17. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITIES

It is important to bring back God's covenant with America, for America to get back to serving as "The Light of the World," giving hope to the little people of the world that their God of Heaven, the Creator and Judge of all that has and will happen on earth, wants to show them the path to greater glory, both for themselves, their families and the societies that surround them. America was supposed to exemplify that divine covenant – not force some version of a well-engineered program (engineered by clever human design) on the other tribes and nations of the world.

Looking back in history it is easy to see how America has performed much more effectively in simply acting to inspire and assist other nations – to the extent that these nations themselves have called for such assistance. Truman, taking his cues from his own deep Christian understanding of life and its dynamics was very circumspect in this regard and played the situation in post-war Western Europe masterfully (aid to Greece and Turkey, the Marshall Plan, relief to blockaded Berlin, and the creation of NATO). Kennedy's Peace Corps was set up along these same lines.

And yes, this means even assuming a political toughness at times, if it is done in cooperation with others seeking such assistance – such as was the case of Truman's decision to come to the aid of the South Koreans in warding off the aggression of the North Koreans. Bush Sr's action against Saddam in Kuwait was built on extensive international support – and most importantly the support of the Kuwaitis themselves – as were Clinton's actions in Yugoslavia against the ethnic cleansing going on there. In each case the goal was not to remake the societies along supposedly improved social lines, but simply to support the peace and prosperity of societies experiencing deep social trauma. Clinton had no desire to remake Serbia, only to back it out of its attacks on its neighboring societies.

Even here, caution and restraint – rather than moral crusading inspired by some plan to perform a makeover of some other society – has characterized America's finest moments. And when bringing peace and prosperity clearly seemed to be beyond America's powers to bring to a specific situation, wise American presidents stayed out of the chaos. Such was Clinton's decision not to save Rwanda from its self-inflicted genocide. This included Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon and Clinton's similar decision in Somalia when it became apparent that American involvement was not inspiring local support. And it included Bush, Sr.'s decision not to go charging into an Iraqi quagmire in an effort to take out Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein. There were situations that properly called for American action; there were situations where no such calling was there for America. Wise American leaders knew the difference.

Disasters in trying to "free up" the world. Tragically, such wisdom has not always directed America's relations with the larger world. At the end of the 1800s America chose to involve itself in a rebellion of the Cubans against their Spanish lords, and not only took the sides of the rebels in Cuba but also spread that sense of involvement to the Spanish Philippines, where having helped bring down 300 years of Spanish rule there, Americans decided to put themselves in charge of further Philippine development. This then turned the Filipinos against the newly occupying American authorities. In short, America acted no more Liberal than the Spanish in the way they conducted themselves in the life of the Philippine nation.

Then there was soon after that Wilson's decision in 1917 that American boys should go off to Europe to kill German boys, to bring glorious democracy to the world by participating in "the war to end all wars." Only meaningless and deeply tragic death and destruction resulted for everyone involved in this senseless nationalist conflict.

Then there was Kennedy's decision to take down the heavy-handed regime of Diem in Vietnam in 1963, which threw the southern half of the country into political confusion. This was quickly followed up by Johnson's decision to send a few American soldiers to Vietnam to restore that country's broken sense of order – lest the Communist North Vietnam should take advantage of this American-caused situation in the southern half of the country. When that did not suffice to restore a pro-Western social order in South Vietnam, Johnson sent a few more troops, then a few more, until by the last year of his presidency in 1968, he had over a half-million American troops in Vietnam trying to make things go the way he thought they should.

The very exhausting Vietnam venture became a huge disaster for everyone involved, particularly when a Democratic Congress then in the early 1970s decided to undercut a Republican Nixon White House, which was wisely withdrawing American troops from this mess – while at the same time offering a small amount of, yet very vital, financial support to our South Vietnamese allies. Congress simply cut off all further support of the Vietnamese – even mere financial support – allowing the North Vietnamese to be easily able to fill the political vacuum our abrupt departure had created. This in turn left thousands of pro-American Vietnamese to be slaughtered by Soviet Russian-supported North Vietnamese troops who filled that vacuum. And the chaos caused by the collapsing political status quo did not end there, but spilled over even more horribly to the killing fields of neighboring Cambodia.

And Congress never understood, or at least never took responsibility for, the tragedy that mere political ambition at home brought on those dear people abroad.

And equally tragic, entry into the 21st century saw America apparently having learned nothing from the grand tragedy of Vietnam. The horribly failed Vietnam example did not stop Bush Jr. from attempting to "free up" Iraq the way Kennedy had once freed up South Vietnam. Thus Bush decided to "liberate" Iraq in bringing down Saddam Hussein's government in that country. Unsurprisingly – and most tragically, – Bush's massive military effort (Shock and Awe) did not lead to a Humanist's democratic utopia for that country but instead, horrible infighting.

And Bush's similar effort to undercut Afghanistan's Pashto tribesmen in their support of the Taliban did nothing but throw Afghanistan into ever-deeper chaos and violence.

And how exactly was our effort to undercut Syria's President Assad such a "humanitarian" venture? He was simply trying to hold a multi-ethnic country together in the face of Syria's fall into social disintegration. And the same held true for Gaddafi in Libya.

How would we have felt if France or Britain (or both) had decided that it was the "humanitarian" thing to do to undercut Lincoln in the same way we undercut Assad and Gaddafi, because Lincoln's effort to keep the Union together in one piece through military means was in violation of every precept that all Humanists find themselves living and dying for? Thank God (literally) that the leaders of France and Britain did not decide to "go Humanist" on us in the 1860s.

What is truly amazing is how it seems always the case that "going Humanist" (undercutting social authority) ends up with the necessity of having to "go Darwinian" (restoring order by the use of domineering means)!

Where is the wisdom in all this? What does it take to hold a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian, multi-class society (as all societies at some point tend to be) in a state of peace ... where the streets are safe, homes are secure, and the people able to enjoy the simple prosperity that makes for human happiness?

Christianity has always had a powerful answer to that question: let God direct, inspire, provide ... through similar actions that we sons and daughters of his do on his behalf. He has made very clear in the Bible's instructions as to how life itself is to be understood and addressed. The Bible is like a science textbook on social dynamics. We need to pay attention to what God himself has shown us there, as countless generations before us have done, most wisely.

And God, as always, will prove very faithful in his generous support of those who choose to live the Biblical way, at the same time in providing them with the means to be so generous and supportive of others.

Indeed, America was originally set up for just that purpose, namely, to illustrate as the City on a Hill, a Light to the Nations, how God wants all of us humans to live. And America has clearly succeeded marvelously when it went at things in this manner.

So why then are Humanism and Darwinism so set on bringing down the Christian worldview and the Christian constitutional foundations that have served both America itself and the surrounding world so well?

Somehow Humanism still feels the strong need to prove itself, against Christianity. And Darwinism is totally scornful of Christianity.