regarded as a statement of fact, the natural reaction to be expected on the part of most Americans is a defensive attitude. Are we really willing to explore why so many people (not everybody, to be sure) around the world strongly reject the way in which the United States government, with the acquiescence on the part of a high percentage of American citizens, behaves with the rest of the world?

Willingness to explore this subject requires setting aside a myth which is accepted by the majority of Americans—that among the wealthy countries, the United States excels in generosity toward the so-called underdeveloped nations. The figures show that this is simply not true—in percentage of GNP, the United States ranks last among the main donors of foreign aid! To be sure, looking for evidence to prove or to disprove that this is so would be time-consuming, and let us face it: How many Americans are interested enough in these issues to invest time to find out the international impact of their country´s behavior? The common lack of interest among Americans in international issues leads them to a false perception of themselves and is beyond doubt one of the main reasons behind the arbitrariness which oftentimes characterizes U. S. foreign policy. Self-righteousness is conveniently supported by the capacity to remain oblivious to world problems, some of which are in fact the intended or unintended result of U. S. behavior.

The problem posed by this general lack of interest in what is happening outside the United States and in the negative role that this country frequently plays on the international scene is compounded by the kind of foreign service that can be expected of people who all too often are well represented by the figure that almost half a century ago William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick described as “The Ugly American”. Based on real facts, their best-selling novel brought into relief the appalling inadequacy of the preparation required for the appointment of American citizens to service overseas. According to Lederer and Burdick, the serious deficiencies of the diplomatic system were clearly illustrated by the recruiting pamphlet issued by the State Department, which underlined the benefits of the diplomatic career but did not have “a single word which indicates the work will be demanding.” No reader can miss the irony of their conclusion: “It is a pamphlet designed to attract mediocrities. We believe it is successful.” The Ugly American shows that the distorted self-image and the accompanying parochialism that anyone visiting the United States today can easily detect as common American traits have a long history—they were patently present in Cold War times. The question is whether any improvement at all has been made in the recruitment of foreign service personnel in a world where human rights are openly violated under the guise of fighting terrorism.

In the second place, the main reason for the growing animosity toward the United States all over the world is what U. S. Senator J. William Fulbright has called the “arrogance of power”, which is closely combined with hypocrisy. The arrogance of power is clearly illustrated by U. S. foreign policy. The history of the relations between the United States and the Latin American countries is to a large extent a sad demonstration of the priority that the U.S. government gives to its economic interests over against the well-being of people living in these countries. Time after time, freedom and democracy have been and continue to be used as a veneer for an interventionism aimed at the preservation of special privileges for the wealthy and the powerful at home and abroad.To complicate things even further, after the 9/11 attacks the United States government has transformed its traditional “self-assigned Messianic role in world affairs” into a license to make of state terrorism a basic aspect of its foreign policy. Fully committed to the idea that “Might is right”, it claims, however, to uphold human rights and to be engaged in a humanitarian war against terrorism. Hypocrisy has thus become officially institutionalized. The United States has become known all over the world as a country that pays lip service to human rights, but feels free to abstain from signing international treaties, to pay no attention to United Nations decisions and engage in preemptive wars, to practice surveillance of both foreign nationals and U. S. citizens without proper judicial authorization, to set aside the Geneva Conventions and use torture (or transfer prisoners to countries where torture is habitually practiced) as a means to extract information.

In his recent book Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis, President Jimmy Carter describes the rise of religious fundamentalism—“rigidity, domination, and exclusion”—in Christian circles (including his own denomination) in the United States and claims that

"During the last quarter century, there has been a parallel right-wing movement within American politics, often directly tied to the attributes of like-minded Christian groups. The revolutionary new political principles involve special favors for the powerful at the expense of others, abandonment of social justice, denigration of those who differ, failure to protect the environment, attempts to exclude those who refuse to conform, a tendency toward unilateral diplomatic action and away from international agreements, an excessive inclination toward conflict, and reliance on fear as a means to persuasion."

This is an apt description of the behavior of a bully nation in a classroom of nations in which there is only one superpower—a “hyperpower”, indeed. An increasing number of people all over the world view the United States as a “rogue State”. Should we be surprised that so many people (not all, by any means) hate Americans?

If the arrogance of power provokes resentment and even hatred, the way to work for world peace is not ethnocentric patriotism on the part of Americans, nor anti-American nationalism on the part of people from other nations. The way to work for world peace is the recognition, on the part of U. S. citizens, that –as Senator Fulbright put it—“the measure of [Americans’] falling short is the measure of the patriot’s duty of dissent” and, on the part of citizens from other countries, that the recipe for nation-building is not independence but interdependence. For those of us who regard ourselves as followers of the Prince of Peace these are certainly the first steps in a long and difficult journey.

Posted by jimblog at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

Book Review by Sidney Rooy

Terrorism, say the authors, creates fear in those who are victimized, whether those acts are committed by governments, special interest groups, or individuals. In the eighteenth century, the term usually referred to governments while in the present it is more frequently applied to the two latter agents. Since governments use violent acts to keep their own or other peoples in subjection, the word is still properly used in the broad sense. Senator J. William Fulbright so uses the word when he decries the intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Third World countries, albeit in the name of freedom and democracy. “We and some of our friends,” he says, “have initiated some of the worst aspects of modern terrorism” (p. 65). Senator Fulbright chaired the Senate Committee on International Relations for almost thirty years (1945–74).

The subtitle of the book under discussion emphasizes that the authors’ is not the final word of truth in the matter; it is “a” not “the” Christian word. Rather, it represents the testimony of a part of the Christian Church (from Latin America) given in the interest of the message of peace and justice that our Lord came to proclaim and to initiate. René Padilla, an Ecuadorian who has lived in Argentina since 1967 and studied in the United States and in England, is a theological, literary, and pastoral leader. Perhaps, along with José Míguez Bonino, he is the best known lecturer and writer among Latin American Protestants. Lindy Scott taught for fifteen years in Mexico, has written and edited a number of books, and continues an active role in Latin American religious affairs. Christians, the authors believe, owe it to one another to speak with clarity and conviction on the matters discussed in the book in order to further kingdom righteousness.

The book begins by citing the testimonies of many churches and Christian organizations in Latin America, all in opposition to the current war in Iraq. Protestant groups, the majority of which have historically been silent on such divisive political issues, have made themselves heard from the whole spectrum of denominations, from the Pentecostal to the historical. The concerns expressed in the many documents cited include the following: the sacrifice of so many innocent lives, including women and children; the hypocrisy of having been allied to Iraq in the 1980s when the worst atrocities were committed; the prospect of winning the war but losing the peace; the fomenting of more reactionary fanaticism which breeds more terrorism; the use of resources for destruction rather than for meeting basic human needs; the violation of international law; the unilateral rather than United Nations-approved action; and the furthering of hostilities with the Muslim peoples which impedes the communication of the gospel message of peace and reconciliation to God and our neighbor. No document was found from Latin American church groups which favored the war in Iraq.

Next, the authors ask whether or not the invasion of Iraq can be called a “just war.” They test the case by the seven historically accepted conditions for a “just war”: just cause, just intention, last resort, formal declaration, limited objectives, proportionate means, and non-combatant immunity. By way of example, let us see how they handle the first criteria, just cause. The Bush administration supplied three reasons for the war: relation to the Al Queda attacks on September 11, 2001, weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who committed genocide. The authors provide evidence that clearly shows the first two stated causes had no basis in fact. With respect to the third, the question remains: Why attack Saddam when there have been, and are, many other tyrants who have been worse, but nothing was done?
Rather, only eight months after the United Nations, and subsequently the United States, condemned the use of poison gas in 1984, the United States officially restored formal relations with Iraq and continued to supply intelligence and military support for the war against Iran. The other six just war conditions receive the same serious consideration.

The third chapter presents the interventions of the United States in Latin America as acts of governmental terrorism for the affected populations. Here “terrorism” is used in the broad, original sense of invoking military intervention in order to achieve economic and political ends. Senator Fulbright used the term in this way in the quote given above. Mexico, Panama, Cuba, and Puerto Rico serve as early examples, followed by Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. After World War II, when the fear of communism dominated the decades from the sixties to the eighties, the United States provided arms, training, and support for military dictatorships in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama, and other nations.

The authors plant the question as to why there were so many military interventions by the United States in Latin America. The answer involves history, economic theories, and the hearts of fallen human beings. The Monroe Doctrine, which established that there would be no intervention from outside the hemisphere in the Americas, resulted in reserving Latin America as an economic resource for the United States’ hemispheric prosperity. The authors recognize the corrupt structural system inherited from colonial times in Latin America and the gross inequality between the rich elite and the impoverished majority. A rich section of debating Michael Novak’s theories follows and merits careful attention. The tragic effects of the dominant economic system, which has impoverished the southern lands, subjected them to military dictatorships, and burdened them with large external debts, are clearly outlined.

The underlying ideologies (and idolatries) that support militarism as a means to homeland security and prosperity are materialism and ethnocentric patriotism. Chapter four treats both from a biblical point of view and then applies them to the present situation. The over-simplification of the gospel message and the divorce between belief and social ethics are seriously questioned. Though we US Americans pride ourselves on how much we do for the poor of the world, the statistics show that we are eighteenth (last on the list!) in the industrialized world with respect to proportionate giving for poverty. Consumerism, as illustrated by the advertising propaganda to which we are constantly exposed, turns the gospel on its head. The well-known warning of General-turned-President Ike Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex has become a reality. Even more serious, many citizens consider the United States to be God’s emissary and identify its military decisions with his will.

The book closes with a plea for responsible Christian reflection and action. Three conditions are set forth: a revolution of values, a new spirituality, and a restructuring of the Church. The prophetic vision of peace is set forth: there is no peace without justice. Justice requires a bias towards the needs of the poor. To achieve the righteousness-justice of the Kingdom of God, we need a consciousness-raising among both rich and poor, a cross-fertilization between all sectors of the Church and the world, and a personal and social transformation. Religiosity is not enough since prayer and praxis must be joined to work together.

Though neither the writing style nor the political perspectives presented in the analysis are flawless, my evaluation Terrorism and the War in Iraq is strongly positive because the book sensitively insists on questions the Church needs to face but would rather avoid. Some of these questions include the following: When the Scriptures tell us that peace is the fruit of justice, what does that mean concretely? Can peace, shalom, be best achieved through violence and war? Do the historical conditions for just war still hold value today, or are they to be disregarded? If they are to be considered valid, who can best decide when they are satisfied, single nations or the united judgment of many nations? Why does free-market liberalism not produce a better life for all citizens instead of steadily increasing the disparity between the rich and the poor, both in Third World countries and in the United States? What can be done to increase our awareness of the tragic effects of our foreign policies on poorer countries? How can we overcome the unbiblical divorce between soul saving and concern for the whole welfare of persons (shalom)? Are we guilty of “ethnocentric patriotism,” that is, identifying our military and economic practice with God’s program for the world?

Many more questions could be added. Along with materialism (i.e., consumerism) and ethnocentric patriotism, one could add individualism (me-ism) as our national ideology. This obsession rings true for us as persons as well as for our country among the community of nations. Several decades ago, acclaimed sociologist Peter Berger affirmed that individualism was rapidly becoming a dominant characteristic of US American society. Who can deny that the self-chosen isolationism of our land causes resentment and anxiety among other nations? We refuse to accept the measured judgment of the world community, whether in matters such as going to war in Iraq, military intervention in Latin America, the Kyoto accord to reduce global warming, the international court, nuclear reduction treaties, the economic embargo of Cuba, and whether or not Cuba should be part of the Organization of American States. All of these examples communicate to the rest of the world that we do not need its experience, maturity, wisdom, or companionship in the search for true peace in our world.

As a resident of Latin America for nearly four decades, I can empathize with its peoples’ general feeling of anti-Americanism. The sentiment is not directed against the people of the United States but against the country’s political, military, and economic programs which reflect a concern for its own national interests at the cost of much suffering by and resentment from the majority of Latin American people. Latin Americans find it difficult to understand why the people of the United States, whom censuses report are mostly “Christian,” permit such aggression; they wonder why their northern neighbors reject others’ convictions and judgments about which are the most just and compassionate actions to pursue.

Let me give an example from personal experience. First, during Argentina’s so-called “dirty war” (1976–83), the United States supplied the military dictatorship with its arms, the training of elite anti-subversion agents (including torture methods) in Panama and Camp Benning, the large economic loans of the World Bank to finance its oppression, and strategic cooperation of the CIA. The military government was anti-democratic: all media was censured, personal rights of habeas corpus were suspended, inhumane torture methods were used to the extent of causing death, children born of pregnant women were adopted by military personal when the mother died under torture, between twenty and thirty thousand people disappeared after being taken from their homes in the dead of night, and some were put to sleep with drugs and then dropped from planes in the ocean. No wonder a young man on a city bus shouted at us one day, “Yankee, go home!” We understood. How thankful we were when President Jimmy Carter cancelled all arms to the military dictatorships in 1979. For that and for his treaty with Panama, both of which were widely hailed as constructive in Latin America, Carter still is criticized by some here at home.

This example could be multiplied many times over. For this reason, this book is most appropriate for serious consideration. Neither Padilla nor Scott pretends to be an expert on Middle East politics or on Islam, and weaknesses in the book’s analysis of the situation in Iraq perhaps owe to this limitation. However, they write humbly and perceptively on what they do know: just war theory and Latin America’s experience of the United State’s foreign policy. Both authors offer a welcome and profound analysis of a subject begging for US Christians’ serious consideration.

Sidney Rooy, Florida

Posted by jimblog at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

by Jim Martin

As a North American pastor I am often involved in discussions about what it means for the church to be the church. There are lots of versions of this discussion floating around. Some churches seem to hide within themselves. Some focus on Evangelism, some pride themselves on their "External Focus", some describe themselves as "Missional". And while I would not say the discussion among church people in North America is completely academic (I see many churches doing meaningful ministry), I would say that it has been somewhat frustrating and limited. It seems to fall victim to an all-too-common polarization. Either we have churches that are involved in evangelism and are concerned about the condition of people’s souls, or we have churches that are concerned with social issues like poverty and injustice. Seldom do we encounter churches that are willing or able to embrace both ends of this biblical spectrum.

As a pastor connected with some of what God is doing in Latin America, I have, for the last 10 years, been both humbled and inspired by what so many churches in Central and South America understand as the nature of church. Many of these churches have had to forge their existence in difficult environments. Systemic poverty and corruption are a fact of life in many places in the Third World. The claim that one has "Good News" rings much differently in an environment where human suffering is more pervasive and visible. There must be Good News for both body and soul.

As a result, one of the beautiful things the Latin American church has given us in the last half-century is a rich theological basis from which we can build discipleship and ministry which embrace the fullness of what church should be. For decades now, Churches in Latin America have been talking about the mission of the church as an "integrated mission". The following is a brief description of the concept written by a group leaders who have been practicing Integral Mission for a long time.

From the Micah Network Declaration on Integral Mission:
"Integral mission or holistic transformation is the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel. It is not simply that evangelism and social involvement are to be done alongside each other. Rather, in integral mission our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of Jesus Christ. If we ignore the world we betray the word of God which sends us out to serve the world. If we ignore the word of God we have nothing to bring to the world. Justice and justification by faith, worship and political action, the spiritual and the material, personal change and structural change belong together. As in the life of Jesus, being, doing and saying are at the heart of our integral task."

This blog will seek to provide postings and discussion which explore this concept of churches bridging the divide and ministering to the complete range of human needs. We will seek to foster dialogue among church leaders in South and North America in an effort to promote Integral Mission not just in the Americas, but everywhere.

Posted by jimblog at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)