Did you pay much attention to President Obama’s speech at his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo last month?  It kind of got lost in the holiday rush for me.  But this past weekend, I spent the time to watch and thought I would post it here with links to a couple of responses.  I think both links are worth a read – very thoughtful interaction with the President’s speech.

It really wasn’t an “acceptance speech,” but more of a lecture on “Just War Theory.”  I have problems with this theory when it is well-articulated, and I have many problems with the President’s incomplete rendering of it.  Here is my over-arching response to his argument:  Mr. Obama makes and attempts to defend the claim that war can lead to peace.  And yet he does this in the context of an argument for Just War Theory.  If classical Just War logic is correct, however, the notion that war should be the means to peace is wrong. War, according to Just War thinkers, should not be fought for peace, but rather for relative justice.  Obama quotes, but then seems to forget the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.:  “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.”

Here is the video of the speech and the two worthwhile links are below.  I’d like to hear from you if you have thoughts on it.  Do you agree with the President’s thoughts on the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Do you consider Just War Theory valid?

Opinion piece by The Anabaptist Network in South Africa

Article by Stanley Haurwas reacting to Obama’s speech

As I have been in the past, this has got me wrestling with the Christian pacifist position.  I’m still in process on this one and don’t know exactly where I come down, but the thoughts of John Howard Yoder in The Politics of Jesus come to mind again.  He reminded followers of Jesus that “the triumph of God comes through resurrection and not through effective sovereignty or assured survival.”  That is a huge thing I’m trying to get my head around these days …

Related posts:

1. January Month-In-Review: Missional Pastor Edges President Obama for Top Spot

Previous advancements in the human capacity to kill have dealt with the how – how the system, machine, technique can go faster, further, or bigger.  The use of increasingly advanced robotic deals with the who – who is actually fighting our very human wars.  So says Peter W. Singer in this thought-provoking video:

He asks some key questions:  What does this do to the ethos of war?  Does it make war easier?

I have two questions to add:

1. What do you think are the consequences of further de-personalizing war?  Smart bombs fired from miles away are one thing; robots built with software that “makes decisions” is quite another, it seems to me.
2. What could we, as a species, accomplish if this much effort, creativity, problem-solving, and money were put behind a more constructive mission?

Thinking above all, in response to this video, about the response of the Christian community.  What is the response of those that follow the Prince of Peace, to this development, unique to our time and culture?

Related posts:

1. Buechner: Thoughts on Principles