Front Page Magazine Ben Johnson November 30, 2005
IT’S AS IF RACHEL CORRIE WERE KILLED BY THE PLO, and her parents blamed Israel, anyway. Yesterday, the previously unknown jihadist group “The Swords of Righteousness Brigade” took hostage four Westerners – including American Tom Fox – for allegedly acting as “undercover spies.” However, all four men belonged to Christian Peacemaker Teams, a “peace” organization of human shields that blamed 9/11 on American foreign policy, ran an “Adopt-a-Detainee” campaign, regularly interfered with Israeli anti-terror operations, trespassed at a U.S. military base during wartime, has waged a relentless propaganda campaign against the American “occupation” of Iraq, has demonstrated against Americans and capitalists around the world – and blames the abduction of its members on President Bush.
. . . more
When I was on active duty we used to have the Roman Catholic version called Pax Chrisiti (their link was to the Berrigans) come to the base I was at to protest wmds (it was a bomber base). And their rhetoric was always the same the US is evil and every other country in the world is innocent of crimes.
In truth they’re just rehashed socialism dressed up in Christian language.
Peace on whose terms?
We could have had peace on Hitler’s terms.
We could have had peace on Stalin’s terms.
We could have had peace and let the Confederacy continue to exist as a slave holding state.
We can have peace on Bin Laden’s terms.
Any takers?
There are things worse than war, unless you hold no religious faith and are unwilling to defend any principle of justice.
The end of free speech and intellectual freedom is worse than war.
I never fail to wonder at the willingness of people to suspend critical thought when someone self-nominates themselves as “peace activists.”
Pax Christi never protested Cuba’s armies in Southwest Africa
While Cuba was still suported by Russia, it sent its armies to intervene in southwest Africa and foment rebellion and revolution. I don’t belive that ol Pax Christi’s were protesting that foreign intervention.
I don’t think Pax Christi protested the invasion of South Vietnam by the North either.
All of which is why right-wingers like myself, who disapprove of the current war in Iraq, stay far, far away from the ‘peace groups.’
I don’t know much about Pax Christi, but I can say that CPT opposes violence no matter who is perpetuating it. It seems thought that you all and the article here assume there are good (US and Israel) and bad (any one else opposed to these) militaries and that peace activists should never get in the way of the good military.
I know CPT folk they are not anti-American, they are Christians who come out of the Radical Reformation and thus oppose all forms of violence even the ones that are legitimate in the eyes of the world, ie. armies of sovereign nations.
I know for a fact that they have refused support from Hammas in their work in the West Bank, and they oppose the violent terror tactics of Hammas. If they are more vocal about American military it is because they are an American organization, even if many of those who go on their delegations are from other countries.
Frankly I continue to be shocked at the jingoistic tone of a sight called Orthodoxy today. America is not perfect, the American Goverment nor this current administration is not the perfect representation of God’s will to the world. Nor our the policies of the American Government beyond criticism nor is it above oppression and torture.
CPT simply stands against those things the American Government does that perpetuate cycles of violence in this world. Christians should at least be able to see that and not be so shocked that people would criticise America.
Frankly I continue to be shocked at the jingoistic tone of a sight called Orthodoxy today. America is not perfect, the American Goverment nor this current administration is not the perfect representation of God’s will to the world. Nor our the policies of the American Government beyond criticism nor is it above oppression and torture. CPT simply stands against those things the American Government does that perpetuate cycles of violence in this world. Christians should at least be able to see that and not be so shocked that people would criticise America.
Well Larry, I am just SHOCKED that you are shocked. I mean, wonders of wonders, the vast majority of Christians who are not part of the “Radical Reformation” actually recognize the place of Just war in any Christian evaluation of war and peace. To top it all off, Orthodox Christians are actually intelligently critical of pacifists who try would turn the Alter of our Lord into a bloody sacrifice to the idol of “peace”. Not only that, we actually recognize when a Christian is a Christian and when he is a mere secularized materialist. Wow, I mean, what happened to make you think that the “Radical Reformation” was authoritive here? Perhaps you have not heard – ideas, especially theological ideas, have consequences…
Larry, if your wife or daughter were threatened by, say, a rapist and the only way to stop him was to inflict some kind of harm, would you stop him?
Another question: Was America’s involvement in WWII wrong?
Post 6: Larry wrote, “Frankly I continue to be shocked at the jingoistic tone of a sight called Orthodoxy today. America is not perfect, the American Goverment nor this current administration is not the perfect representation of God’s will to the world. Nor our the policies of the American Government beyond criticism nor is it above oppression and torture.”
All true. The problem with peace groups is how they handle themselves in the debate over these topics.
‘Peace groups’ should begin any discussion of war by affirming the following:
With me so far? The above statements sound reasonable to an Orthodox Christian. Actually, the above statements sound reasonable to any Christian that isn’t a member of one of the ‘peace churches.’
Now comes the hard part. ‘Peace groups’ should go on to say:
The United States is a great country to live in and Americans, by and large, are good people. That does not mean, however, that the U.S. doesn’t make mistakes. The Phillippine War comes to mind where the U.S. took the islands and then crushed the popular uprising against our rule and in favor of independence. Many Americans believe that the U.S. has a historic mission in global affairs to replace Rome as some kind of keeper of the peace. This impression must be corrected, but it has to be done in a gently persuasive manner.
Americans also have to be taught that we are not the final stage of historical evolution. We are a country, a nice one at that, but we have to resist self-aggrandizing ourselves into some kind of global military mission which the founders never foresaw. We are not the hand of God on Earth. We are not a new Israel.
But we are a collection of sincere people, usually generous and welcoming, but who have a tendency to go too far in trying to help the ‘natives,’ even when those natives refuse to be helped.
If any of the above sounds familiar, that is because they are the standard positions of the Old Right in the United States. You know – the guys who opposed Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson in their military adventures. (Though they did sign off on WWII after Pearl Harbor. Then it was self-defense, though the Old Right never made its peace with WWI, and it shouldn’t have.)
What you have to understand, Larry, is that Americanism is a part of many people’s religious identity in this country. The Puritan ideal of the U.S. as the new Israel, chosen by God for great things, is part of their genetic make up. No one leaves that behind simply because they come into Orthodoxy. I was an anti-interventionist, right-winger before I became Orthodox. That means I looked at ‘nation-building’ abroad as just another government welfare scheme doomed to failure before it began.
Therefore, I didn’t have the mental baggage of ‘Manifest Destiny’ to leave behind. But for many Americans, the idea of the U.S. going abroad to right wrongs, feed widows, and defeat the bad guys is part and parcel of their Christian identity. This crusading mentality has to be dealt with in a manner which doesn’t shut you down right up front.
The Old Right, because it was committed to a strong national defense, had a chance to compete with Wilsonianism. However, your brand of pacifistic Christianity is never going to have any impact. You seem to reject self-defense, and at the same time, your rhetoric is too harsh in dealing with the troops and with the Iraq War. It keeps you from winning a lot of traction, here or anywhere.
What also doesn’t help is that most of the ‘peace movement’ Christians are radically leftist in economic and social policy. That gives you almost no credibility. You believe in social engineering at home, but not abroad. It is the same ideological inconsistancy that hobbles the official ‘right.’ They believe in social engineering abroad, but not at home. The federal government can create the nation of Iraq, but can not re-create the Gulf Region.
I’d like you and the other Christian activists to reject statism and social engineering at home and abroad, and come on board with the traditional anti-statist right wing in this country. Then we could talk about making an impact. As it is, you will simply keep preaching to the same choir and winning few converts.
I don’t expect you or any of the ‘peace’ organizations to take any of my advice, more’s the pity, because I really wish we could succeed in ending the Iraq fiasco and calming the American jingoism that led to it.
ALL:
Has, does, will the United States taken (take) cruel, morally reprehensible, even evil actions in the course of fighting wars? YES. To assume otherwise is foolish. Should U.S. citizens, especially Christians, support such actions? NO! Larry is correct to point out our responsibility in such matters. Larry however fails to make any distinction between those for whom cruel, immoral, and evil actions are part of their code of conduct and the United States for whom they are not. Missourian in another post on a related thread had it right—the U.S. military defends the Constitution of the United States, not a leader, not an ideology, not even land, but the rule of law at the service of freedom.
One can and should have many questions about the Bush administration’s policies and strategy, even if one eventually supports them. However, it is not un-Christian to whole-heartedly support the ideals and principals articulated in the Constitution (less than perfectly embodied in the nation). The continued, functional existence of the Constitution is the foundation of a real American exceptionalism. No other country can lay claim to a tradition or body of laws that better reflects Christian anthropology and understanding of man in community. (Calm down, read it again before you get too mad. I realize that the reflection is quite imperfect, it is still better than what anybody else has done).
Unfortunately, the majority of “peace groups” that make the news seem to take the view that the U.S. is the imperialist aggressor who has done nothing but rape and pillage throughout her history (wonder where those ideas came from, not the Gospel). It seems to me that the main foundation of much “peace activism” is the idea that the government of the U.S. is illegitimate and needs to be overthrown (a political judgment, not a spiritual one) So Fr. Hans, ask Larry, if he believes the U.S. government is legitimate and that states in general have God given authority to use force when deemed necessary. The Biblical injunction is to obey one’s rulers even to the point of death unless they ask you to disavow God. Surely, Larry, being patriotic is not apostasy.
The “Radical Reformation” churches, in my experience, base their pacifism on an anthropology with which the Orthodox Church would not agree. The Church has always taught a synergy between man and God founded on the hypostatic union between God and Man in Jesus Christ. As such, all of our actions/inactions have consequences for our salvation and the salvation of others. Consequently, we are called to defend ourselves and others against evil. Sometimes that defense has to be physical in nature, because the evil is physically attacking. Whether specific events require such a response from a Christian is his to decide. The decision to fight or not to fight has never been a doctrinal question within the Orthodox Church (despite the attempt of the OPF to make it one). Traditional Christianity has never been pacifist but She has always brought to our attention the profound moral and spiritual consequences of the choice. Our current bishops are well within that Tradition. I have been thinking quite a bit lately about what my own beloved Bishop Basil said on the night the first Gulf war began (I paraphrase): What is begun tonight will not soon end. He said it with a deep sadness and shudder that I will not soon forget. Perhaps it was the voice of prophecy.
Okay, Michael, how exactly were the Iraqis threatening the United States Constitution? If the U.S. military fought for the Constitution, then they would have refused to deploy until Congress declared war in a Constitutional manner. But, they didn’t. The military, in today’s America, is the tool of the president to deploy in identical fashion to the kings of old. The brake on such activity which the Founders sought to employ (the mandate that only Congress can declare war) has been effectively nullified by the cowardly leaders of both parties who refuse to vote up or down on any given military action. They prefer to leave it in the hands of the president, and then carp about it later if it proves unpopular. It’s called ‘deniability.’
By my count, the U.S. has gone to war to defend the Constitution exactly once – in 1941. The war of 1812 was fought against Britain which was not threatening us, and was really an attempted land grab. The Mexican-American War was a land grab. Wars against the Indians? Land grabs. War Between the States? The South wanted out, the North was free to continue under the Constitution. The North beat the South into submission to prove that once your in the Union, there is no exit, even though the Founders believed there to be one. The Spanish American War? Rampant idealism ended up in a land grab. Various U.S. interventions into Latin America to protect U.S. corporate interests? Immoral all of them, and counterproductive as they made generations of Marxists into populist heroes.
WWI? Stupid Wilsonianism that led to WWII. WWII? Justified. Korea? Not a war to defend the Constitution, but a case can be made for its necessity in the climate of the day. Vietnam? Not a war to defend the Constitution, it was stupid, and not necessary.
The Constitution of the United States has a fatal flaw, that Patrick Henry foresaw. It includes too much consolidation of power and effectively reversed the American Revolution’s acheivement of decentralized power.
Michael – the government of the United States only succeeded as well as it has because it was built on the pre-existing Anglo-saxon tradition. That is why the set of ideas that failed in France succeeded here, for the most part. The U.S. Constitution is, therefore, not a universal document for export to other parts of the world. Unique cultures will produce different methods of governing. Any method of government can be consonant with Orthodoxy, depending on how it respects the church and the rights of its citizens.
The ‘American exceptionalism’ idea leads towards the ‘messianic’ type of foreign policy we have been pursuing for about 100 years now. It leads to increased foreign entanglements and ever greater statism at home. Look at the red ink our budget is drowning in.
When you bray about American exceptionalism, it is an open slap to all other nations on Earth. Are you proud of your mother? Is she the best mother in the world? No, but you love her because she is yours. Other people love their nations, just like you love your mother. They hate constantly hearing about how the U.S. is the ‘greatest, most powerful, most wonderful country ever, blah, blah, blah’ in history. It is the same as saying, “Hey, Brits! What are you so proud of? We’re the greatest! All of you should worship us!” It’s like listening to Muhammad Ali, only with 300 million voices.
Our government works for us, though I would prefer the government we had in 1792 to the one we have now. Then again, I would prefer the government we had in 1788 prior to the Constitutional convention. In any event, what we have works for us, and we can be proud of it. There is no reason, however, to denigrate the English (on whose tradition our whole system is built) or the Poles or the Russians or the Peruvians by constantly making the case that all nations are second place to us in all things. Such an attitude is hubris. Other nations should be free to order their lives as they see fit and in a manner that works for them. What they do, except in narrow circumstances, isn’t any of our concern.
Unless they attack us, which is why we need a military for defensive purposes. Now, about all those illegals who are crossing unchecked from Mexico while our military patrols the border of Iraq and Syria……
Glen,
I’m confused. Michaels post is a good general explication of the several diverse reasons why Traditional Christianity opposes pacifism and why these same Christians can support the Just defense of the constitution. Your point is to (again) disagree with the particular war in Iraq – which Michael did not even address! We get it. You (as a conservative and I assume an Orthodox Christian) oppose the war in Iraq. I, Michael, and others disagree. Sorry bout that. The important disagreement with Pagan Peace Teams and men like Larry and Mr. Jackson is deeper than any prudential reasoning of Iraq within a Traditional Christian understanding…
Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
Military/Industrial Complex? Like Halliburton and the other corporations with close links to GW Bush and Richard Cheney?
Note 12. The actual author of that speech was Malcolm Moose, even though Eisenhower delivered it. As for Haliburton, don’t forget shareholder Michael Moore!
Christopher –
I wasn’t addressing Iraq specifically when I responded to Michael. I mentioned several wars actually, among them 1812, War Between the States, Mex-Am, Span-Am, and various military interventions in Latin America.
I can agree that a rejection of pacifism is in order. What I took issue with was Michael’s ideas:
1) that the U.S. military fights to protect the Constitution. This would be the ideal, but almost none of our military engagements since 1790 would qualify as defense of the Constitution. This does not mean that we are worse than other nations, only that we seem about on par. Nation states tend to fight wars to increase territory, commercial advantages, etc.
2) American exceptionalism – Michael’s treatment of this tends towards the kind of Messianic foreign policy that has led us into wars such as WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq, not to mention multiple invasions of Latin American and Carribbean states.
3) American triumphalism – We have a lot to be proud of as a nation. However, other people are justifiably proud of their national acheivements as well. They have a right to their form of government, and if it works for them – great! A lot of traditional Orthodox thinkers have a preference for an Orthodox Constitutional monarchy, rather than our current form. Me? I prefer a radical decentralization of power akin to the Articles of Confederation. But in any case, there is more than one way to organize society, and others can find their own method. That tolerance on my behalf, however, does not extend to saying that all forms of government are equal if you are comparing Cuba to the United States. On the other hand, if you are comparing Australia to the United States, I am not sure where we get off being triumphalist. What the Australians have works for them, and we shouldn’t go around telling them how inferior they are to us all the time.
Rejection of foreign interventions that are not needed for defense of the United States has, unfortunately, been linked in the popular mindset with pacifism. That is a linkage of recent vintage, as the principle opponents of foreign military adventures have tended to be Jeffersonians who oppose most war as offering an advantage for the state to increase itself at the expense of the people’s liberties and economic freedom. That does not equate to pacifism. Unfortunately, the most visible opposition to our ongoing military engagements has come not from the AmCon Magazine and principled conservatives, but rather from people who are genuine pacifists. This fact only tends to increase the pro-Bush reaction among Republicans and just makes my life harder.
I’d prefer it if they would all just shut up, but barring that, may be I can at least get them to moderate their rhetoric and adopt some sensible ideas. That would be a blessing for all concerned.
Dean –
The problem is that the Military-Industrial Complex works just as closely with the Democratic Party as with the Republican. The Democrats spend just as much money on armaments and have an even bigger record of foreign military entanglements.
Both parties live in glass houses, so you really should be throwing stones in both directions. No Congressmen will take on a weapons project, no matter how wasteful, if it will cost jobs in his/her district. That is a bi-partisan problem.
Your candidates for president opposed the Iraq War, but they all backed bombing Serbia and intervening in Bosnia. At the same time that he was denigrating the Iraq conflict, Howard Dean was talking about the need for U.S. forces in Liberia, of all places.
The Democratic Party is the party of nation building and foreign wars. Johnson’s military spending was greater than any recent president could possibly match.
Both sides deserve to be slapped around for falling victim to what Eisenhower warned about. Large corporations have no souls, and they have no loyalties.
As the Nye Committee reported after investigating the arms industry in the 1930′s:
The U.S. armaments industry was crooked then, and has remained so. Transnational corporations have no loyalty, then or now. Regardless of which party is in charge, the government continues to play footsie with them.
I have always heard of pacifism categorized two ways: principled and practical. One common version of principled pacifism holds that war by its very nature is immoral, as is any participation in war.
Practical pacifism, on the other hand, holds that while there may be certain extreme circumstances in which warfare is justified, most wars are not justified. Looking at Glen’s list of wars and military expeditions, I only found two that he felt were justified, though I would also add Afghanistan. That would make 3 out of 12, or 25 percent of wars/military actions that were justified.
So it turns out that the strident militarist will be wrong 75 percent of the time. The principled pacifist will be right 75 percent of the time, but for the wrong reason. The practical pacifist has the potential to be right 100 percent of the time for the right reason.
Given the error rate for each position, it would seem a better use of time to help the strident militarist to become a practical pacifist, than it would be to convince the principled pacifist that some wars are justified.
I’d prefer it if they would all just shut up, but barring that, may be I can at least get them to moderate their rhetoric and adopt some sensible ideas. That would be a blessing for all concerned.
That’s not very likely – wish it were! By the way, I would have fought for the south also. That said, I think the current war on terror is a defense of the constitution. You don’t for all the reasons you have stated, but like I have said, I am more willing to be patient and let the administration and military play this one out. One thing I think the Orthodox can do is to point out the self serving use of scripture by the materialists, and the heretical views of the “Christian” pacifists. I think that is what Fr. Jacob, Michael, and myself were trying to do in response to Mr. Jackson, Larry, and the like. I think you are starting off (post 9) assuming that there is some significant common ground. Their not even close – there as left wing as you can get, and the honest ones say as much. These differences are at bottom theological and not merely political/social…
Glen, my comments were not really about the Iraq war.
The Constitution is the rule of law in the service of freedom. The Wilsonian statist idealism gets carried away with this. Sort of the other extreme of the “peace activists”
I was not braying about American exceptionalism. I simply mentioned that there is a foundation for a genuine type of American exceptionalism. You are correct that it can easily be taken way too far. Yes that exceptionalism is part of a tradition that, IMO, is Bibilical in origin. That does not mean that is essential to a spiritual identity, certainly not an Orthodox one.
Realizing the strengths of the American system however and building upon them is part of what the Church should do in this country. Too many of our bishops play all too friendly with politicians just because they have power. The Church should adopt a prophetic stance vis-a-vis the state, continuing to call the United States and her citizens to the a life that is lived in accord with the principals expressed in the Constitution which was intended to limit the scope of foreign wars by requiring that Congress declare war. The war in Iraq and every war since WWII is in fact un-Constitutional from that perspective alone and fails the 1st criteria for a just war–Right Authority. The Church in upholding both the principals of the Constitution and the Just War approach must always demand right authority exercised for the right reason. She must reject the “necessary evil” approach which is really just moral cowardice in my opinion. At the same time She must avoid falling into the leftist political paradigm that equally at odds with the life of the Church. IMO, such an approach would make for peace and strongly support the members of the Church in making a proper, balanced moral decision.
The only war in your list that I would tend to disagree with you on is the War of 1812. Britain was doing a lot to deny our sovernity. Unfortunately, the only battle we really won was after the war was over. IMO, the Treaty of Ghent was the final settlement of the American Revolution.
Constitution vs. Articles of Confederation: You berate me for my idealism on the Constituion, I would just point out that you have a similar idealism with regard to the Articles of Confederation. We would not have remained one nation under the Articles and each of the several states would have sunk back to a dependency on one or another foreign power, most likely England. The entire course of world history would have been altered. Anybody’s guess if it would have been better. I have always believed that the Consitution was the largest, peaceful transfer of power to a centralized government in history. That process is still going on and, without caution and a great deal of effort, lead to tryanny. Some would say we are already there. IMO the ability of the Americans to resist that tryanny is part of our exceptionalism, inherited, perhaps from the British and the Saxons, but unique in its expression. Perhaps that spirit, if not the form, can be exported and adapted to different cultures.
Note 18 and 19. As one who has benefited greatly from the bounty and fair play of this great country, I have to concur that there is such a thing as American exceptionalism. Like all good things, exceptionalism has been misconstrued and even used in the service of evil. On the other hand, the fact that all the great refugee movements of the last century looked to American for freedom and opportunity says a lot in my book. There are values at work in American society worth preserving and strengthening.
I strongly agree with Michael’s point as well:
There is a lot in Orthodox theology and history that finds common ground with the American experiment, IMO. I tried to hammer out some of these ideas in an essay I wrote a few years ago, Orthodoxy and the American Awakening.
(This is not meant as a counterpoint to Glen’s statements. I think that Glen may not agree with the specifics of my analysis but would have no objection to the broader outline. Glen?)
Note 18. Christopher writes:
Apart from a quibble over the term “heretical,” yes, this is exactly my concern. The “Christian peace activists” borrow the vocabulary of the Christian moral tradition to create an air of moral legitimacy for themselves. Their reasoning however, if often weak and shallow. Just look at the OPF manifesto “A Plea for Peace.” It is riddled with moral equivalency. Referencing the scriptures or a Church Father does not excuse the paucity of thought we find in the document. It is why I concluded that the signers of the document, who ostensibly opposed the war in Iraq, were in fact supplanting the moral tradition. Put another way, a person can oppose American involvement in Iraq, but appeals to moral equivalency don’t make his case.
Mr. Jackson, as far as I can tell, operates in the same vicious circle. He confuses the patina of moral authority conferred by the liberal sprinking of Christian terminology with credible moral reasoning. Everytime he is asked a hard question, he retreats into vague moralistic proclamations. This has the effect of confirming his sincerity to his cause, but nothing more.
Michael and Father Hans –
Yes, within broad outlines I agree with both of you. I don’t think any of us are really that far apart.
I am extremely sensitive to pushing America’s sense of exceptionalism too far for macro reasons (the policies such an idea tend to give birth to) but also from personal reasons. The macro reasons we’ve already covered.
From the personal side, spending a lot of time in Europe as I do, I often field questions from Poles, Czechs, etc. of the following type, “We hear all the time about American freedom and how your country is the freest on Earth. Well, you have elections and we have elections. You can travel anywhere you want and say anything you want. So can we. You can start a business, and I own a business. You pay taxes, we pay about the same rate of taxes that you do. Well, what exactly makes you so free?”
In 1790, we were pretty unique in political sense. At the dawn of the 20th Century, we were still pretty unique. But, I think much of the rest of the world has caught up to us but that our rhetoric hasn’t moderated itself to match the new reality. Britain, Poland, and Germany may have their flaws, but I don’t think you can make a realistic case that the citizens of those nations (today) are somehow less free than are Americans in the political sense. From a business regulation sense, some of those nations are freer, some are less free. That is a mixed bag.
Now, in addition to the idea of America being the ‘freest nation’ on Earth, comes the other idea that America is the greatest nation on Earth – the supreme acheivement of mankind. The idea communicated to the rest of the world is – all of you are second rate citizens of second rate nations. None of you has the right to be proud of your nation or its achievements.
Whether intended or not, what we consider simple expressions of American patriotism strike that chord among billions of people around the world.
America is our country. It’s a great country. English is our language. It’s a great language. America has done great things for which we should be proud. Other people have a right to be proud of who they are as well. Too often, our self-pride emerges as a blind arrogance.
Our way of life and our ideals are patently superior to many places such as Cuba, the entire Muslim world, etc. But, should we really come down hard on Britain and Australia in a competition? Or Switzerland?
I’d just like to be less hubristic about such things. That doesn’t mean apologizing for ourselves or anything of the neo-liberal guilt thing. I hope that this is clear, because I’m in a hurry to get to church and can’t review it thoroughly.