- Pictures from Peace Week 2007!

Check out our page of pictures and reflections from PSR’s Peace Week 2007 by clicking here.

- Peace Week Events!

Peace Week at the Pacific School of Religion
September 17-21, 2007

Coordinated by PSR students and PSR Peace Particles
(Seminarians to End War and Sow Peace, a.k.a. SEW Peace)
All events are free and open to the public.
For more information, please contact sewpeace <at> gmail.com.

Schedule of Events for Education, Witness, and Action

All Week Growing Art Piece on PSR Quad

Monday

12:30 pm – Mudd Building Consecration of the Art, with music and free peace T-shirts

Tuesday
PSR Chapel Service 11:10 am, PSR Chapel — Luke 16:1-13, “Drop the Debt, not Bombs” – Robyn Morrison, preaching

Wednesday
Taize Worship 7:30 pm, PSR Chapel

Thursday
Healing Prayer Worship Service 6:30 pm, PSR Chapel — Psalm 79

Thursday-Friday
24-Hour Peace Pray-in Buckham Chapel – 6:30 pm – 6:30 pm

Friday – International Day of Prayer for Peace
Peace Teach-in – all workshops take place in the Mudd Building
10:30 am – Workshops:
1. Pastoral Care for Veterans, with VA Hospital Chaplain Carolyn Talmadge
2. Peace for Israel and Palestine, with the Network of Spiritual Progressives’ Nichola Torbett
3. Rebecca Ann Parker sermon, “Theological Education in a Time of Wars,” podcast and discussion
1:30 pm – Workshops:
1. Veterans for Peace, with Ted Arrindal and other PSR veterans
2. Creative Writing for Peace, led by Christina Hutchins
3. ENGAGE Training, with Pace e Bene trainers Ryan Baum and Robyn Morrison (session runs 1:30-4:30 pm)
3:00 pm – Workshops:
1. Peace Pilgrim – movies and discussion, led by Sheryl Butler
2. “Ground Truth” – movie about the Iraq war, hosted by James Leveque

Public Panel 6:30 pm – PSR Bade Museum, “Resisting Imperial Peace: Theological Reflections”

Worship Service 8:30 pm – PSR Quad, Preaching by Lynice Pinkard of First Congregational Church of Oakland, “There is a Balm in Gilead”
Party for the Peaceful 9:30 pm – Mudd 100

- NCC Resources for the Day of Prayer for Peace

To download the National Council of Churches’ four-page poster for the 2007 International Day of Prayer for Peace, which include prayers, history, and action suggestions, click here.

- A Little of Our History

Check out Kim’s new report on the founding of our SEW Peace Particular Group, at the top of the “Join Us” page. And while you’re at it, check out some updates on the “Events” page, the “Resources” page, the “Multitude” page… okay, maybe just everything! I’ve been busy here!  (Peace from Audrey)

- Week of Peace!

LOOK OUT for..

PEACE WEEK at PSR!

September 17-21, 2007

…and other peace & justice actions!

Coordinated by PSR students and PSR Peace Particles

GET INVOLVED!

Contact sewpeace <at> gmail.com

 

And click for more details…here!

- Some of the Binds of Military Chaplaincy

The following is a segment from a final term paper written in May 2007 by Matthew Harris-Gloyer for a pastoral care course at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California under the instruction of Professor Archie Smith, Jr.A full copy of the paper in its entirety may be obtained by emailing the author at radical23dream@yahoo.com with “Military Chaplaincy” in the subject line.

II. Binds and Critiques of Military Chaplaincy

Before we begin this section, I would like to state that self-reflection is of great importance in endeavors such as these. As it was said in class, “When we do not reflect, we do colonization.” (Dr. Archie Smith in the class “Angels Fear” from class notes, Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 2/12/07). Considering the binds may be one way in which we are to reflect. And, there are binds abounding as I think about ministry to soldiers. One bind is that I am not a soldier. Am I able to properly minister to people whom I do not know? John Wood (Pacific School of Religion D.Min student in the 1980’s) does not think that people outside of the military world are able to help soldiers due to the “language of acronyms” spoken by military people, classified materials not open to civilians, and other difficulties. (John R. Wood, “Spirituality and Wholeness in Light of the Early Stone and Campbell Movements with Implications for Ministry within the United States Air Force Chaplain Program;” D.Min research project (Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 1986), p.78-79.) I agree with Wood insofar that to know those whom one is ministering is important, because much of ministry is built on relationships and relationships are very much built upon a common language, experience, etcetera. However, I disagree that a person must be in the military in order to minister to soldiers. Another way of stating this may be a question from class regarding the winged figure: “Do I need to be a bronze figure to give pastoral care to the bronze figure?” (Anonymous classmate during class discussion “Angels Fear.” Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 5 February 2007) If this were the case then female pastoral care givers would be unable to give care to male care seekers and vice versa. There is certainly an important aspect to knowing those to whom one is giving care, but it is not necessary for a care giver to be exactly like the care seeker.

 

Another bind that I find of significance is regarding the role of the military chaplain. To whom is the chaplain accountable? Wood describes the situation of American military chaplains as serving two masters; the Church and the Army. (Wood, p.80.) Chaplains are an institutionalized part of the Army. They wear the same uniforms as soldiers, have rank, go through some similar trainings, and go to the battlefield with their units. This creates a situation where the chaplain has a vested interest in the welfare of the soldiers to whom he or she is assigned. This is natural and a part of forming relationships, which is an aspect of ministry. However, at what point does this intimate relationship begin to inhibit the chaplain’s ability to perform his pastoral duties? This is a question for any pastor, but it seems particularly acute for military chaplains, because of the greater potential for evil that is characteristic of war and those who fight them. For example, I wonder if a chaplain will be able to question the institution that pays her salary or challenge the soldier who has committed an atrocity. Another question may be “Is a soldier/chaplain able to give adequate spiritual care to a conscientious objector or other who is questioning war?” These are questions that were being asked in the 1960’s and 70’s during the conflict in Vietnam. The American Civil Liberties Union put out a report in 1973 entitled “The Abuses of the Military Chaplaincy” where it is documented that many chaplains were inadequately serving conscientious objectors and the report asserted that some chaplains were attempting to dissuade soldiers from questioning the war. The report also concluded that there was conflict of role within the military chaplaincy and that many chaplains tended to favor the position of the military and those soldiers deemed “patriotic.” (Randolph N. Jonakait, “The Abuses of the Military Chaplaincy” (New York: American Civil Liberties Union; 1973), p.53-60.2 Jonakait, p.43.) However, another study was done by Clarence Abercrombie a few years after the ACLU report that found that a large majority (73.6%) of military chaplains thought that “legitimation [of Army positions] was an improper role and they wanted no part of it.” (Clarence L. Abercrombie III, “The Military Chaplain” (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1977), p.89.) We have come to understand this era of American history as highly turbulent and these divergent reports reflect that turbulence. Nevertheless, what we are able to glean from these reports is that there was confusion and conflict about the role of the military chaplain and to whom they are accountable. Some chaplains have no difficulty (or, at least make no mention of them in their writings) with the dual role to the Church and Army. For example, it was reported in a recent Newsweek article that Army chaplain Roger Benimoff wrote in his journal during the current war in Iraq, “My call to ministry and the meaningfulness of serving in the Army brings fullness of breath in my life.” (Eve Conant, Faith Under Fire in Newsweek of 7 May 2007, p.28.) Chaplain Benimoff began as a soldier in the Army and then later became a chaplain. It seems clear from the Newsweek article that Benimoff cares for and is concerned about the spiritual well being of the soldiers in his unit. And, I wonder if he is so committed to the Army that he neglects the prophetic piece of Christian ministry.

Sharon Thornton writes that the cross of Christ is political. (Sharon G. Thornton, Broken yet Beloved, St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press; 2002.) Thornton’s perspective is that pastoral care providers are called by faith to minister to the needs of the individuals and communities to which they are serving. According to Thornton this ministering will inevitably spill over into the political. I wonder what this perspective might mean if we were to apply it to the military chaplaincy. It might mean that military chaplains would have to become advocates for better health care at Veterans’ hospitals. It could also mean that chaplains might call their congressional representation to secure more and better armor for soldiers.

Thornton’s perspective could also lead some chaplains to seek to advocate for more soldiers to land in
Iraq and to pursue a scorched earth policy or to use nuclear weapons against the Taliban in
Afghanistan. I suspect that Thornton would not appreciate such a use of her theological interpretation of the cross as political. Yet, this illustrates the difficulty of a political understanding of the cross; the politics change with the people whom are being cared for.

- Reflection on Memorial Day

Written Monday 28 May 2007

Berkeley, CA

Memorial Day.
It is a sunny, moderately tempured day with a slight breeze in the East Bay, and here I am sitting in front of a computer screen typing away my depression hoping that perhaps this act of public bloging will get out the negativity before I go be social at somebody’s house where there will be merry-making. Sometimes I don’t even realize that I am cranky…you know how you sometimes push feelings to the back of your mind or just make yourself feel numb so that you don’t have to think about what it is that is really upsetting you? Well, I get that from time to time.
Memorial Day.
This whole weekend I have been listening to NPR and there have numerous programs about this day in the life of our civic religion. And, it is a religious event…we remember people who have died for a particluar reason and we do rituals with flags and music and processions and parades and get-togethers and what-have-you. It happens every year since just after the Civil War. That’s when this first started. NPR told me so. NPR also said that it used to be called something else, like Decoration Day or something. I wonder if the name will change again someday. I wonder what the new name will/could be? If the name changes, will the event change?
Memorial Day.
What are we memorializing when we celebrate and participate in this day? To whom do we give memory? For what, pray tell, do we give remembrance on this day that we consecrate (make holy) the deaths of millions of soldiers since 1861. Did you know that over 650,000 soldiers died in the Civil War? I can scarcely imagine such a figure. And that was out of a total population of just a few millions, much much less than the total population of the U.S. today.
Memorial Day.
Such sadness. On this day, it seems to me that I instinctively desire to be away from people, because I am not excited, nor glad, nor jubilant for those who have “given their lives for this country.” I am sad that those people died. I am sad for all the people who have died in war, in violence. The sadness is overwhelming and sometimes I feel it so terribly that I want nothing to happen…just nothingness. …. …. Then I remember the people in this life that I am about to visit. There will be hamburgers (and veggie burgers) and chips. And beer! Beer makes everything better. Right? Maybe not.
Memorial Day.
What’s it mean to you?

- Occupation, Empire, Free Trade and Immigration

by Noel Andersen

The more I become involved in activism I realize how important it is to apply theory to praxis with deep analysis of the socio-political history and context in the process of raising our awareness and consciousness to see the inter-connected nature of global hegemonic systems, to which this essay attempts to draw on the relationship between the Occupation and Immigration.

Perhaps the most talked about social issue, next to the failure of Bush’s Iraq Occupation, is the subject of immigration and it is a current contentious and divisive nature within the US.

Throughout history colonization is always connected to emigration..The nature of colonization is based in crossing borders and using military or economic force to subdue the local people, use their natural resources and set up economic production that will profit the colonizer. This is historically done with the Christian justification of converting a “heathen” people or the enlightenment view of “civilizing” the “barbarian,” a rhetoric tied to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, genocide of Native Americans and today is at the roots of global racism as seen in the US government’s discourse on “liberating” Iraq.

The Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s made it very clear that Europe was to not interfere with Latin America because it was the US’s “own back yard” as Theodore Roosevelt put at the turn of the Century. There is an amazing track record of US backed military support and coups of right wing dictatorships that support free trade and US investment, so many that’s its impossible to go through all. To list just a few, massive death squad to kill Indigenous in Guatemala and El Salvador, the coup supporting the Pinochet tyranny, financial support of the Contras in Honduras fighting against the legally elected Sandinistas of Nicaraga and the list goes on. All of this and many more unjust interventions have been responsible for the innocent deaths of thousands (http://www.zompist.com/latam.html).

Most recently the neo-liberal economic influences in Mexico and Central America through NAFTA and CAFTA serve the imposition of trans-national coporations that bring industrialization and urbanization to traditionally agrarian societies. This leads to further emigration as poverty increases from suffering of local traditional economy’s inability to compete on a global-corporate level. Therefore US capital and economic interest is encouraged to cross borders, but people and labor are not allowed as they meet a militarized border and an “illegal” citizenship status upon entry.

Perhaps the only thing that saves Latin America from further military interventions, especially as South American governments move left, is how tied up the US is in the Iraqi Occupation. Without surprise, the history of US military and economic interest in the Middle East is not without similarities to that of Latin America

In 1919, Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations sent down a mandate to create colonial borders in the Middle East, creating political strife that continues to be seen is the region. The Cold War era brought competition for super-power control over the oil supply. In Iran, the US supported a Shah coup against Mossadeq who was intending to nationalize the oil supply and then provided funding for the Shah’s army build up. From 1980-88 the US backed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in their war against Iran after the post-revolutionary Islamist government took power there was fear of their control in the region.

“The primary interest, and that’s true throughout the Middle East, even in Saudi Arabia, the major energy producer, has always been control, not access, and not profit…. a stupendous source of strategic power which made the Middle East the most strategically important area of the world. They also added that its one of the greatest material prizes in world history…. Exxon-Mobile posted its profits for 2006 which are the highest of any corporation in US history” (Noam Chomsky www.zmag.org).

Throughout history, war , colonization and occupation have been ways not only to control investment and resources for power. Many large corporations make profit from US arms trade, and “ reconstruction” or “development” projects as they expand into countries who subscribe to a “free market.” Halliburton’s prime contracts with the Pentagod jumped from $483 million in 2002 to $3.9 billion in 2003. Lockhead Martin’s contract at 21.9 billion is greater than the entire federal government’s largest single welfare program (TANF) (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?). The Bechtel Corporation whose known for its failed privatization projects creating famine in Bolivia was also given oil pipeline projects in the Middle East during the Reagan Administration. In 2003 the multi-billionaire Riley Bechtel was sworn in Bush’s Export Council to advise how to create markets for American companies overseas (http://www.corpwatch.org/).

Colonization, occupation and war profiteering are inter-twined with the same neo-liberal corporate expansion and military intervention that is at the root of emigration and greater inequity in the Global South. The same governments that support war and hegemony also work to create policies that increasingly discriminate against immigrants. Structures of power invade other countries, but freedom of people’s movement to the US is regulated, to the point that the Bush Administration and much of Congress wants to institute a modern day “Bracero”or “guest-worker” program to supply a cheap labor source without citizenship options.

As communities of faith, we need to historicize and bring consciousness to our interactions with immigrant communities and think strategically about how to actively advocate for human rights and justice for resident immigrants.

- Subverting the Means and Conditions for Perpetual War: A Call to My Seminarian Colleagues Across the Country

by Emily Joye McGaughy
Pacific School of Religion
May 17, 2007

In their recent publication Multitude, authors Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri put forth the idea that perpetual war has become the political modus operandi of the global empire. A current “state of exceptionalism” (applied in general by global networks but most specifically embodied in the political strategies and actions of the US) is part and parcel of this perpetual war paradigm. They cite this exceptionalism by locating its function in both legal and national behavior. A “state of exception” happens when, in a time of national upheaval, the constitution is “suspended temporarily and extraordinary powers given to a strong executive or even a dictator in order to protect the republic.” (Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. (Penguin Books, NY: 2005) 7) This is the legal form of exception. The national form happens when any given nation state considers itself a) an exception to the rule of universal law and/or b) exceptional in its definition as superior over and above other nation states. Hardt and Negri contend the current disposition and political action of the US fits into this national “state of exception(alism).” In recent years, especially with regards to the US invasion of Iraq, we have both claimed our exceptionalism by assuming our supposed role as ambassadors of democracy and by preemptively striking Iraq without UN support.

Twentieth century neo-Marxist philosophers have often maintained that the ideology of super-structure is maintained by cooperation of ideological state apparatuses. (I am drawing here largely from the work of Louis Althusser.) These ideological state apparatuses must enforce the means of production and the conditions for reproduction that keep such an ideology afloat. Needless to say, in a state/world of perpetual war—and herein the ideology of super structure maintains that war is ontological—ideological state apparatuses must enforce means of production and conditions for reproduction that sustain the war industry. The war industry, though mostly dependent on the development of weapons, relies on various means and conditions: communication networks, political systems, rigid understandings of boundaries, the willingness of men and womyn to serve in the military, etc. This large spectrum of dependency creates an environment in which social apparatuses are largely responsible for and participants in perpetual war.

An ideological state apparatus can be two things: 1) an institution or group that is commissioned by and operative on behalf of the state, i.e. public universities, governments, police, etc and 2) an institution or group located within a particular state, though not commissioned by or operative on behalf of the state, that participates in the construction of infrastructure, public life & opinion, and social networking, i.e. non-profits, churches, private schools, etc. Again, the ideology of the super structure (in our case: “democracy,” capitalism, and “free speech”) is maintained when all ideological state apparatuses work in unison to upkeep the means of production and conditions for reproduction. The ideology of the super structure becomes vulnerable when one or two or three or four ideological state apparatuses start dancing out of sync.

Ideology is produced in a myriad of ways though we often assume word-systems are primarily responsible for the construction and deconstruction of ideology. While it is true that slogans such as “These colors don’t run” and “God is not a republican or a democrat”, documents such as The Communist Manifesto and Letter from Birmingham Jail, and speeches from the mouths of Malcolm, Stanton and Mao certainly participate in the ideological life of peoples, words are not solely responsible for ideology. Symbols systems and communal rituals also have the potential to enforce means of production and the conditions for reproduction. So now Christians, I hope your eyes and brain cells are waking up!

The Church in America is an ideological state apparatus. We do not work for the state, in fact in regards to the topic at hand we should be working against it, but because of our location in state territory we are participants in and susceptible to American ideology. Further, just because we are located in a certain nation state does not mean our allegiance must be given thereto. If our God is one whose love is not limited by borders, skin types, religious affiliations or mistakenness of human action—and really, isn’t that what grace implies?—then our attempts to be human in the image of God must mirror this limitless love. Our allegiance is not to the state, our allegiance is to love. And let us be clear about one thing: love is the opposite of war. If we believe that God came so that we may have life and have it more abundantly, then we simply cannot dance in sync with perpetual war. It is our duty, therefore, as the Church in America, as an acknowledged ideological state apparatus, to subvert the contemporary super structure. Our word systems, symbol systems and communal rituals must negate the role of violence and war in global politics.

I wonder, what does this mean for the way we have done worship? Can we continue to elevate a sign of politically-sanctioned torture as our dominant Christian symbol? Can we ever sing “Onward Christian Soldiers” or even allow this song to be reprinted in our hymnals? What about continuing the theological characteristics of God as vengeful, jealous, desiring the ‘victory’ and full of wrath? If we save these religious vestiges for the virtue of preserving tradition we are putting our stamp of approval on the super structure’s fascination with and reliance on mayhem.
My question for seminarians training to do religious leadership in the 21st century is this: what word systems, symbol systems and communal rituals will you promote and carry forward in this age of perpetual war? Let’s share ideas!

Christians are Pressuring D.C. to Represent the People

We as Christians want peace.  Over two-hundred of our people got arrested this past weekend in D.C. to show our federal elected officials that.  (Congratulations, first-time jailed-for-justicers!)  Let’s hope this continues to send our prayers for peace to the hearts that need most to feel them.