Many know of Shambhala; the Tibetan Buddhist legendary land of spiritual bliss popularized by the film; Shangri-La. But few may know of the role Shambhala played in Russian geopolitics in the early twentieth century. Perhaps the only one on the subject; Andrei Znamenski's book presents a wholly different glimpse of early Soviet history both erudite and fascinating. Using archival sources and memoirs; he explores how spiritual adventurers; revolutionaries; and nationalists West and East exploited Shambhala to promote their fanatical schemes; focusing on the Bolshevik attempt to use Mongol-Tibetan prophecies to railroad Communism into inner Asia. We meet such characters as Gleb Bokii; the Bolshevik secret police commissar who tried to use Buddhist techniques to conjure the ideal human; and Nicholas Roerich; the Russian painter who; driven by his otherworldly Master and blackmailed by the Bolshevik secret police; posed as a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama to unleash religious war in Tibet. We also learn of clandestine activities of the Bolsheviks from the Mongol-Tibetan Section of the Communist International who took over Mongolia and then; dressed as lama pilgrims; tried to set Tibet ablaze; and of their opponent; Ja-Lama; an "avenging lama" fond of spilling blood during his tantra rituals.
#1320292 in Books J Daryl Charles 2005-06-25Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .63 x 6.00l; .69 #File Name: 0830827722197 pagesBetween Pacifism and Jihad Just War and Christian Tradition
Review
35 of 40 people found the following review helpful. Moral Clarity in an Age of TerrorismBy Bill MuehlenbergOver 20 years ago Christian social commentator Michael Novak wrote a book entitled Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age. In it he urged us to think clearly and with moral discernment about the issues of nuclear deterrence; justice and warfare. This volume serves a similar function; except in the context of the modern dilemma of international terrorism.The main focus of the book however is to provide a thorough description and defense of classic just war theory. Written by a Christian ethicist mainly for the Christian community; the author lays out the various options relating to issues of war and peace. Of course the two major options throughout church history have been pacifism and just war doctrine. The former; while always a minority opinion; has had many champions throughout the ages.The latter position; just war theory; has had a long and honorable heritage; both in religious and non-religious circles. The position holds; in brief; that there are some occasions in which a war may be fought with moral justification. It stipulates some of the reasons why it may be just to enter into such a conflict (jus ad bellum) and how such a war may be justly waged (jus in bello).Charles traces the development of this doctrine through Christian history; and seeks to defend it in the face of numerous objections. Like Novak before him; he especially seeks to sharpen our moral clarity concerning the difficult questions raised in the debate; and equip believers to think deeply and critically about how their faith intersects with such contentious social and political issues.And like Novak; he is unhappy with the sloppy thinking and muddied moral waters that often occur in these debates. Just as Novak could object to the foolish notion of moral equivalence prominent during the Cold War era (which sought to show that there was no moral difference between the free and democratic West and the oppressive Marxist regimes); so Charles rejects the glib claims that actions to resist international terrorism are no better morally than the terrorist act themselves.If Novak had to deal with moral myopia and intellectual vandalism at the time of the Cold War era debates; the matters have only gotten worse. As Charles points out; our post-modern climate has only exasperated the problem. Not only are we no longer thinking with moral clarity and vigor; but we have abandoned the very notion of a moral framework in which to make ethical judgments. Indeed; post-modernism discourages us from making moral judgements at all.Thus the need to once again state the case for just war theory; to show its historical and intellectual roots; and to demonstrate how it is an important tool by which we assess armed conflict and geo-political conflict. The urgency of the terrorist threat requires some hard thinking; moral realism; and theological discernment.As such a number of issues are canvassed. For example; does the biblical injunction against vengeance preclude the right of nations (and individuals for that matter) to defend themselves? Charles rightly reminds us that retribution is not the moral equivalent of revenge. Retributive justice does not equal vindictive revenge. Societies have an obligation to maintain peace with justice; to defend the innocent; and to actively work against injustice and exploitation.Other crucial questions are considered. What about pre-emptive strikes? Are they ever morally justified? What about the use of coercive force in peace-keeping missions? Is that an oxymoron? All of these specific questions need to be debated within a larger theological and ethical matrix. And Charles argues that a thoroughly biblical understanding of important concepts such as peace; justice and the right use of force clearly lead to a doctrine of just warfare.The particulars of any individual case will of course be open to discussion and debate. But in an age in which no one is now safe from the deadly hands of terrorist bombers; it is vital that Western nations in general and people of the faith community in particular do some sober and profound thinking about these issues. This volume is a very helpful tool in such an endeavour.20 of 36 people found the following review helpful. More careful thinking requiredBy CustomerBy incorporating the word `Jihad' within the title of his book; one might think that Daryl Charles intends to critically evaluate; in light of Just War theory; the US-led "War on Terror" against a postulated emergence of a global fundamentalist Muslim movement. However; if this is one's expectation; the reader will surely be disappointed. Instead; this book is little more than an extended polemic against Christian pacifism; and a veiled apologetic for US foreign policy in the wake of the events of September 11.At several points Charles emphasizes his familiarity with Christian pacifist thinking; since his father was from the Anabaptist tradition; and a conscientious objector. Yet; his interaction with pacifist thinking is egregiously lacking. He frequently makes claims that "Pacifists believe this;" or "Pacifists say that;" but he never actually cites a pacifist thinker who actually says or believes those things (though he quotes Just War theorists extensively). The only pacifist that he engages with at any length is John Howard Yoder and his book; "The Politics of Jesus." This is hardly a substantive engagement; though; since he thoroughly trivializes Yoder's argument; and completely neglects the theological discussion which lies at the heart of his argument. You might think; after reading through Charles' book; that all pacifists prefer to seal themselves off into their own little room; complaining when any murderer is tried and put in prison (or even worse; executed); self-righteously denouncing foreign wars; while not lifting a finger to try to help the oppressed and persecuted in this world. This is a gross distortion of the truth; derived from a methodology hardly befitting one with a PhD after his name.Charles repeatedly muddies the waters of the whole Just War discussion by freely mixing the concepts of the role of the civil magistrate in maintaining the rule of law within a nation state; with the supposed moral imperatives of a nation to intervene in other countries where there is a perceived injustice or imminent threat. Following though on his logic; if one is opposed to the latter; he is expected to be opposed to the former. That is; his reasoning would have us believe that if we object to a military invasion of a country to depose a totalitarian ruler; then we must also believe that it is also wrong for a national police force to capture and imprison a serial rapist. This is obviously absurd; yet his craftiness in writing inevitably leads to this kind of conjecture.While Charles goes to some length to describe how evil the terrorists are; and how they must be opposed in order to protect the innocent; and while he includes a section that tries to rationalize Pre-emptive War within the purview of Just War theory; he remains surprisingly silent about the actual actions of the US administration. Afghanistan does not even appear anywhere between the front and rear covers of the book. Iraq receives only minor attention; and that only in the context of speaking about rebuilding of the country. There is no discussion whatsoever about the "justness" of the US invasion of that country. Charles appears to want his reader to assume that since he has painted such an evil picture of terrorists; and since he has been able to validate Pre-emptive War as "just;" then the US actions are inherently "just." I would suggest; though; that he is fully aware that when these acts of aggression are tested against historic Just War theory; they simply are unable to withstand scrutiny. It is better to remain silent than prove yourself wrong.Perhaps my greatest criticism of the book; however; is that it lacks any specifically Christian theological reflection. His argument basically reduces to nominal moralism with a thin Christian veneer. While he is no doubt indebted to centuries of historical Christian reflection upon the basis for Just War; his appreciation for; and engagement with; the broader biblical contours that ought to inform contemporary Christian ethics is sadly lacking. For example; in defense of the occupation of soldiering; Charles points to the fact that John the Baptist does not encourage the soldiers who came to him to leave their occupation; but merely to act justly and be content with their wages (Luke 3:14). But what about Paul who encourages slaves to remain as slaves (1 Cor. 7:21)? Does Paul endorse slavery? Modern slavery (at least in the western world) was abolished largely though the efforts of Christians. Was this foolish on their part since Paul endorses the practice?More to the point; Charles completely ignores the core of biblical theology that Jesus has overcome evil by his obedience to the Father in his own submission to sin and death. He concludes his book by mentioning (for the first time) the dual biblical characterization of Jesus as both Lion and Lamb. He claims that "Christians live in the constant awareness that our sins are covered by the Lamb of God. But that Lamb; behold; is also a Lion. He is simultaneously the sacrifice and a warrior. The vanquished and the Vanquisher. The conquered and the Conqueror" (p. 180). But by what theological method is he able to infer that the Lion-character of Jesus shall be equated with that of a warrior or a military conqueror? Indeed; the crux of Revelation 5 is completely the opposite of what Charles states. The Lion of Judah! Behold; he is a Lamb who has been slaughtered! Human wisdom suggests that the act of conquering is accomplished through the use of dominant physical force. In fact; the way that Christ has conquered is through suffering and death in submission to the world's evil. Charles has gotten the biblical model completely backward!In the end; this book seems to be a thinly-veiled attempt to give biblical justification for the Bush administration's current War on Terror; and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; without actually attempting to discuss whether these actions are "Just." To do so; he needs to belittle those who tend to read the Bible more holistically. To those who read this book; please do not let this be the final word on the subject.
