David P. Gushee at Christianity Today considers “Our Teachable Moment.”
This month the President will receive reports from commanders in the field about whether the troop surge in Iraq is accomplishing its goals. Until now, he has resisted calls to reconsider his strategy or to begin a withdrawal, despite eroding public support for the war.
Such deep public distress about the war makes this a teachable moment for all of us, as Christians and as Americans. It’s not enough to find a way out of this war honorably and soon. We have an opportunity to learn some deeper lessons so that we won’t repeat our mistakes.
For evangelicals, one of the groups that strongly supported the war initially, one lesson is clear: We must become more discerning when our nation’s leaders advocate a military solution. We have biblical resources for doing so, if we will draw upon them.
Honestly, it seems to me that David Gushee may be trying to hide his belief in strict pacifism.
First, he writes, “Many a war has been supported based on a reading of Romans 13 that says God-appointed government leaders are authorized to use the ‘sword’ of state violence. For believers who understand the passage this way, it means that we should trust and obey our leaders when they give the word.”
“For believers who understand the passage this way”? Is there another reasonable way to interpret this passage? If there is, the writer should be more honest and argue, as he seems to believe, that the government isn’t authorized to use force at all and that therefore Christians must be strict pacifists.
After wisely reminding the reader to be appropriately pessimistic about human nature, he then advocates a book whose subtitle is, “Ten Practices for Abolishing War,” as if the abolition of war is remotely consistent with pessimism about humanity’s fallen state.
I think he overstates his case when writing, “Scripture repeatedly condemns governments and government leaders for unjust or unwise actions, especially in resorting to violence.” The implication is that resorting to violence is implicitly unjust or unwise, and the conquest of the Promised Land in Joshua belies that implication, as does Saul’s disobedience in sparing some of the wicked Amalekites.
Finally, Gushee writes that the Iraq war’s “cost in blood and treasure for both Iraq and the United States has been profound,” but by any historical measure these costs have been extraordinarily low.
None of what this man has written suggests that he is a remotely hawkish Christian who believes Iraq was a mistake: much suggests that he is a strict pacifist who’s trying (poorly) to hide that fact to make a broader appeal.
Thanks for the thoughtful excerpt. “by any historical measure these costs have been extraordinarily low”
35% of Iraqis have either been killed, injured, or fled their homes as a result of the Iraq war. Imagine if that were the case of an equivalent number of Americans–that is, over a hundred million.
“The implication is that resorting to violence is implicitly unjust or unwise, and the conquest of the Promised Land in Joshua belies that implication, as does Saul‚Äôs disobedience in sparing some of the wicked Amalekites.”
God called the Israelites to execute judgment on the Canaanites who rejected Him, despite having clearly revealed Himself in His treatment of the Israelites (see Rahab’s words in Joshua 2:8-13). But scripture reveals that, like the Exodus and the battle of Jericho, God’s original plan was to do all Israel’s fighting for them–just like at God’s endtime judgment. “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. . . . I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.” Exodus 23:20-24, 27-30.
We need only read of Moses’ violence against an Egyptian taskmaster that sent him into exile, or David’s sin in taking a census (with the goal of increasing the number of men in his army–see 1 Chronicles 21) to know how strongly God opposes people trying to take rely on their own brute force. Indeed, no sin in the Bible is met with greater divine punishment than David’s census. But why is it that, in this country with a military budget larger than the rest of the world’s combined, Christian commentators readily saw the parallels between Clinton and Lewinsky and David and Bathsheba, yet never compared Bush’s war lust to David’s military pride? See also 1 Chronicles 28:3.
After the revelation of God in Jesus, though, we are told to pursue peace (see the sermon on the mount). From Romans 12:18-21: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: `It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
The horrendous consequences of our invasion of Iraq, as it corrupts everyone it touches, give ample evidence that if any war was wrong from the start, it was this one. Bubba above believes that “we should trust and obey our leaders when they give the word.” But who is “we”? Was Paul writing only to 21st-century Americans? What of the citizens of Myanmar, China, Vietnam, 1770s Britain, 1930s Spain, 1860s American southerners? Was George Washington right to violently overthrow his government? Was Gandhi wrong to nonviolently overthrow his government?
The reality is, there’s not a war in American history that couldn’t have been avoided if peacemaking people of foresight had ruled (arguably the most obvious being the war of 1812–America and Britain had already resolved their issues when fighting began, but the lack of instant transcontinental communication meant news arrived too late). America’s invasion of Iraq, a country that had never posed a threat to it (which, indeed, we strongly supported during the Reagan administration), based on lies and false claims of certainty, is perhaps the most tragic of all.
Uh, how can anyone quote the reference to “God’s wrath” in Romans 12 without also taking into account Paul’s statement in the already-quoted Romans 13 that God has “instituted” the “governing authorities” to be “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer”?
Tom:
Bubba above believes that “we should trust and obey our leaders when they give the word.”
I wrote no such thing, and I implied no such thing. I was simply observing that David Gushee’s writing suggests that he’s really a strict pacifist who wants to whitewash that fact in order to appeal to a broader swath of people who encouraging sackcloth and ashes.
You do the same, most particularly when you imply that not a single instance of Americans using military force was ever justifiable.
Though the assertion that Bush lied remains completely unsubstantiated by any credible sources, I have no problem with skepticism of our political leadership. What I have a problem with is Christian writers pretending to be other than what they are to advance a political agenda.
Looking over my comment from last night, I see I said something I should clarify before it causes any confusion: I believe Tom is a pacifist, just as I believe David Gushee appears to be, but while I believe Gushee may be less than honest about his beliefs, I didn’t mean to have implied that Tom is deceptive about his pacifism. I should have been more clear.
Peter’s comment is good: the fact is, Paul writes that the government is an agent of God’s wrath almost immediately after encouraging Christians to overcome evil with good. I’ll add that the command to overcome evil with good begs the question, is the use of deadly force always evil?
I would remind Tom that, in Ecclesiastes, we are not told there’s a time for adultery or dishonesty or idolatry, but we are told that there’s a time for war.
Just as many first-century Jews wrongly expected a political Messiah, some today believe that Christ taught a political agenda — that the command to turn the other cheek requires strict pacifism just as the command to help the needy entails a welfare state. But the logical conclusion of applying Matthew 5 to political matters is not just pacifism, it’s de facto anarchism where the government cannot arrest, prosecute, and imprison criminals; where their rules become mere suggestions that cannot be enforced through the use of force. I think strict pacifism is biblically permissible at best.
And, to comment on one thing I didn’t address last night, I for one am not bothered by U.S. military expenditures, not least because that spending is used to protect many, many millions more people than those who live on American soil. I think the world is a safer, more peaceful place when liberal democracies have a clear and decisive military advantage over otherwise aggressive totalitarians: I sincerely doubt we would be safer if our military budget was met or exceeded by our enemies.
The response that we should rely on God has merit — though Moses’ exile is extremely weak evidence of “how strongly God opposes people trying to take rely [sic] on their own brute force” — but let us not forget that our military budget isn’t the only difference between ancient Israel and the United States.
Israel was clearly, emphatically, and proudly theocratic.
If Tom wants to argue that we should become a theocratic state just like ancient Israel, and thus slash our military budget in order to rely more fully on the deity who we vocally claim as our own, that would at least be consistent. If instead, as I have seen with other Christian pacifists, he thinks that the extraconstitutional “wall of separation” between church and state is sacrosanct, I don’t see how he can argue that the state that must be ambivalent about the existence and nature of God must simultaneously eschew its arsenal to trust a deity it dares not name.
Bubba, re the comment “we should trust and obey our leaders when they give the word” of which you wrote, “I wrote no such thing, and I implied no such thing”, I suggest you take a closer look at your first comment, as I’m quoting your words. See the second and third paragraphs, wherein you state, re the above sentiment, “Is there another reasonable way to interpret this passage?”
As for the separation of church and state (which is not “extra”constitutional but at the very heart of it), as such founders as James “Father of the Constitution” Madison noted, one reason why they kept them separate was so America could avoid the religious wars that had plagued Europe for so many centuries.
“you imply that not a single instance of Americans using military force was ever justifiable.”
Actually I suggest that every instance of American use of military force could have been avoided, a very different thing. And there’s no greater example than the debacle that is the Iraq war.
“the assertion that Bush lied remains completely unsubstantiated by any credible sources”
To cite just one example among thousands (since such info is readily available thousands of other places, and this is hardly the proper forum), I’d cite the case of Michigan Congressman John Dingell. From http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/2_wars_2_votes_.html
Dingell, now 80, was haunted by an earlier experience. He’d been a member of Congress in 1964, when it hurriedly approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that authorized the use of force in Vietnam. It, too, was based on shoddy evidence. “Of the bad votes I’ve made, and I’ve made more than a few, that was probably the worst,” Dingell says now.
The misbegotten war that had flowed from the vote 38 years earlier made Dingell wary. The congressman asked to see the evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. Cheney and Tenet told him it was classified. Dingell countered that he had as good a security clearance as anyone in the room. Again, he was rebuffed. After four such exchanges, Dingell says, he concluded there was no such evidence. He voted against the war resolution.
Bubba, no pacifist argues for anarchism or suggests that the state should not have the power to arrest or imprison criminals through whatever force is necessary. Such an issue is a red herring in this debate. The real issue is whether the unpredictable, inevitable, and wide-ranging costs of state-sponsored violence in the pursuit of political goals is ever worth it.
Shalom.
Peter Chattaway,
Re your comment: I find it ironic that those in American politics who most encourage governments to use “the sword” (Rom. 13:4; and let us always remember Jesus’ words of warning to those who live by the sword) in the sense of going to war are those who speak out the most against taxes (see verse 7) in everyday life.
I’m Canadian, not American. But the first duty of the state is the monopolization of violence and the protection of its citizens. That requires soldiers and policemen (and these two categories have not always been all that distinct). Otherwise you get the social chaos articulated in the Book of Judges, when there was no recognized authority and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Therefore, you are incorrect when you say that “no pacifist argues for anarchism”. As it happens, many pacifists *do* argue for anarchism. But even the ones who don’t argue for anarchism *explicitly* argue for it *unintentionally*, because a state without an army — a state without the ability to protect its citizens and enforce its objectives — is not a state at all.
The context of this discussion is American politics. As for whether or not America or any nation should have an army, I’d answer, “Yes, and.” Yes it should have one, and it should focus far more on construction than destruction. As Iraq and Katrina have shown, America has gotten so good at breaking things it’s largely forgotten how to put things together.
But let’s not forget that this discussion began with something much more concrete than fuzzy generalities. This discussion is about the Iraq war, a war that we were sold as something necessary, even virtuous, for our protection and the advancement of freedom and democracy. Subsequent events have born out everything anyone with a high school knowledge of history predicted. It’s a tale of arrogance and hubris, wrapped in a flag and sworn on a Bible. Christians should have led the way in discerning the deception and predicting the inevitable consequences.
The context of this discussion is American politics.
Yes, it is. But obviously, what Paul writes in Romans applies much more broadly than that.
This discussion is about the Iraq war, a war that we were sold as something necessary, even virtuous, for our protection and the advancement of freedom and democracy.
There were many good reasons to invade Iraq, and the war has produced some positive results. But I must admit I was skeptical that Iraqi culture would be ready for democracy so quickly.
Still, can anyone say the world would really be a safer place with Saddam Hussein still in charge, still financing terrorists, still keeping us in doubt as to the extent of his weapons programs, still bribing United Nations officials (something we didn’t even know he was doing until after he was deposed) and eroding their resolve re: sanctions, and so and so on and so on?
Tom:
1) I was adressing Gushee’s writing about “a reading of Romans 13 that says God-appointed government leaders are authorized to use the ‚Äôsword‚Äô of state violence.” With possible minor differences, I don’t believe there’s another plausible way to read Romans 13: his implying that there is strkes me as the position of a strict pacifist.
Because I believe Romans 13 does clearly mean that the state is an agent of God’s wrath — and because I affirm the authority of Paul’s letter — does not imply that I believe government leaders are utterly trustworthy, that we should always “trust and obey our leaders when they give the word.” Biblically, the father is the head of the household, but by no means does that mean that the father is always to be trusted as wise and benevolent.
The state is, like every other human institution, a fallen institution, prone to mistakes and corruption. But just as God intended sexuality to be expressed exclusively within marriage, I believe God intended the state to be an agent of His justice.
2) Respectfully, you miss my point about church-state separation: I don’t see how someone who affirms such separation can simultaneously insist that the United States should decrease its military budget because God punished ancient Israel over this issue.
God didn’t want ancient Israel simply to eschew a reliance on its own military strength, but to rely on His strength. We’re supposed to do the same as a nation while keeping our government hermetically sealed in a secular container? How’s that supposed to work?
3) Did you know that John Dingell voted Yea on HR 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998”?
This act, which made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy, included findings of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in 1980 against Iran and in 1988 against its own people; the 1991 cease fire requiring Iraq “to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement”; and that Iraq, since 1996, “persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Shall we argue that Clinton lied to Dingell, too? Or that Bush lied to Congress in 1998 when he was back in Texas?
No, the claims of the Bush Administration was in synch both with the previous administration and with intelligence agencies from around the world. Bush may have been mistaken about Saddam’s WMD’s…
(Heck, Saddam’s own behavior indicated that he had WMD’s, and he may have been misled by his own scientists, too afraid to tell him the truth about weapons programs that we know existed, even if they were (thankfully) further behind than we thought.)
…but there remains no credible evidence that he deliberately claimed what he knew to be false.
4) The arguments that the Bible requires strict pacifism can be applied equally to law enforcement. That strict pacifists don’t see this inevitable path to de facto anarchism does not diminish the force of the logic behind it.
More to come…
Very briefly, in response to the comment Tom just added, an army that focuses on public-works projects is not an army: it’s a construction crew. The purpose of an army is to kill people and break things, to apply lethal force to defeat an enemy, and if you deny this fundamental purpose, you deny the need for an army itself, even if you muddy the issue by applying the word to other groups.
And, the idea that Iraq is a disaster is itself deceptive:
Subsequent events have born out everything anyone with a high school knowledge of history predicted. It’s a tale of arrogance and hubris, wrapped in a flag and sworn on a Bible. Christians should have led the way in discerning the deception and predicting the inevitable consequences.
Iraq has been tougher than most expected — most wars are — but a largely anti-American propaganda machine has manufactured stories of defeat, just as it did with Tet in Vietnam, a decisive defeat for our enemies on the battlefield that was spun into a defeat for ourselves on the homefront.
There are people in the West who have clearly and passionately desire to see us defeated, and they are lying through their teeth to convince us that we have been defeated. That many do so in the name of Christ is dispicable.
There has always been a healthy tension between Romans 13 and Revelation 13.
Pride is a danger to all nations, whether God-instituted democracies or secular republics.
No less an authority than SOS Colin Powell stated (in Egypt) in February of 2001 that Hussein’s weapon program had been contained by the Clinton administration’s actions in the late ’90s (through strategic bombings). The Iraqi liberation act of 1998 provided for such orderly actions as Hussein facing a United Nations tribunal, but while it encouraged an Iraqi revolution, it did not recommend an American invasion. This is explicitly stated in section 8, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces”. The Iraq War Resolution of 2002 authorized exactly that–as a leverage against Hussein to force him to allow inspectors back in. Hussein cried uncle, but before the falseness of the WMD story got too obvious, Bush ordered the inspectors out and invaded anyway. So no, we shall not argue that Clinton lied to Dingell too–not about this issue, anyway.
Oh, and as for the above citation of Ecclesiastes’ “a time for war”–the Old Testament also tolerates polygamy, and more strikingly so than in 2nd Samuel 12:8, when God tells David through Nathan, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. . . And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” But today we look back further, to the Edenic model, for guidance.
As for credible evidence against Bush, I commend such public records as the Downing street minutes, and the fact that beginning in the summer of 2002 the U.S. military began air campaigns over Iraq in the hopes of inspiring retaliatory action that could be used as a basis for war. Moreover, the entire Bush administration insisted that it knew where to find those mythical WMDs, with a bluster that should have been transparent to anyone–let alone committed Christians.
It certainly would have been transparent to the non-Christian Abraham Lincoln, who, as a Congressman during Polk’s Mexican-American war, wrote William Herndon, “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,‚Äì`I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‚ÄúBe silent: I see it, if you don‚Äôt” (February 15, 1848).
That also brings up the whole ethical issue of “preemptive war.”
Tom, if the Old Testament is suspect because it records that God tolerated polygamy, why did you yourself make an earlier appeal to it? You seem to want to use II Samuel 12 selectively: you want to argue that it renders irrelevant Ecclesiastes’ teaching that there is indeed a time for war, and yet you still want to appeal to David’s sin with the census (and, bizarrely, Moses’ exile from wicked Egypt) to show “how strongly God opposes people trying to take rely on their own brute force.” But why we should we care why God punished David when God tolerated David’s polygamy and gave him all his master’s wives?
Or do you just want to invoke that passage to ignore other passages you don’t like?
Now, I did not argue that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorized the use of force: my argument is that, since the Clinton-era bill mentions Saddam’s WMD programs, the claim that Saddam had and was seeking WMD’s predates the Bush Administration. (Indeed, other intelligence agencies independently concurred with both Bush and Clinton, even agencies for countries that opposed the Iraq war.) Dingell voted for this earlier act, and so far as I know he has never argued that the intelligence information he had that led him to support this earlier act was likewise deceptive. His earlier vote isn’t proof that Bush didn’t lie — and it’s hard thing to prove a negative — but it undercuts the argument that Bush lied about WMD’s.
I wish you would address the argument I make rather than the argument I didn’t make.
More importantly, I do wish that you would notice that you give to Saddam Hussein what you refuse to give George W. Bush: the benefit of the doubt.
You not only point to the Downing Street memos — which do not prove what you think they prove — and assert as “fact” the claim that “beginning in the summer of 2002 the U.S. military began air campaigns over Iraq in the hopes of inspiring retaliatory action that could be used as a basis for war,” reading motive into the action. You quite explicitly portray Saddam is innocent and trustworthy alongside a duplicitous and warmongering Bush:
“The Iraq War Resolution of 2002 authorized exactly that‚Äìas a leverage against Hussein to force him to allow inspectors back in. Hussein cried uncle, but before the falseness of the WMD story got too obvious, Bush ordered the inspectors out and invaded anyway.”
Never mind that Saddam didn’t cooperate with the weapons inspectors, beginning with the fact that his government’s account of existing weapons stockpiles did not account for weapons that the inspectors knew he had before they were kicked out. In order to believe that Saddam was cooperative, you have to believe that he got rid of those weapons and didn’t tell the weapons inspectors when he did, even though doing so would have eased the trade sanctions that hurt both his country and his own pocketbook.
You have to believe the most implausible things about both Bush and Hussein to portray the former as a lying warmonger and the latter as his victim.
You also have to ignore history, which, indeed, brings us to preemption. Certainly, Bush has made clear that the Bush Doctrine includes preemption against rogue states that are seeking WMD’s and harboring terrorists — hardly the stuff that would justify a war against Canada, I might add — but I would argue that we have not yet engaged in a preemptive war and wouldn’t do so even if we used military force against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iraq started the first Gulf War when it invaded Kuwait. After we repelled his forces, and to prvent his regime from being destroyed, Saddam agreed to the terms of a cease-fire which included a weapons inspections to limit the arms he could amass. Saddam then spent a decade refusing to cooperate fully with those inspections. By doing this, Saddam broke the terms of the cease-fire, so we had a right (and I would argue an obligation) to resume the military campaign to end his regime.
Likewise, from permitting the taking of American hostages from our embassy during Carter’s tenure, to providing support to the terrorists who bombed our Marines barracks in 1983, to its current material support of terrorists who are targeting American troops in Iraq, Iran has been at war with us for nearly 30 years. If we ever respond militarily, the response cannot be, ipso facto, preemptive.
It seems to me that too many people want to ignore every act of war perpetrated against us in order to argue that any response is preemptive and immoral. By denying a history of attacks against us, they in effect deny our right to respond and defend ourselves. This isn’t the behavior of people who only maintain a reasonable skepticism of our and all other governments.
“an army that focuses on public-works projects is not an army: it‚Äôs a construction crew. The purpose of an army is to kill people and break things, to apply lethal force to defeat an enemy, and if you deny this fundamental purpose, you deny the need for an army itself, even if you muddy the issue by applying the word to other groups.”
This is true. But that is a responsibility to be done with great care and trepidation. War damages the soul of a man. And if you are going to do that kind of damage, the war better be worth it. Iraq was not worth the cost, and it was a distraction from more credible threats to the U.S.
In response to “For believers who understand the passage this way”, there is another quite obvious reading of the passage.
Governments use force to punish the criminal, those who break the nation’s laws. If you look the context of the passage, it doesn’t even make sense to apply this to war against another nation. I grew up Mennonite (obviously pacifist) and this is how is was always interpreted in our circles. While I’m not sure I would still consider myself a pacifist, this reading of Romans 13 still strikes me as much truer than using it to justify the state having an army and using force to push its will on other sovereign nations.
I’m not convinced that the war wasn’t worth the cost, Thom, and I’m not sure that’s even knowable at this point: between the Battle of Lexington and the final ratification of the U.S. Constitution, over thirteen years passed, so I’m not sure its fair to evaluate either the end to Saddam’s regime or the democratization of Iraq in less than five.
And, considering the effort we’ve seen on the part of al Queda and Iran to stop that democratization, it seems to me that our enemies at least don’t see Iraq as a distraction.
skills0:
“While I‚Äôm not sure I would still consider myself a pacifist, this reading of Romans 13 still strikes me as much truer than using it to justify the state having an army and using force to push its will on other sovereign nations.”
What about having an army to protect itself from having sovereign nations impose their will upon them?
At any rate, it seems to me that, unless Gushee expressed himself imprecisely, your interpretation is also in conflict with his.
Gushee mentioned “a reading of Romans 13 that says God-appointed government leaders are authorized to use the ‘sword’ of state violence.”
Noticed he didn’t qualify that state violence by limiting it to being directed against enemy nations or individual criminals. Since your reading involves the use of force — “Governments use force to punish the criminal, those who break the nation‚Äôs laws” — your reading is only a more specific instance of the reading that Gushee apparently rejects.
You think Romans 13 empowers governments to use force against criminals. I think it does at least that and arguably also empowers them to use force against enemy regimes.
Gushee rejects both your reading and mine: “a reading of Romans 13 that says God-appointed government leaders are authorized to use the ‘sword’ of state violence.”
We differ on the details of when state violence can be justly used, but Gushee apparently rejects its use altogether.
I appreciate the tone of this discussion, by the way. I am definitely on one “side,” but I appreciate the fact that we don’t have to resort to name-calling and bluster as Christians. Please keep this rolling – these are good issues to hash out together!
“Tom, if the Old Testament is suspect because it records that God tolerated polygamy, why did you yourself make an earlier appeal to it? You seem to want to use II Samuel 12 selectively . . . But why we should we care why God punished David when God tolerated David‚Äôs polygamy and gave him all his master‚Äôs wives?”
My point is not that the OT is suspect, but to point out the dangers of taking one text out of context. All scripture must work together for our understanding. We must look at the whole of scripture, always aiming, as Jesus did in the sermon on the mount, for God’s original ideas for humanity.
I am not trying to paint Bush as a warmonger and Hussein as a victim. I see them as mirror images of each other, both willing to invade another country, both claiming things they had no proof for.
“Likewise, from permitting the taking of American hostages from our embassy during Carter‚Äôs tenure, to providing support to the terrorists who bombed our Marines barracks in 1983, to its current material support of terrorists who are targeting American troops in Iraq, Iran has been at war with us for nearly 30 years. If we ever respond militarily, the response cannot be, ipso facto, preemptive.”
In 1953 the United States, under the C.I.A.’s Operation Ajax, deposed Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, because he had nationalized Iran’s oil and British oil interests were upset. Iran’s long memory of that travesty led to the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, and still haunts us today despite two decades of Iranian strivings for democracy (go to Blockbuster sometime and watch some Iranian films, and you’ll find some potent use of symbolism and yearning for freedom). We can only wonder how different Iran and the Middle East’s history might have been if not for America’s ludicrous intervention 54 years ago. We could wonder the same about Afghanistan if we had not aided what Reagan those who naively called “freedom fighters,” and on and on.
Tom, I agree that we must look at Scripture holistically: having done so, I still believe that the argument that Scripture requires strict pacifism is extraordinarily weak.
I also agree that many Iranians yearn for freedom.
It is, however, my understanding that Mosaddeq was appointed by Iran’s legislature before seizing power far beyond what Iranian law allowed, and it is my understanding that suspected Soviet influence was one of the motivating factors behind America’s support of the coup. To refer to Mosaddeq as democratically elected is a stretch and to suggest that our support was solely motivated by complaints by British oil is unfair. Despite your claim to be fair-minded about Bush and Saddam — both warmongering liars, hardly an accurate assessment — you still show a propensity to slant events against the U.S. as much as possible, almost to the absurd degree as to suggest that we are the source of most of the world’s ills.
Your position should be refuted for others’ sake, but I doubt progress could be made in persuading you that, despite our many flaws and mistakes, the world is a better place for our having a significant role in world affairs.
I’ll try not to continue to dominate this particular comment thread — thanks for indulging my doing so, Jeffrey — but I would like to know if I misunderstood Gushee, if he miswrote or if I misread him.
If Gushee isn’t a strict pacifist, I wish he would make that clear and not make arguments that tend to be used by strict pacifists. If he is a strict pacifist, I wish he wouldn’t argue that we as a nation should mourn and repent for this war in particular, because he would likely call for the same actions in response to any war.
“I doubt progress could be made in persuading you that, despite our many flaws and mistakes, the world is a better place for our having a significant role in world affairs.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, because that’s certainly a statement I’d agree with. Recognizing and pointing out that American military intervention in the Middle East has been counterproductive (and shattered countless lives) is a far cry from the myth of “blame America first.”
“you still show a propensity to slant events against the U.S. as much as possible, almost to the absurd degree as to suggest that we are the source of most of the world‚Äôs ills.”
Not really. I just happen to be an American whose studies have primarily focused on American history, and when America’s mistakes are brushed aside, excused, and even celebrated, it’s right and proper to offer a corrective. I’m not trying to slant at all, just to be as keen a student of policy as Lincoln was during the Polk administration–and to remember that I am foremost a citizen of God’s kingdom.
Mossadegh’s record was far from spotless, but he was democratically elected to parliament, and removing him by coup was a grave injury to Iran and democracy, with blowback we’re still facing today. To state that “Iran has been at war with us for nearly 30 years” without recognizing our role in the matter that goes back even further only makes needless bloodshed even more likely–and flames passions on both sides.
“the claim that Saddam had and was seeking WMD‚Äôs predates the Bush Administration.”
Absolutely. And the Bush administration publicly acknowledged Clinton’s success in addressing the situation before 9/11 gave them the opening to attack, and they started inventing stories of collusion with Al Qaeda, etc.
“and assert as ‚Äúfact‚Äù the claim that ‚Äúbeginning in the summer of 2002 the U.S. military began air campaigns over Iraq in the hopes of inspiring retaliatory action that could be used as a basis for war,‚Äù reading motive into the action.”
Bush proposed that the U.S. paint planes with U.N. colors. I think his motive was clear.
tompaulwheeler wrote:
Moreover, the entire Bush administration insisted that it knew where to find those mythical WMDs, with a bluster that should have been transparent to anyone–let alone committed Christians.
And you think Bush was lying to us — intentionally asserting that WMDs existed in places where he knew there wouldn’t be any WMDs — before he sent troops there to expose the fact that there weren’t any WMDs there? Bizarre.
It certainly would have been transparent to the non-Christian Abraham Lincoln . . .
. . . who militarily intervened to prevent the Southern states from asserting their independence, and in doing so, admitted he was giving the Constitution a rough ride, yes? And yet most people — apart from the strictest pacifists, I suppose — seem to approve of what he did, now.
skills0 wrote:
Governments use force to punish the criminal, those who break the nation’s laws. If you look the context of the passage, it doesn’t even make sense to apply this to war against another nation. I grew up Mennonite (obviously pacifist) and this is how is was always interpreted in our circles.
I grew up Mennonite too, and the thing to remember about Mennonite theology is that its starting point is not one of pacifism, per se, but one of church-state separation. Mennonites believe that Jesus calls his followers to live one way within the church, while the secular powers have been instituted by God to punish those who live outside the church. So Mennonites believe that the followers of Jesus should refrain from violent action, etc., but there is considerable debate within Mennonite circles over whether this standard ought to be imposed on secular authorities.
And as I said before, the line separating policemen from soldiers has been blurry or non-existent in many cultures, including the culture within which Paul wrote his letter to the Roman church. So it is not so easy to say that Paul’s comments were directed towards policework only and not towards military action.
“What about having an army to protect itself from having sovereign nations impose their will upon them?”
I would agree with this. However, our invasion of Iraq most definitely failed to meet that criteria. While I do not believe we were “lied” into the war, I believe we had leaders who knew what they wanted to do and only were interested in intelligence and info that supported that…enough that they did not scrutinize the information they were given-unless it contradicted their goal. I believe the President believed there were dangerous amounts of WMD stockpiled in Iraq. I also believe that any intelligence that might have suggested that he was wrong was rejected, at least from what I can tell.
Iraq was not imposing their will on us when we invaded…we were imposing our will on them.
“here are people in the West who have clearly and passionately desire to see us defeated, and they are lying through their teeth to convince us that we have been defeated. That many do so in the name of Christ is dispicable.”
But to be fair, there are also many lying through their teeth about how successful we have been in this war, many claiming America is doing God’s will in Iraq. It’s happening on both sides of the argument.
Peter, thanks for the clarification on Mennonite theology, that is a very good way to explain it. Much of the theology is definitely wrapped up in the idea of being separate from the world. In that sense, governments are kind of a necessary evil to do the dirty business of living in a fallen world, but Mennonites don’t want to be involved in a lot of that, including aggression or military service. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve found that position to be a bit naive in some ways, but I still think the use of aggression needs to be very much the last resort. On the flip side, if someone is hurting my family, I have a hard time figuring out where turning the other cheek comes into play. It’s certainly not easy. At any rate, I have a hard time reconciling my own current understanding of scripture with any kind of justification for this current war and I have felt that way since the very beginning.
“And you think Bush was lying to us ‚Äî intentionally asserting that WMDs existed in places where he knew there wouldn‚Äôt be any WMDs ‚Äî before he sent troops there to expose the fact that there weren‚Äôt any WMDs there? Bizarre.”
Bush claimed the Congressional resolution was to force Hussein’s hands so he’d allow inspectors in, and insisted that he really did want to avoid war. The gambit worked, Hussein allowed inspectors in, and sure enough, what people like Powell had believed two years earlier was true–Iraq had gotten rid of its weapons. But since Bush was bent on war, he ordered the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq and invaded anyway. Meanwhile people like Rumsfeld made infamous comments like, “We know where they [the WMDs] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” (March 30, 2003).
There are any number of similar quotes from various Bush administration officials that shouldn’t require hindsight to recognize as deception.
“I believe we had leaders who knew what they wanted to do and only were interested in intelligence and info that supported that‚Ķenough that they did not scrutinize the information they were given-unless it contradicted their goal. I believe the President believed there were dangerous amounts of WMD stockpiled in Iraq. I also believe that any intelligence that might have suggested that he was wrong was rejected, at least from what I can tell.”
Well said. Bush believed Hussein was hiding the truth (and he was, but not what Bush believed, as Hussein was trying to save face) because he himself was hiding the truth. It was projection.
skills0 wrote:
In that sense, governments are kind of a necessary evil to do the dirty business of living in a fallen world, but Mennonites don’t want to be involved in a lot of that, including aggression or military service.
Yeah. Although Mennonites are increasingly running for office, etc., at least in my country. And since maintaining an army and/or a police force is one of the primary duties — if not the primary duty — of a government, the fact that Mennonites are increasingly involved in their countries’ politics raises some interesting questions. E.g., could a Mennonite ever be the nation’s Commander-in-Chief?
At any rate, I have a hard time reconciling my own current understanding of scripture with any kind of justification for this current war and I have felt that way since the very beginning.
I can respect that. Though FWIW, I have never really known how one could apply scripture to this or any other war. It kind of depends on which verses you pick, and on how you choose to look at the war, doesn’t it? If you look at the war — or the Bible — from a different angle, or with a different set of lenses, then you will apply scripture to the war very differently.
tompaulwheeler wrote:
Bush claimed the Congressional resolution was to force Hussein’s hands so he’d allow inspectors in, and insisted that he really did want to avoid war. The gambit worked, Hussein allowed inspectors in . . .
I seem to recall there being some debate as to how clearly and loudly Saddam had really said “uncle” here. And given Saddam’s track record all through the 1990s, why should anyone have trusted him then?
. . . and sure enough, what people like Powell had believed two years earlier was true–Iraq had gotten rid of its weapons.
At least until such time as the United Nations had been bribed and guilt-tripped into lifting its sanctions, at any rate. But of course, we didn’t know that Iraq was bribing the United Nations — we didn’t know that Oil-for-Food was really Oil-for-Fraud — until after Saddam was kicked out of power, did we?
Meanwhile people like Rumsfeld made infamous comments like, “We know where they [the WMDs] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” (March 30, 2003).
There are any number of similar quotes from various Bush administration officials that shouldn’t require hindsight to recognize as deception.
I repeat, then: You are saying that Bush openly lied and then set out to openly expose the fact that he was lying? You are saying that Rumsfeld told people “The WMDs are at that address” and then set out to kick the door down, knowing that the house would be empty? Do you really believe that that was their strategy?
They insisted on certainty when that certainty didn’t exist (and in suggesting that the secular Saddam was in cahoots with fundamentalist al Qaeda so they could tie it in with 9/11, just made it up). They were so confident in their perception of how things must be that they were willing to kill to prove it. It’s said the first casualty of war is the truth, and in this case, the first people they deceived were themselves.
I’m not sure what’s difficult to grasp here. Just because people believe their own falsehoods doesn’t stop their words from being lies. They believed their own hype–not the least of which was that they were doing God’s will.
They insisted on certainty when that certainty didn’t exist . . .
Well, fine, anybody who insists on certainty about just about anything is involved in at least a little self-deception. But you don’t waste time exploring all the nuanced pros and cons when it’s time to take action; indeed, too much exploration can make actually doing something rather difficult (“analysis paralysis”, I believe it’s called). So people who had set an objective and were focused on achieving it did what they could to keep people focused on achieving that objective, rather than doubting that objective. No big whoop there.
. . . (and in suggesting that the secular Saddam was in cahoots with fundamentalist al Qaeda so they could tie it in with 9/11, just made it up).
Wrong, if there is any truth — any — to the claims made in stories like these:
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
It seems Saddam was in contact with al Qaeda, and possibly even gave them money, just as he donated money to other fundamentalist Muslim terrorists such as the Palestinian suicide bombers.
All of which just goes to show that the idea that “secular” Muslims would never work with “fundamentalist” Muslims, even when they share a common goal or a common enemy, is simply ridiculous. As anti-war activists never tire of pointing out, Osama bin Laden thought nothing of working with secular infidels in Afghanistan, back when Rambo and James Bond were fighting on behalf of the mujahedin (note that word’s relationship to “jihad”). So why would he turn down opportunities to exploit Saddam Hussein’s help?
They were so confident in their perception of how things must be that they were willing to kill to prove it.
Well, at some point someone had to be willing to kill to prove what Saddam did or did not have. There is no point in imposing sanctions and weapon-inspection requirements if you haven’t got the muscle to back up your demands and the will to use that muscle if the situation calls for it. And given how things dragged out during the 12-year ceasefire between 1991 and 2003, one can hardly blame Saddam for thinking that the U.S. and its allies didn’t have the will — not really — to use their muscle to enforce what needed enforcing in Iraq.
It’s said the first casualty of war is the truth, and in this case, the first people they deceived were themselves.
Even if that were true, that would hardly make them “liars” in the sense that most people use that term.
They believed their own hype–not the least of which was that they were doing God’s will.
You can support the Iraq War without appealing to “God’s will”. I certainly did. So did atheists like Christopher Hitchens. I may not be Mennonite any more, but I still believe in the separation of church and state — and that applies both when I’m talking to Christian warmongers and when I’m talking to Christian pacifists.
“Even if that were true, that would hardly make them ‚Äúliars‚Äù in the sense that most people use that term.”
They claimed they had proof of something they didn’t. That’s a lie any way, or anything, you call it.
“You can support the Iraq War without appealing to `God‚Äôs will.'”
Bush’s Christianity was a major part of his shtick in selling the war.
“Well, at some point someone had to be willing to kill to prove what Saddam did or did not have. There is no point in imposing sanctions and weapon-inspection requirements if you haven‚Äôt got the muscle to back up your demands and the will to use that muscle if the situation calls for it.”
Which was the whole point of what Congress voted on–to threaten an attack if Hussein didn’t reopen his labs for inspection. The fact that Hussein did so, however begrudgingly, should have meant, according to the resolution and Bush’s swearing up and down that he really didn’t want war, that America didn’t invade. But after a few weeks Bush told the inspectors to leave because he wanted the prestige he thought war would bring him.
“you don‚Äôt waste time exploring all the nuanced pros and cons when it‚Äôs time to take action”
There are some things worth being cautious about. Starting a war that could shatter or end hundreds of thousands of lives is one of them. It’s reported that the night America invaded, Bush gave a thumbs up and exclaimed, “Feels good!” That’s not the kind of thoughtful leadership America needs.
Personally, I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the criticisms of a man who both questions the sincerity of President Bush’s religious beliefs and attributes truly the worst possible motives to Bush’s decision to go to war; whose vicious attacks come so effortlessly and often; and whose accusations of dishonesty are made in the context of his own claims about Bush’s motives and innermost thoughts, claims that he could not possibly prove.