I’ve been enjoying our discussion on the Christian’s political responsibility;I hope that we’re only beginning. Lately, the conversation has turned to issues of violence and coercive power vis-a-vis Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler. While I’m in basic agreement with all of you, I do want to offer the following for your consideration: What if it is not violence per se, but a particular kind of violence that is unjust? Paul Tillich (Love, Justice, and Power) argues precisely that. Here he is in his own (difficult) words:
Justice is immanent in power… But whenever power of being encounters power of being, compulsion cannot be avoided. The question then is: What is the relation of justice to the compulsory element of power? The answer must be: it is not compulsion which is unjust, but a compulsion which destroys the object of compulsion instead of working toward its fulfilment…
It is not compulsion which violates justice, but a compulsion which disgregards the intrisic claim of a being to be acknowledged as what it is within the context of all beings… This is the truth in Hegel’s formula that the criminal has a right to punishment.
If Tillich is right, then a certain kind of violence, what he calls “compulsion,” is not only not unjust, but actually belongs to the very nature of justice as the expression of love. Certainly Christ is violently opposed to evil?
Further, if the criminal has a “right to punishment,” then might not Hitler have had a right to assassination? Might it not have been Christian love of the enemy that motivated Bonhoeffer?
What do you think?
Well as for fitting into the schema of “creative suffering” this sort of takes the cake doesn’t it.
At first glance…seems good ol’ justification to me… need some time to digest this one, if I’m going to be serious in my response.
At the risk of sounding completely ignorant, I would think that taking out the bad guy would benefit the greater good. Kill the dude who’s murdering thousands. I’m guessing that in Bonhoeffer’s mind, Hitler dying would have stopped the number of dead innocents from rising, and isn’t that a good and right motivation? Aren’t we supposed to fight (not necessarily or always with violence or war, but I mean figuratively) for those who cannot fight for themselves? Aren’t we to protect those who might not even know the danger that is coming?
To me, I don’t quite get why there is even a question when it comes to whether or not to take out someone like Hitler. One guilty man dying vs. thousands of innocent people. No brainer.
By the way, if you don’t mind, could you clarify what you mean when you say it could have been the “love of the enemy”?
I may not be reading this correctly, but my first response is to assume this is an argument for justified violence. The second thought is that the criminal is punished within the boundries of the state. The state is the entity that defines justice for the criminal. Since we are bent and the state is bent how can we assume that we know what the “right punishment” is for the person who has the “right to punishment”.
If one takes away the power of another to be should we take away that persons power to be. Are we talking about eye for an eye?? Does this “right to punishment” result redemption?
Once again, these are my initial thoughts so I reserve the right to change my mind or even contradict myself.
I always assumed the motivation for Bonhoeffer was for neighbor not enemy, which probably shows my own difficulties dealing with my enemies.
Ryan,
I know it feels right to say kill the one guilty man to save thousands of innocent people, but in the kingdom one innocent man died for all of sinful (guilty) humanity. In my opinion there is a question of whether or not a Christian should revert to violence. Once again I don’t want to sound to pious because it does “feel” right to commit violence against someone like Hitler.
Far be it from me to think that I have grounded inside of me some sort of firm and consistent answering when it comes to this line of questioning. I admit from the outset that this is not the case. In attempting an answering, not to a choice before me that I must make, but one that was particular to another, in this case the Bonheoffer’s crisis, I certainly do not position myself as judge.
For me, Tillich’s statements regarding “compulsion” do not bring any clarification to the position of my present consideration, “creative suffering” “to and for the world” I have long held the notion that compulsionary choice-making was appropriate and perhaps worse I thought it as sanctioned by God. A personal example of this is when in my thinking I truly believed the death penalty satisfied the requirement of Justice for the one murdered…and perhaps in thinking along linear lines such a conclusion can be considered rational. As a far away event in a prison I will never have to visit, and to someone who I do not have to see as human, our counted, or of importance to anyone, perhaps I could hold such a naïve view of Justice. But if I think them different. If I see a systemic bending toward darkness, if I see a socio-political system working for its own advantage, if I consider poverty, and perversion, and abuse, and disenfranchisement, if I consider EVIL- and greater than these- if I see them not as embodiment of Evil, but as the created image of God, then I am greatly mistaken that Justice is what is happening. Justice must take into itself the redemption of the oppressed and the oppressor- of this I am certain. How it does this much less certain. I’m not sure a schematic exist. Consider here Jesus statement from the cross, “Forgive them Father, they do not know what they do.”
Do we honestly believe removing Hitler would have meant the end of the horrors of Nazism. I personally don’t think it would. Plenty of men in Germany embraced a line of thinking that’s effect was a dehumanized enemy and a celebrated innate self-worth. Hitler as martyr, in my mind, would have been a greater evil unleashed on this world. It is quite possible that another would have rose to power, with even greater resolve, and greater ferocity. One that would have known better than to have gone into the heart of Russia during the winter.
Mark mentioned in an earlier response to a post that those who choose the path of non-violent resistance (creative suffering) did so depending on their faith in their oppressors true humanity, in their “imago dei,” If we are to believe ourselves as redeemable, we must see even our enemy as such.
I want to be able to say that if someone killed my wife, I get to kill them and all is settled. But that is incomplete I am right that something must be done, but that something is not eye for eye, tooth for tooth. It is love. And again I admit this is not a choice before me that I must make, but I have to make other choices, choices that are before me, choices that must see everyone I interact with, neighbor, stranger, friend, brother, as the image of God. I don’t get to not love them.
God’s love is His vengeance.
Chris, several things remain unsettling. I should note my questions here are genuine and not rhetorical. Anyone and everyone, please answer.
1) Is justice immanent in power? Surely God’s power, but ours, so susceptible to the taint of sin?
2) If we are to read ” compulsion” as violence, this statement would seem to argue against Bonhoeffer’s choice, labeling it an unjust compulsion: “The answer must be: it is not compulsion which is unjust, but a compulsion which destroys the object of compulsion instead of working toward its fulfilment…” Would Hitler not be the “object of compulsion,” and would not his assassination be a destroyal? Unless one believes that earthly death is not in fact the terminus of our opportunity for forging allegiance to God, it seems that the taking of life through violence could never be a redemptive act, or “fulfillment” as Tillich says it. In other words, this logic only works within a certain eschatological framework that most Christians don’t espouse.
3) “Certainly Christ is violently opposed to evil.” Our previous discussions which highlight the way in which Christ absorbed violence in meekness and suffering seem to contradict this. Maybe not? I was just beginning to understand more fully how “His strengths are made perfect in our weakness.” Passionately opposed to evil; Righteously opposed to evil; but “violently?” How so?
Jessica,
I don’t think your logic is ignorant at all. I think, however, that what you are saying is what I mentioned earlier re: another post; it is an argument for the “summum bonum,” the greater good. It accepts compromise as necessary because of the “not-yet” of our predicament. I am still very uncomfortable with it, because like Stephen and Chris said earlier, foreclosing on another’s possibility for conscience and thus redemption seems a judgment of which only God is capable. If we must do this, I’ll say again, thank God for his Spirit to guide us, and we would have to do so as Stephen understood Bonhoeffer to have done: begging for mercy.
Actually “materetuxor” is me, Jessica (its my blog’s name…). I don’t know why wordpress doesn’t put my name on there. Sorry!
Anyways, what about my question of the “greater good”? I don’t think it would “feel” good to kill anyone, but don’t we have a responsibility to stop evil? I would think Hitler is at the top of the evil list. It seems pretty lofty to say that one man died for all- I mean, I believe it but how do you deal with an injustice like killing someone just for the race they were born into? You can’t possibly think its okay to sit by and let that happen… can you? You honestly would sit there and let someone kill innocents if you had it in your power to stop them???
Side note, or side question, rather: Is “materetuxor” Jessica or Ryan? If you choose to live in online anonymity, that’s okay too, but your avatar pic certainly narrows it down
Nevermind. Answered before I submitted my post. Lightning fast typists on this blog!
Mark- I see your point. But I’m not saying that Hitler should have been taken out because that would have been points for America or because of any allegiance I have to my country- I’m talking about people here, regardless of where they are from.
Thanks for bringing up, though, the fact that in “saving” or “sparing” the thousands of innocents by killing Hitler, there would still be the issue that a life had been taken, and even worse that life was not committed to God. So that is something to think about.
Anyways, didn’t Hitler kill himself? So, Teal, he WAS taken out of the holocost equation and didn’t the whole thing kind of fall apart after that? Hitler’s non-existance began the release of the death grip the Nazi’s had on the Jews. People like the Nazi’s who follow so blindly and kill for no reason other than it was what they are told to do (ironically, for a “greater good”, haha man I guess I need to stop using that phrase) always seem to disband when their leader is dead or out of the picture. I guess that’s a whole other can of worms…
Jessica,
I’d like to respond to your questions/comments not with “the answer” but with clarification as to why involving violence is very troubling to me, even if potentially necessary. Again, I am still far from decided on this issue, so this dialogue has been and continues to be very beneficial for me.
1) “Aren’t we supposed to fight (not necessarily or always with violence or war, but I mean figuratively) for those who cannot fight for themselves? Aren’t we to protect those who might not even know the danger that is coming?”
Yes! But I’ve yet to see a model in Christ for fighting which clearly involves violence. I’m open to being shown this, but this is where I am in my thinking right now.
2) “I don’t think it would “feel” good to kill anyone”
Certainly it wouldn’t, for me anyways. But far from just not “feeling” good, I’m convinced that it wouldn’t “be” good; it would be, at best, a chosen evil for the sake of a greater good.
3) “You honestly would sit there and let someone kill innocents if you had it in your power to stop them???”
Certainly not! This would be cowardice, not non-violent resistance. It would demand our suffering though, which may or may not include violent aggression. Again, I’m undecided,. But if it did include violent aggression, particularly the taking of life, it would be compromise, and at best a “lesser” evil.
“But I’m not saying that Hitler should have been taken out because that would have been points for America or because of any allegiance I have to my country- I’m talking about people here, regardless of where they are from.”
Right . . . I didn’t assume you meant to say your rational was based on patriotism or anything. I see that you are clearly motivated by justice for those being victimized. I’m simply saying that “ultimate” justice is not possible with retributive justice which doesn’t consider redemption of even the oppressor. To paraphrase King and others, oppression victimizes both oppressor and oppressed, even if the matter of culpability is most clearly one sided.
I wish I could edit my posts. The typo’s are driving me crazy! I meant “rationale” and my punctuation is pitiful.
In response to Mark’s post responding to Jessica, responding to Stephen responding to Jessica responding to Chris.!!..Isn’t this fun!
3) “You honestly would sit there and let someone kill innocents if you had it in your power to stop them???”
Certainly not! This would be cowardice, not non-violent resistance. It would demand our suffering though, which may or may not include violent aggression.
I recall the Nazi soliders who came barrelling into towns marching everyone into a death line-young and old, men and women, boy and girl, Jew and Christian and began killing at random those whom they chose. There are stories of men and woman, boys and girls, who stepped forward and into the mercilessness of their oppressor so that the other could live. This is certainly not violent and it is certainly not passive…it is suffering.
We don’t get to be uninvolved.
Perhaps this a good place to post a cmment I made in a different blog:
To take up arms implies that we can change the course of history or the lives of others through violence. We think that violence will end violence, every war that was supposed to be the “end to all wars” was never the end. Violence does not rid the world of evil or sustain peace. We must trust the command to love our enemy and neighbor. Christ conqured the world as a lamb not as a lion.
Mark,
It’s difficult to type fast on an iPhone.
Jessica,
Hitler did infact kill himself (unless you are a conspiricist who believes it was his body double and that the real Hitler was evacuated three days prior and took up residence in South America, where he lives to this day as a politcal advisory to Chavaz, Okay the Chavaz part is mine, but the rest is what some do believe). But the Evil he gave himself so seemingly willingly to did not end with his life.
I don’t know what to do with myself! I’ve been blogging for years and I haven’t been able to get more than an occasional response. Suddenly, there are so many thoughtful responses, coming so quickly, that I can’t keep up! I’m going to have quit ORU and leave Divine Life to Stephen so I can concentrate properly on this work!
LOL…bout time you showed up
Jessica,
I’m so late to the discussion, perhaps it’s worthless for me to respond to your original questions. But I’ll venture an answer anyway.
No, I do not believe killing Hitler, or any other obviously guilty person, for the sake of saving thousands of “innocent” lives is plainly the right course of action. For several reasons. First, and most importantly, Jesus said not to do it! And if we’re going to call ourselves Christians, then we have to take his directions seriously. Second, Jesus exampled for us – more than that, he accomplished for us – the overcoming of evil with good by his creative, redemptive suffering. So, as Mark, Stephen, and Teal have already said, we do not have the right to “stand by” and let the “innocent” suffer; but neither do we have the right to kill the “guilty” in order to save the “innocent.” (There may be times when have to do it anyway, but in so doing we’re choosing the lesser evil, not the good, as Mark said.)
Another point: the value of persons does not increase when they are massed together. I mean, if it’s right or good to kill Hitler for the sake of thousands of innocent lives, then it’s right to do so for the sake of one.
Mark,
By “violently” I mean to say Jesus is vehemently, intensely opposed to evil, intending its destruction. And he did destroy it, though not by “worldly” means. Just as the weakness of God is stronger than the world’s power, so God’s suffering is more effective than the world’s violence. God, in suffering, destroyed destruction, so to speak. But we must not forget that God does destroy, and, in that sense, is violent. It is the fact that God’s violence does justice to us and all reality that makes it holy and good. But it does not make it any less powerful.
Chris- agreed!
I am asking these questions because it all sounds good “on paper” and but I am trying to figure out how to live this in practical real life. I ain’t no Jesus, that’s for sure!
We kind of talked about it last night though, how his dying on the cross was not really “giving in” to the evil but that was how he defeated it, etc…
“Vehemently” and “intensely” I get; “violently” I still don’t, at least in the sense of violence as a literal response rather than violence as a qualitative measure of the intensity of his reaction, which was in fact suffering. It was a suffering that accomplished victory, and it was clearly adversarial, but I still don’t see it as violent. Am I missing something still?
Are you saying it’s violent because it resulted in the destroyal of evil? I guess I’m thinking of even the destroyal as non-violent, and you’re saying that the means were non-violent but the end–destroyal–is inherently violent . . .
Perhaps it’s merely semantic. I’m thinking of violence as the subjective intensity of intent and as the objective effect of annihilation. I’m only meaning to emphasize that God’s suffering actually won the victory, and that evil was undone, and not merely neutralized or tamed or whatever.
Also, what of the other questions (1&2) I raised about Tillich’s statements way back in post 8
? Get to responding . . . It’s not as if you have other things to do. How else could you have posted your encyclopedia on spiritual warfare in half-a-day’s-time yesterday? 
Lol. That’s brilliant! I’m trying to post a new entry in that said encyclopedia as we “speak”!
I’m so glad I’ve found this blog
Ok. I’ve put the spiritual warfare article on hold for now.
1) Is justice immanent in power? Surely God’s power, but ours, so susceptible to the taint of sin?
Power belongs God’s, and whatever power we exercise rightly belongs to God, as Jesus reminds Pilate. Therefore, the fact that we are sinful – and we’re agreed on the radical nature of human sinfulness – does not change power itself, it only alters the way we make use of power.
More to the point. Tillich says, and here I do agree with him fully, that power always necessarily implies power over some opposing force. As Christian trinitarian monotheists, we stand convinced that God’s power is power over evil, which is, of course, no-thing. So when we confess the first section of the creed, “God the… almighty,” we’re confessing that God is able to overcome nothingness. Mysteriously, this nothingness becomes a force at work in creation, viz., sin and death. God overcomes that by God’s power, which is identical with God’s love and justice. In fact, that is Tillich’s point. God’s justice is God’s loving power and powerful love expressed for us against evil.
I’ve only appealed to Tillich to make the point that justice involves power (or, as he puts it, justice is immanent in power.)
So, in answer to your question, I don’t think that we can “do justice” (Micah 6.8) w/o recognizing that we have to exercise God’s power, which is the same as saying that we have love with God’s love in order to do justice. “Do justice” and “love mercy” are not standing in conflict with one another, but are one and the same.
2) If we are to read ” compulsion” as violence, this statement would seem to argue against Bonhoeffer’s choice, labeling it an unjust compulsion: “The answer must be: it is not compulsion which is unjust, but a compulsion which destroys the object of compulsion instead of working toward its fulfilment…” Would Hitler not be the “object of compulsion,” and would not his assassination be a destroyal? Unless one believes that earthly death is not in fact the terminus of our opportunity for forging allegiance to God, it seems that the taking of life through violence could never be a redemptive act, or “fulfillment” as Tillich says it. In other words, this logic only works within a certain eschatological framework that most Christians don’t espouse.
No, I think Bonhoeffer would say the sin in Hitler was the “object of compulsion” and not Adolf himself. This is the Augustinian distinction b/w the sin and the sinner. Also, St Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians might bear on this case, too:
“When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5.4-5).
I think you see here an “eschatological framework” that does allow room for more than we often allow. And as you probably know, I’m with those who say that we cannot limit God’s redemptive work in our lives to what happens between our birth and death. So, in theory at least, I can consider the possibility that killing someone could be redemptive, not only for those he is oppressing, but also for he himself.
Was Christ death self-immolation?
Encyclopedia on spiritual warfare, that’s funny!!
Chris, you’re the Chuck P. of Divine Life.
I agree that the “sin in Hitler” should be the object of compulsion, and that that is different from saying Hitler’s life, specifically his imago dei, is the object of compulsion. But my contention is that assassination makes more than just the “sin in Hitler” the object of compulsion; it includes his imago dei so far as I can tell (Can I use “imago dei” as a noun that way? You see my point, anyways). I assumed, as you figured, that it might be based on a broader eschatological view, in which case it works better. I am not confident about my belief on that issue though, but that’s for another conversation. Thanks for the response.
As for the first point, I recognize that justice is immanent in God-ordained power when we exercise it (as we should strive to do), but I think it is a huge leap of faith to assume we exercise God-ordained powers freely enough from the influence of sin to take it upon ourselves to make such grave decisions. Once again, if I am to follow this reasoning, it would have to be accompanied by incredible faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a lot of begging for mercy.
“When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord”
Is this not Paul allowing the man making the choice, in this case, an incestous relationship, to be left to the horror of the choice he is making without attempting to power or lord over him a different choosing? It would seem to me that the Corinthians were attempting to “control” him in some way that was having negative effect for them and Paul is saying such efforting will not aid in the man’s ultimate salvation.
or am I missing something here?
Paul isn’t calling for his assianation. He is calling for them to respect his choice.
ignore my last couple of post please. got too much jumbled up in my head that’s trying to get out!!!!
Teal,
First, no, Jesus’ death wasn’t self-immolation. He did not take his own life; he gave it up. It’s the opposite of suicide.
Second, yes, I think Paul is calling for the Corinthians to turn the man loose, so to speak, to the consequences of his own choices. But they weren’t controlling him; the reverse is true, in fact. They were boasting in his “freedom.” And, of course, you’re right that Paul isn’t calling for his assassination. I quoted Paul in this regard only to speak to the difference between one’s self and the sin wh/ corrupts the self.
Third, you didn’t find this blog; it found you.
So much for my request to ignore my post.:)
I don’t think i’ve read it in here yet so I’ll put it in. Bonhoeffer failed in his assassination! This only led Hitler to believe that he was persecuted for doing God’s work leading to the death of so many more, intensifying his desire for domination. Violence breeds violence, especially when it fails. And when it succeeds, it leads many to the justifcation of violence in other situations regarding it as “good”. And the argument of “one instead of many” seems to be only applied to horrendous crimes. For instance, thousands of INNOCENT people die daily due in part to the greed and disinterest of American/Western consumerism. It’s not nearly so obvious but equally unjust. What do we do about ourselves? God is the only one who can deal with evil in a Good and Just manner. How I should act is still in the works, but as of today I am violently against violence.
Mark,
but I think it is a huge leap of faith to assume we exercise God-ordained powers freely enough from the influence of sin to take it upon ourselves to make such grave decisions
Agreed.
my contention is that assassination makes more than just the “sin in Hitler” the object of compulsion; it includes his imago dei so far as I can tell (Can I use “imago dei” as a noun that way? You see my point, anyways).
I’m not sure that assassination does make Hitler’s image-bearingness the object of compulsion. But I’m heavily influenced by George MacDonald on this point (esp. his fantasy novel Lilith and his sermon “Justice”). And perhaps we should have the eschatological discussion soon? Anyways, what do you make of Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians?
Finally, let me be clear. I’m not at all convinced that Bonhoeffer’s choice was a good one. I don’t think I would/could make that choice under any circumstances. However, I don’t think it’s easy to dismiss his choice as un-Christian, either (not that you or any one else in this discussion is doing that). To me, the Lord’s command is clear: “Put away the sword!” If there are occasional exceptions to that command, then that will have to be decided and owned by those responsible. For my part, I’m in agreement with you and Stephen and Teal, et. al., that we have to respect the imago dei in our enemy and respond to their evil creatively and sufferingly. And leave the rest to God who promises to make all things right.
Jill,
Yes, God is the only one who can deal with evil. But God requires us to participate in God’s war against evil. That is what I’ve been trying to say, far less effectively than I find acceptable, about spiritual warfare! We cannot allow our critical awareness of our own sinfulness to keep us from joining in the battle against the world for the world. At the end of the day, violence is not the enemy; evil is. (This is assuming, as I’ve done, that violence is not itself evil.)
Chris,
I completely agree with you. and i don’t want what I wrote to sound like I don’t think that. The reason I point out the american greed thing is so that we realize that no person determines the value of another person. Some argue that our greed is part of the reasoning behind the 9/11 attacks. We would never think that violence is justified against us. So, I guess what I’m saying is that we must remove the log from our own eye. Yes Hitler (or Hussein or Chavez, pick your dictator) must have been removed from power. I just think that all non-violent attempts should be exhuasted first. God was creative in the way God defeated evil and so must we. We must join the “fight” but in the same way as Christ, as a lamb, as a suffering servant. I hope i’m communicating this well. And I totally agree that if violence is the final decision, the person must take the responsibility and consequences of that decision.
Jill,
I think at some point we have to consider more than Hitler. I posted earlier that the exact same thing would have happened if they attempt on his life would have susceded
Heinrich Himmler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, these men are no less committed to the NAZI agenda as was Hitler. Some suggest Himmler and Hess for instance had much more to do with the inventiveness of the horror and the mechanics of the torture than even Hitler himself could imagine. The NAZI agenda was not the creation of one man, but of many men banding together.
I don’t disagree with your statements only want to include for your consideration my postion that Hitler is not the EVIL that is at work, only one of many whom that EVIL was working through.
PS i cnat spel wrot a ….
Teal,
thanks! I think you are right. Some of it is what Chris was saying at church. It is the powers of this world that these men lined up with. This seems even a better argument for non-violence. THEY are not the problem. yes they should be dealt with and yes they should be held responsible for their decisions but they are not the Enemy, evil is. Just a thought. feel free to build on it.
Jill,
I agree with you.
I think its the sort of linear thinking..(i.e. Hitler is responsible) that America found itself in after 911 (i.e. Bin Laden…then even more courageous a leap…Sadam Hussein are responsible) that is not only counter productive, but completely ineffective in effecting Justice. That sort of scapegoating only produces a temporal alleviation of a sickness that will return and be twice as resistant to antiseptics. But I think it is also what’s wrong with those person who hold Bush and the Republican Party to such a high levels of responsibility in regards to America’s going to war.
Justice- as it is exposed on these pages, and in conversation, and in held believe and faithing, that undoing of evil through Jesus’ absorbing of it into Himself is what must be before us in the choice making we find ourselves in…it is because Creation is new in him that we can love in such a way as to give up ourselves even unto the point of suffering (Take your cross and follow me) …for the sake of the other…and the world, and in doing so take part in God’s way of redeeming the world to himself.
We are not after all after a temporal solution we are effecting a complete renewal. We do not want a cured sickness we want disease to be no more.
P.S.S…If Mark’s post #15 is true, and was being driven crazy by his post, then by now I have secured his arrival and abiding in lunancy. you’re welcome, Mark.
Is noting here that Jesus’ teaching regarding love for enemy and not returning violence for violence in the context of our reaction to something someone has done to us, but doesn’t seem to take into it the use of force or violence in relationship to our protecting, or defending the other.?.
Or am I missing something.
Am I making a distinction that does not exist.
Teal,
“But I think it is also what’s wrong with those person who hold Bush and the Republican Party to such a high levels of responsibility in regards to America’s going to war”
ouch. thanks for saying that. i’ve needed someone to say that to me for a long time, although i didn’t know it. I needed the whole thing put into perspective.
Jill
you guys are out of control!
The blog has found another
It is my plan to take over the world!
I used my brain more today than I have all month! I love it!
53 responses!…I think you guys have covered everything.
This post is longer than one of Chris’s sermons. Wow!