On the most recent Batman series, many agrees that the "Dark Knight" was quite spectacular and the best of the three films, thanks to its psychological depths, and the dilemma of the main characters as hero or anti-hero.
I really like "Lord of the Rings", and I have marathoned the series twice (once w/ extended version, once without it). In addition, I have seen the individual films a couple of times. Definitely, I like the second film the most, "Two Towers". I feel that it has a better pace than the other films (not as slow as the first film, and more organized than the third one).
I personally enjoy the battle at the Helm's Deep the most of all the battles in the series. The good guys were at a numerical disadvantage, trying to defend the last fortress of Rohan with an army that consisted of a majority of untrained soldiers. Whereas, the opposite army consisted of violent and ruthless beasts that want nothing other than the annihilation of men. Thanks to the aid from the Elf army, and the prowess of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, they managed to stand firm until the most reinforcements arrive; which is when Gandalf and exiled Rohan legion comes on the sunrise, and finishes the enemy's army, which is a great scene to repeatedly watch.
This set of scenes made me think about the recurring evil that occurs on our world today, and that we are to stand firm with perseverance against it, until our Lord Jesus Christ comes back to exercise His justice to all.
The recent events of terrorism in Paris has made me think about how should I stand in terms of military intervention against terrorist groups. Tragedies like occur so often nowadays, which is quite sad, and also in a way desensitize people about these issues. Paris was a big deal (and got lots of media coverage) because it was a strike against a Western state, though I don't think we should forget about the more frequent tragedies that occur in African and Middle Easter countries.
After this, of course there is a big push for countries to retaliate against the terrorist group, and to actually have a coalition (i.e. more countries participating other than the US) that can effectively dismantle this threat.
As Christians, we understand that the some of the major tenants about our faith is about grace, and how we should offer grace to others that have harm us. Bible passages like Romans 12:21 or 1 Peter 3 tell us that we should not repay evil with evil, but instead we should repay with goodness. Matthew 5, on Jesus' sermon, He speaks about how if we are slapped on the right cheek, we should turn the other side to them. Looking at these in a brief manner, it seems that we are to not retaliate, and that the Lord will be in charge of exercising justice or repayment (vengeance is of the Lord as in Romans 12:19).
Of course the thought of just sitting and waiting is hard to accept when there are many people suffering because of this evil organization. So I had to consult some theologians on their views A helpful article explains about John Stott's view on the "Just War": http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2013/09/12/why-john-stott-changed-his-mind-on-pacifism/
He basically explains that as individuals, we ought to not repay evil with evil. But on the matter of state (government), we are to submit to our authorities (Romans 13), and if our government decides to retaliate, then this is ok because God can use governments as instruments to exercise His punishment. In a way he separates the "person" with the "state". He lays out a few key components that made this retaliation "just":
- its cause must be righteous
- its means must be controlled
- its outcome must be predicable
The heart of this is that the intention has to be good (or righteous). Of course we can argue about the "intentions" of many countries performing military intervention on countries in conflict are not always pure (secret agenda, a double standard). This is a true reality of our fallen world.
Another helpful article is from John Piper, regarding whether Pacifism is the way to go or not: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/did-jesus-teach-pacifism
Part of me think that defending the innocent and the path of the "lesser evil" might be other argument for military intervention.
Certainly, this is a very relevant issue today, and I really want to acquire a biblical stance on this.
Still, I can rest assure knowing that our God is sovereign over this situation, and that we have hope that He will deliver us, and that He will exercise justice on the due time (similar to the scene of reinforcements during Lord of the Ring).
It is my prayer that God of compassion will help the needy on the affected areas. I have faith that our God will work and not withdraw even when evil is so apparent on our times, because He is great.
1 comment:
I felt obliged to share some of my thoughts. I too have thought about the Middle East for a long, long time and the state of affairs, and why there is terrorism. Think about the word terrorism. The fundamentalist Middle East Arabs are not able to wipe an entire civilization off the face of the planet. They can't purge all the heathens off. Thus, they resort to acts of "terror". If they can scare you enough for you to not get on a plane or carry out your daily lives, then they have achieved part of their goal.
I do not believe in any of the just war even if it is biblical. European culture always throws around a cause for a war, often known as Casus Belli. During the crusading era, we Christians waged war saying the Holy Lands belonged to us. It was deemed a "just cause". If by following the three conditions outlined, even the first Crusade could be deemed a "just war".
If one looks into the birth of terrorism, then all causes of retaliation are no longer righteous. Terrorism or the ideology of it does not spawn unprovoked. At the turn of the 20th century, France and Britain sought to control parts of the falling Ottoman empire for self interests. While in name, they seek to modernize the Middle East, in reality they only wanted to control their assets. With the increase usage of oil, Britain infringed into affairs of Iran even more, often with unfair treaties. All in all, France and England never lived up to what they said they would do to help the Middle East reach modernization but more often than not exploited them. On the other hand, Germany actually helped the Arabs modernize by building them much of the needed infrastructure, such as railroads and telephone lines, without intervening in their governance. It is of little surprise that German has yet to suffer a terrorist attack.
Terrorism began as disgruntled university students became frustrated at how their state colludes with the West for their own exploitation. It was originally a counter corruption movement. Eventually, terrorist believed that the West must be "divinely" punished, with themselves as the instruments of God, along with their own leaders who are "puppets" of the West. Osama bin Laden is actually an engineering student and had much higher education.
In light of all these events, can the West really claim they have a righteous cause to retaliation? France and Britain planted the seeds of discord since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and continued to groom them for 150 years. Not to mention, this deep seated hatred will not go away simply by applying more force and violence. The West continues to miss the many opportunities of reconciliation due to personal gain.
Post a Comment