DISQUS

Don · 2 years ago

Amen, Rev. Wallis.

Peace,

JCinSunnyLA · 2 years ago

Bravo Jim!

The last thing the Christian community needs is another series of misguided Crusades to spread the Gospel of Christ by the sword. After all, isn't that what the Neocons have accused the Muslims of doing in regard to spreading their beliefs?

It is NOT a different world since 9-11, for "there is nothing new under the sun"--only IN the Only Begotten Son of God.

Moderatlelad · 2 years ago

The vitriol against Christian Iraq war dissenters from the handful of neocon war promoters who regularly clog the comments to this site forget both.

Thanks Jim for the label. I have engaged many on this site and don't believe that I have forgotten anything. I have been very respectful to others opinions even if I do not agree with them. But - thanks for broad brushing all of us with the same label - I am sure that those on the other side of the argument would be OK with someone doing the same with them. (NOT)

'...rigorous criteria of the "just war" from Augustine and...'

I have pointed out several that have used Augustine to say that we had fulfilled the requirements, but that must not matter. Charles Colson had several articles affirming the war with Iraq and Augustine. (Oh - maybe his association with former Pres Nixon negates him - I understand the logic - NOT)

We have an Ambassidor from the US to Iraq and I believe that he is working on a diplomatic solution to bring this war to an end. When was the last time that the US had an Ambassidor in Iraq prior to this one.

Question Jim

If this current war with Iraq is successful in bring peace to that region and the Iraqi people have their own gov't and have worked out their differences so that their is a peace there. Will you be happy with the outcome? Will you be pleased that the Iraqi people have a gov't that is theirs and not something like Saddam exploiting them? I am not asking for you to admit that you might have been wrong. Just will you be happy and can you support it if it works out.

Blessings -
.

jesse · 2 years ago

But let's turn from politics to theology and, even, ecclesiology. The vitriol against Christian Iraq war dissenters from the handful of neocon war promoters who regularly clog the comments to this site forget both.
--The monologue of the Religious Right is over! Let the new monologue begin!

Who's attacking whose faith? Who's calling who names?

I don't know whether I'm a "neo-con" or not. As far as the war in Iraq goes right now, I'm a pragmatist, and my goal is the best possible outcome for the Iraqi people. They want us over there to help them out. I think we have the moral obligation to help their government bring peace. This is, of course, completely consistent with Christian peacemaking principles.

Pastor Astor · 2 years ago

Well said! And I totally agree. It is very disturbing to see the mixture of nationalism and religion that somehow often passes for Christianity in the States.
Stop acting as crusaders and follow Christs example! For many, right now you are not the promised land but the land of opressors - a modern version of Babylonia or Rome!

jese · 2 years ago

But let's turn from politics to theology and, even, ecclesiology. The vitriol against Christian Iraq war dissenters from the handful of neocon war promoters who regularly clog the comments to this site forget both.
--The monologue of the Religious Right is over! Let the new monologue begin!

Who's attacking whose faith? Who's calling who names?

I don't know whether I'm a "neo-con" or not. As far as the war in Iraq goes right now, I'm a pragmatist, and my goal is the best possible outcome for the Iraqi people. They want us over there to help them out. I think we have the moral obligation to help their government bring peace. This is, of course, completely consistent with Christian peacemaking principles.

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

There is nothing new under the sun as per the conflation of religion with governments. Even Stalin decided during the darkest days of World War II to bring back the persecuted orthodox church temporarily to buttress his own military purposes.

It is particularly ironical, however, in a nation which claims to be founded upon separation of church from state control.

What is new, however, with enormous danger to life on the planet, is the Armageddon-style destructive capabilities of a nuclear-armed or now, thermobaric-armed planet.

The self-identification of American Christianity and even missionary zeal with an aggressive nationalistic hegemony is typified by my own denomination's web page, which has a statement about missions to the world superimnposed over a large graphic of the flag.

This is the largest protestant denomination in America, the Southern Baptist Conference.

I think we're coming full circle to our original founding provincialism, which was based on propping up the narrow antebellum culture of the old South, including most particularly slavery, by trumpeting it as God's will. It's not that otherwise reprehensible ideas can't sound enormously spiritual and capture millions if couched in the right emotional terms - Baptist preacher Thomas Dixon Jr. was one of the most popular speakers and writers of his day, writing The Clansman, which D.W. Griffith transformed into his silent classic, Birth of a Nation. The loudest nationally triumphant rhetoric of American Christians has the distinct echo of that old narrow and self-serving sectarian appeal that is nothing more than flattery.

There is no doubt that conflating the Christian message with that of militarism, even so far as comparing soldiers' tragic deaths in the performance of their own killing of others, as being identical to Christ's own saving sacrifice for us, is one that will win no genuine converts to Christianity at all.

It will result in the unfair discrediting of the real Christian message which is the sole hope of any of us, and thereby multiply evil in the world.

kevin s. · 2 years ago

"But let's turn from politics to theology and, even, ecclesiology. The vitriol against Christian Iraq war dissenters from the handful of neocon war promoters who regularly clog the comments to this site forget both."

I can't speak for all the neocon war promoters, but I have forgotten neither. I simply disagree that a presumption against war mandates that we continue a failed tract of diplomacy and sanctions with a man who spent 13 year defying UN mandates.

That is a political issue, not a theological issue. Before the war, Wallis proposed a plan that would somehow take Saddam out of power without causing any unrest. Without discussing the relative merits of this idea, I would say that the charming thing about hypotheticals is that one has the opportunity to select their own outcome.

"Or, from the perspective of the Christian warriors who try to dominate the commentary section of this blog, what do they know that world Christianity has yet to learn?"

I don't know what you mean by Christian warrior, and I am not sure why I have to teach the world something in order to hold my opinion. I hold a minority opinion among world Christians on a lot of issues, I suspect. I simply disagree with them.

"Many American Christians are simply more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ. "

While this is true, to use our viewpoint on Iraq policy to determine whether we are loyal to the body of Christ would be like me using the issue of legal abortion to determine who is loyal.

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

I keep hearing assertions from some that a particular war satisfies Augustine's Just War Theory.

However, I have not seen any actual evidence that it does so except to simply repeat as a mantra that it does. None of the ministries I know of personally (and which I receive materials from) that claim it have bothered to show their supporters that line-by-line criteria or evidence.

Just War Theory has a whole list of evaluations that must entirely be met to satisfy its criteria.

I would be very interested to have the entire list of Augustine's Just War criteria outlined and show how it has been satisfied.

Ben Wheaton · 2 years ago

So, what Wallis is saying is that Christians should march in political lock-step with the global church? I think not. Christians can disagree on political issues, including those of war, without excommunicating each other. I think Rev. Wallis is assuming that just because other Christians around the world agree with him they ought to be listened to. Many evangelicals in other countries are just as compromised by their own nations' perspectives as Americans are. In Singapore, did you ever here a Singaporean Christian attack the authoritarian regime of Lee Kuan Yew? I never did, I can tell you that. Wallis assumes that if only we were better Christians we would have opposed the war. Ever heard of something called "different judgments," Rev. Wallis? People can have the same information and the same theology and yet come to different conclusions.

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

I am entirely comfortable with the idea that it is hypocrisy to be for abortion and against war, or against abortion and for war!

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

I don't know what you mean by Christian warrior, and I am not sure why I have to teach the world something in order to hold my opinion. I hold a minority opinion among world Christians on a lot of issues, I suspect. I simply disagree with them.

In American Christian culture, often "might makes right." That is, if you can simply intimidate or overwhelm the enemy you will make your case -- which is how the "world" thinks. Well, that mentality began to disintegrate when Clinton was elected, then re-elected and has since been exposed as non-sensical in Iraq. God, in other words, is not impressed by numbers because, well, He ultimately runs the show anyway.

Christians can disagree on political issues, including those of war, without excommunicating each other. I think Rev. Wallis is assuming that just because other Christians around the world agree with him they ought to be listened to.

You miss Wallis' point -- it's not always about his views. Rather, we American evangelicals need to ask our "siblings" who don't live in this country about their perspective on Biblical issues, which may not jibe with ours. Too often we Americans think we're always or ultimately right.

Ever heard of something called "different judgments," Rev. Wallis? People can have the same information and the same theology and yet come to different conclusions.

True. But not all views are valid in themselves -- they must be put to the test.

Wolverine · 2 years ago

Well, now that we have your attention...

Jim Wallis wrote:

The fragile security improvements are not sustainable without a political solution, which is simply not forthcoming.

Well, at least now we are starting to acknowledge, however grudgingly, the changes in conditions inside Iraq that Petraeus actually testified about. But I wonder how you can be so certain that a political solution will not be forthcoming, given that at least some of the political goals set by the administration have been achieved, even if the overall pace of political unification has been dissappointing?

And without a clear path to political progress, the realization that what Petraeus proposes, and President Bush will likely endorse tonight, is simply more of the same failed strategy, and a scenario of American occupation, in the midst of bloody sectarian warfare with absolutely no end in sight.

No end in sight? Among the many metrics that has turned the right way after the surge was a reduction in sectarian attacks.

And contrary to some comments on this site, I have suggested several times an alternative strategy...Permanent U.S. military bases and unique American claims to future oil revenues and contracts for Iraqi reconstruction are among the U.S. prerogatives that would have to be sacrificed for such international solutions to be possible -- along with a massive American financial commitment to rebuild the shattered country

Sorry Jim, that isn't a strategy, that's a set of conditions. That's not to say that they aren't meant in a constructive way, but ultimately we need to know not just what the US may not do, but what the US can do.

But let's turn from politics to theology and, even, ecclesiology. The vitriol against Christian Iraq war dissenters from the handful of neocon war promoters who regularly clog the comments to this site forget both.

Now we move closer to the heart of things.

I have never been ashamed of the title of Neocon. Whether me and the rest of the cabal have managed to "clog the comments" is debatable, Jim's defenders have certainly made their presence felt. But it should be remembered that "neoconservatism" is a school of political thought, not theology. Blaming "neocons" is a distraction -- the debate between Christian pacifists and just war theorists, and the debate over just how to apply the criteria of Just War, both go back long before the days of Norman Podhoretz and Leo Strauss.

Because of my work and transatlantic family ties, I travel extensively around the world, frequently talk to others who also do, regularly read the international press, frequently host international Christian leaders, and often attend international Christian gatherings.

Good for you. Did it ever occur to you that some of us may have Christian friends from outside of the country, or read the international press as well?

So if the international body of Christ generally doesn't support America's war in Iraq, or U.S. foreign policy generally, what do some American Christians know that the rest of the global Christian community doesn't? Is the rest of the church just wrong? Do we have access to information that they don't have?

Well, that is a conundrum. I don't have any easy answers but I can say that the majority is not always right -- even if it's a majority of the global church.

(Actually, they have much more access to information and different perspectives than most Americans have, which is a big part of the problem.)

A revealing parenthetical: especially with the world wide web, I would argue that there is very little that Americans do not have access to. Could you give some concrete examples of information that Americans cannot access that the rest of the world can?

Personally, to be frank, I think it is because far too many American Christians are simply Americans first and Christians second. The statement that got the most enthusiastic response in Singapore was not about politics but ecclesiology, "We are to be Christians first, and members of nations or tribes second." That simple affirmation, if ever applied, would utterly transform the relationship of American Christians to the policies of their own government.

Do you think that nationalism is exclusively an American problem? How do you know that your brothers from other countries are not thinking of their own national interest at some point.

Americans have a history of being very "in your face" about patriotism, but nationalism does not have to be out front, it can be quieter and more reserved but still affect ones judgment. And there are also national resentments. Can you be sure that what lies behind much of the opposition to the war is not, at bottom, plain resentment of American prosperity, freedom, and military prowess?

You're from Michigan, so you probably are aware that Michigan State fans can take as much pleasure from a Michigan loss as from an MSU win. This is something we call Schadenfreude, taking satisfaction from the downfall of a powerful rival. It's often associated with envy and resentment. Now schadenfreude is an understandable human feeling -- I won't pretend to be above it myself -- but while it's very powerful it's not exactly the basis of good public policy.

But I won't assume that those who disagree with me are motivated by ill-will towards my country. It's the Christian thing to presume good faith. I think it's much better to assume that our disagreements are based on honest differences of opinion, rather than jingoism on one hand and resentment on the other.

Wouldn't you agree?

Wolverine

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

...still no Just War criteria and how it's met...

Wolverine · 2 years ago

NM Rod,

It's been a long time since you guys have gone through the breakdown of right authority, right ends, and right means yourselves. I'll admit that if I knew then what I know now I'd be less enthused about the whole venture myself. But what's been done has been done, what we now have to decide is what is to be done with Iraq today.

Leaving the Iraqis to the tender mercies of the Iranians strikes me as even worse than American occupation, and I have yet to see a plan from you guys where there isn't a real risk that the Iranians wouldn't wind up taking over the place outright.

Wolverine

electriclady281 · 2 years ago

It's easy to note that nationally we are split between staying the course and withdrawing from iraq; what's not so easy to understand is why american power players have reduced this enormous decision that will affect the entire world's future to a simplistic "stay" or "go" level with virtually no discussion of the gray area, like discussions on what to do with this problem that we created other than to make it worse by either staying or going. Noticeably absent are power players rebuilding bridges to the "coalition of the willing" as well as the other nations of the world, including present enemies, who are former friends, or even across political divides. How can this lead to any kind of resolution, let alone peace?

I cannot side with either group. My plea is for communication across all chasms to find a way for us all to peacefully co-exist and share. It can be done.

Steve · 2 years ago

Wolverine writes:
"I'll admit that if I knew then what I know now I'd be less enthused about the whole venture myself. But what's been done has been done, what we now have to decide is what is to be done with Iraq today."

It is true that we must decide responsibly what to do with the current situation, without recriminations of the past.

It is also true that we should not dismiss the (embarrassing) past, but rather learn from it. A particularly good lesson to learn from our ill-causing entry into Iraq is that the Just War theory can be twisted to justify pretty bad behavior.

Violence begets violence.

Continuing to inject violence into Iraq (in the form of U.S. occupation) is not solving anything. Far from suppressing sectarian violence, the case can be made that U.S. occupation is encouraging it.

There are no easy solutions. Ever increasing force (starting with Shock and Awe and surging up from there) has too often been accepted as an easy solution. It hasn't worked.

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

The presumption has to be against war for the Christian - as opposed to Julius' Caesar's "Veni, Vidi, Vici" - "I came, I saw, I conquered."

It's an abdication of Christian responsibility to say "you guys haven't done one either" if there's not even a detailed Just War evaluation ever seriously been made.
It's really for those who decide to go to war to have make that justification in a serious way, rather than assuming presumtuously that war is the immediate and best option unless someone, somewhere can come up with an impossibly high barreir to it. This really pushes the novel ethical concept of pre-emptive war into an even more radical orbit - that of presumptive war.

First of all, I'm not "one of you guys" - the dread OTHER - but someone who believed my spiritual elders and political leaders - sometimes the same people I thought then - when they said it did satisfy the criteria.

Not thinking through the ethical implications of how we got here means we don't even understand how mistakes were made. That sets us up to just continue to compound them.

I do grant that there could be a detailed consideration of Just War Theory from here on in - but that requires examining the situation now and the proposed solutions to see how the second portion of Just War Theory - the portion that regards the just conduct of a war once begun - would play out according to its precepts.

At this point, I haven't seen either. I just see a glossing over quickly to avoid seriously looking at any real subjection to the standards of Just War Theory. This implies that there's a realisation that looking closely would reveal an unsustainable position in regards to Just War Theory and that it would quickly be rendered quaint and obsolete.

I really am ready to be convinced by the facts that invoking Just War Theory for the Christian base of the GOP is for real and not just a convenient but ultimately empty motto. But that requires making a fair-minded and serious case for what's to be done now according to its precepts.

I am really afraid that it's been another case of failing to address the details and the consequences as well as a failure to get first principles right. This is called sacrificing reason and logic to ideology, a recurring human problem.

splinterlog · 2 years ago

Good for you. Did it ever occur to you that some of us may have Christian friends from outside of the country, or read the international press as well?

(Feeling a bit combative after reading this so I'd ask the gentle spirits on this forum to forgive this outburst)

I can't speak for Jim but I doubt very much that many of your lot do! Have you travelled much Wolverine? Ever lived outside the great US of A for more than a couple of years at a time? How many friends do you have who currently live in the Arab Gulf region? I can count several for each of these myself. I'm not a "better" person for all of that but at least I can testify to having an alternate and more credible perspective than Fox News.

So let me get this right. When it comes to giving gay brothers and sisters the opportunity to have their unions blessed in the Church, your lot screams bloody murder and accusing us of ignoring the worldwide Christian community's concerns over the issue (c/o Nigeria). But when it comes to the war, the worldwide Christian community doesn't matter to your lot. Have I got that right?

I'm not quite sure when the wheels of the Patriotic Christianity are going to fall off the wagon - having watched he film "Jesus Camp" I think there may be some remnants into the next generation. However, having talked to my friends and family in Texas, Oklahoma and Florida I get the feeling that they have slowly come to the horrific realization that they have been colossally duped into supporting this war by an administration that has shown by its actions that, apart from lip service, it doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the Gospel.

elsa · 2 years ago

Jim Wallis wrote,"Many American Christians are simply more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ. I want to suggest that the two are now in conflict, and we must decide to whom to we ultimately belong. That's the real issue."

I challenge Jim Wallis, based on that statement, to write any article condeming abortion in the name of choice.

Chris Promis · 2 years ago

Jim,
I heartily support your stance but notice at toward the end you twice speak of American Christians while you argue that we should be Christian Americans. Our faith should influence our politics and not our politics influence out faith.

Leland Somers · 2 years ago

Part of the problem is that Christianity today has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If anyone bothers to read Mark, Matthew, Luke and even John, one is quickly struck by the fact that Jesus is a person form whom justice and peace are focal points of his ministry. It is trough the ministry of restoring individuals to community and wholeness that Jesus indicates that the Kingdom of God is already present among human beings.

By the end of the fourth century Christianity had pretty much left Jesus the healer and reconciler in the dust of the ages and invented a new Jesus in the image of the Emperor, Constantine. What the church has proclaimed ever since is the warrior deity in the guise of Jesus the man of peace. That is what we are stuck with today.

What we need is a profound and radical reformation that will actually strip away the imperial Christ and return us to the religion and teachings of that peasant from Nazareth, Jesus. This Jesus who taught and more importantly lived the Kingdom values is the one who condemned violence against others under any and all circumstances. Jesus would have either laughed or wept hysterically at the nonsensical idea of a "just war".

The Emperor then 312 and the Emperor today 2007 need a compliant religion. They need and want and get from most Christians a religion so perverted and so alien from Jesus of Nazareth that I for one am convinced that if he were to walk through the door of 99.9% of churches on any given Sunday he would be appalled and disgusted. He would head for the nearest Synagogue and probably wouldn't care for that much either.

Christianity today has refocused on "pie in the sky when I die by and by" leaving the real work of religion justice, mercy and peace here in the world we actually live in. Jesus had almost nothing to say about a place of eternal bliss, but he had a lot to say about the sick, the hungry and the marginalized in this world.

Christianity will contribute little or nothing to peace unless it stops being just another pagan warrior cult.

Leland Somers · 2 years ago

Part of the problem is that Christianity today has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If anyone bothers to read Mark, Matthew, Luke and even John, one is quickly struck by the fact that Jesus is a person form whom justice and peace are focal points of his ministry. It is trough the ministry of restoring individuals to community and wholeness that Jesus indicates that the Kingdom of God is already present among human beings.

By the end of the fourth century Christianity had pretty much left Jesus the healer and reconciler in the dust of the ages and invented a new Jesus in the image of the Emperor, Constantine. What the church has proclaimed ever since is the warrior deity in the guise of Jesus the man of peace. That is what we are stuck with today.

What we need is a profound and radical reformation that will actually strip away the imperial Christ and return us to the religion and teachings of that peasant from Nazareth, Jesus. This Jesus who taught and more importantly lived the Kingdom values is the one who condemned violence against others under any and all circumstances. Jesus would have either laughed or wept hysterically at the nonsensical idea of a "just war".

The Emperor then 312 and the Emperor today 2007 need a compliant religion. They need and want and get from most Christians a religion so perverted and so alien from Jesus of Nazareth that I for one am convinced that if he were to walk through the door of 99.9% of churches on any given Sunday he would be appalled and disgusted. He would head for the nearest Synagogue and probably wouldn't care for that much either.

Christianity today has refocused on "pie in the sky when I die by and by" leaving the real work of religion justice, mercy and peace here in the world we actually live in. Jesus had almost nothing to say about a place of eternal bliss, but he had a lot to say about the sick, the hungry and the marginalized in this world.

Christianity will contribute little or nothing to peace unless it stops being just another pagan warrior cult.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

But I wonder how you can be so certain that a political solution will not be forthcoming, given that at least some of the political goals set by the administration have been achieved, even if the overall pace of political unification has been dissappointing?

If you get a hold of Gwynne Dyer's column published recently (today in my paper), it will explain that.

A revealing parenthetical: especially with the world wide web, I would argue that there is very little that Americans do not have access to. Could you give some concrete examples of information that Americans cannot access that the rest of the world can?

Considering that in the run-up to war the Bush Administration virtually intimidated the domestic MSM, I understand that statement. (I wish I'd been watching BBC America at that time.)

Do you think that nationalism is exclusively an American problem? How do you know that your brothers from other countries are not thinking of their own national interest at some point.

It is exclusively an American problem where Christians are involved -- and that was the point.

Can you be sure that what lies behind much of the opposition to the war is not, at bottom, plain resentment of American prosperity, freedom, and military prowess?

The genesis of that kind of arrogant statement is behind much of it -- because it assumes that we're always right when we historically have pursued our own interests at the expense of everyone else's. Just because we believe they do that doesn't mean we should.

You're from Michigan, so you probably are aware that Michigan State fans can take as much pleasure from a Michigan loss as from an MSU win. This is something we call Schadenfreude, taking satisfaction from the downfall of a powerful rival. It's often associated with envy and resentment.

Does that explain your contempt for anyone who's not a conservative? Such as Wallis? (Of course, a few folks in Ohio aren't exactly unhappy that the U of M hasn't won a football game yet.)

rgv · 2 years ago

Amen, Mr. Wallis, Amen.

how sad to read the excuses and gross "Christian morality" of these bloggers.

war is hell.

and chosen occupation is evil. period. there exists no earthly or heavenly excuse. not one.

Mark Miller · 2 years ago

I agree with you that far too many Christians are living a double life: trying to be faithful to the Gospel and trying to be faithful Americans. Sometimes that is impossible to do; after all, Jesus told us, "you cannot serve two Masters." I believe we have confused being "patriotic" with being "nationalistic." I do not believe being "nationalistic" is a virtue. We must always be concerned about how our policies impact the lives of other nations especially the poor and voiceless. We have a song that we sing on all of our national holidays which I believe expresses the truth of the Gospel as well as being "patriotic."
This is my song, O God of all the nations,
A song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
But other hearts in other lands are beating
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine;
But other lands have sunlight too, and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
O hear my song, thou God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.

Greg · 2 years ago

Thanks Jim for encouraging Christians to rally under the Christian Flag, rather than a national emblem. This is the first step for us American Christians to become a part of the international body of Christ. Many of us have become so obsessed with politics and current events that we have lost any contact with a Christian worldview.

All that being affirmed, I can't help but believe that a just war is better than an unrighteous peace. Unfortunately many on the Peace side of the street are peace at any cost proponents. This does nothing to promote the Christian agenda any more than the war lovers do.

And what about Geo. Bush? A Christian? Our brother? A sinner being saved by grace? An imperfect human serving at the pleasure of God? A human trying to discern God's will and do it? I'm not sure, but it seems like our call is to prayer, because rhetoric creates enlightenment, but doesn't impress God. If Geo. B. is listening to God - the same one we are interceding with - then just maybe he will hear some new direction, or some Divine wisdom leading him to better decisions.

PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!

G.Davis

Marymcgillicuddy · 2 years ago

Having lived outside the US for the past twenty years, I can affirm what Rev. Wallis has observed about the European perspective on the Iraq war. It seems good to me that we American Christians might at least be made curious by the fact that so many of our fellow believers have another point of view. Isn't it the proper path of humility to consider that others might have wisdom where we lack it? Aren't we at least interested to know what the Spirit of God might be saying to someone else, that we cannot hear? And vice versa...hopefully they learn from us in turn.

We are one body. That means we need each other; and each other's wisdom.

I think it is fairly clear that we as Christians are meant to have a proper distance from culture. Miroslav Wolf says "Through faith one must depart from one's culture because the ultimate allegiance is given to God and God's Messiah who transcends every culture." This doesn't mean becoming culture-less, or taking flight into a new Christian culture, but that by being freed by the gospel to step outside my own culture, I can have a "vantage point from which to perceive and judge the self and the other not simply on their own terms but in the light of God's new world."

On this sensitive and critical issue--how as believers to respond to the present situation in Iraq--aren't we better to judge ourselves before the other? And who can help us look at ourselves better than a fellow believer? From who else can we expect such kindness and such truth? Can we not listen to our European brothers and sisters, in case we might be helped?

Christine · 2 years ago

Thank you Mr. Wallis for being the voice of reason in the midst of chest pounding and arrogance. The Iraqi people, even now, want to do this on their own. They realize our presence brings more violence. They need the help of almmost "anyone but the US" at this point to restore peace and humanitarian conditions to their country.

Rev. Ian Alterman · 2 years ago

I would like to parse something that Jesse said:

"As far as the war in Iraq goes right now, I'm a pragmatist, and my goal is the best possible outcome for the Iraqi people."

Even if it is not in the best interests of the U.S., and particularly the lives of American men and women? I.e, are you suggesting that we should simply continue to sacrifice life after U.S. life (to say nothing of Iraqi civilians) - no matter how many or for how long - as long as the "outcome" is the "best possible" one for the Iraqis? You need to rethink this line of reasoning.

"They want us over there to help them out."

No they don't. Every poll taken in the past two years shows an INCREASE in the number of people - both "professional" politicians and the general populace - who want us out of there. Indeed, the last Iraqi-led quasi-referendum on this showed that well over 65% of Iraqis want us out of there.

"I think we have the moral obligation to help their government bring peace. This is, of course, completely consistent with Christian peacemaking principles."

So "war = peace?" Ever heard of Orwell? Here again, your reasoning is faulty - and dangerous.

Few if any of the pro-war people here will accept that one cannot impose democracy from the top down, nor from the barrel of a gun. You all need to read ALOT more about what it takes to create a successful, working democracy. (And you can find this in many of the magazines that cater to people of "your" persuasion (i.e., neocons and other conservatives)). When you DO read it, you will realize that virtually NONE of the prerequisites for a successful, working democracy exists in Iraq right now - nor are likely to even if we stay.

Finally, although I utterly reject the entire notion of "just war" despite Augustine et al, even if I accepted the concept it would be an INCREDIBLE stretch to call the unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change in a sovereign nation "just" by ANY rubric - particularly when the entire war was "sold" to the U.S. and the world through a series of lies, spin, dissembling and obfuscation.

Peace. (Hopefully...)

Eileen Fleming · 2 years ago

What about the Palestinian Christians?

Their numbers have declined from 20% of the total population of the 'Holy' Land to less than 1.3% since 1948.

I have been to Israel Palestine 5 times in 2 years and every indigenous Christian of the 'Holy' Land I have spoken with all tell me the same thing:

WHY don't the American Christians do something to help us?

I ask WHAT can I do and they respond:

"TELL OUR STORIES"


I have!

Every priest and pastor I spoke with all tell me that unless things change VERY SOON, there will be no Christian witness left in the 'Holy Land' and the churches will all be just museums.


Four years of occupation in Iraq and 40 years of the Occupation of Palestine, when Jesus only endured 40 days in the desert should give every thinking compassionate Christian pause and provoke them to DO SOMETHING!


All roads lead to Jerusalem and I hope and pray Sojo will connect the dots and get on board that until the occupation of Palestine ends, the occupation of Iraq will NOT!


Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu."

Ray · 2 years ago

Another amen.

Ignorance -- try bothering to check reputable sources beyond the few from one's own country one already agrees with -- and nation before faith are doing horrible damage to the lives of ordinary people and to the perception of Christianity. Even if a Christian believes war is an option, it should not be about taking resources, setting up a permanent occupation, etc... and should be done with weeping and wailing, as an absolute last resort, imploring God for a better option, not entered as if to prove a point, exact revenge, protect interests or win a game.

Eileen M. Harrington · 2 years ago

As someone who comes from a family in which 2 brothers are in military service, and one is about to head back over to Iraq, I want to affirm Jim's stance. I also want to refute the above commenter who says he's a pragmatist. The amount of money we are spending on this war is far, far from practical for our economy and for our people who don't even have healthcare. Secondly, if you study the history of the Middle East you will know for a FACT that peace will not be created the way the USA has acted as a colonizing power. We say we are promoting peace in the Middle East, but no peace is created in a country where most of the resources are sold to the highest bidder, where neoliberal economics as practiced by the USA and most of the world means that natural resources go to the highest bidder, wages drop and stay low because that's how you compete to get business, tax incentives are provided for overseas business that place corporations in Iraq and hire people at 60 cents an hour creating a permanent lower class, and things like funding for education, health care, social security and safety nets such as unemployment benefits are considered a luxury not to be incorporated in this model, if at all possible. Iraq, post USA and without an international body looking out for the welfare of the people, will be a multinational corporation heaven that will quickly become a hell as people continue to revolt against this neoliberal, destructive economic model. Whether we get out now (which I totally support) or get out later, that Iraqi people have been screwed with the treasures divided amongst the rich and powerful. And, this is not the first time this has been done by the USA or other countries. Study colonialism -- there were so many "good reasons" to invade countries all over the world to free them from "X" and what it was really for was the natural resources and cheap labor that enriched the Empire that invaded. All those countries still struggle with independence and working democracy and economic systems. That will be Iraq, if its lucky, in 50 years.

Rev. Ian Alterman · 2 years ago

I just want to say that Leland Somers' post should be required reading for everyone here - and every Christian in the U.S. It is the most on-target post I have read thus far. Bravo to you, Mr. Somers! Feel encouraged that you are not the only one who feels as you do!! Peace.

Adrienne Lannom · 2 years ago

You're framing the issue with a hard reality. That we may have to choose between God and country is difficult even when war may be "justified." The disconnect between provocation (the 9-11-02 attacks) and the war against Iraq is so great that a lot of folks have simply chosen to ignore or forget it. The damage inflicted on our country by our leaders in both the executive and legislative branches has been huge. As a believing and practicing Christian in America, I embrace Alan Jones' statement that being a person of faith means engaging in a conversation where no one has the last word. We need to ask the right questions, not force our answers on others.
Shalom

jesse · 2 years ago

"Many American Christians are simply more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ."--Jim Wallis

"how sad to read the excuses and gross "Christian morality" of these bloggers."--rgv

It is noteworthy that the people attacking the faith of those with whom they disagree politically are mainly liberal on this site. Wallis, of course, does this more than anyone. For all the complaints left-leaning people have made about conservatives telling them that Christians can't be liberals, a lot of people on the left seem happy to commit the same mistakes.

Rev. David J. Smith · 2 years ago

Rev. Wallis is a gem - keeping the debate real for all those who follow Christ first. We have an amazing Christian Church throughout the world and we have so much to gain through our open dialog with it. Too bad we believe in the American Christian church so much so we have allowed people like Rev. Wallis to be treated as 'traitors.' We are blessed by your insightful scripture-based truth-telling.

It is clear that the Iraq War has reached its hubris. There are limits to everything and it is folly not to realize what they are. The words of Bertrand Russell are applicable here: "I think freedom is not a panacea. In the relationship between nations there ought to be less freedom than there is. I think that freedom must have very definite limitations, where you come to things that are definitely harmful to other people, or things that prevent you yourself from being useful, such as lack of knowledge."

War, in the specific case of Iraq is not useful.
It is clear that President Bush has no real knowledge of the world, its Church and how blessed are the peacemakers. As President Bush and key war advocates continue on their ego trip -we should ask the question: "Is his particular ego trip helpful to other people or not?" I believe the world community has shouted clearly - no! We should listen and pray and act for peace.

Mike · 2 years ago

"Personally, to be frank, I think it is because far too many American Christians are simply Americans first and Christians second"

You've hit the nail on the head. Our loyalty is to be first, second and third to Christ. Not of this world ... not even of this nation. I love my country, but love my Lord more. Christians should not sanction anything that hurts the cause of Christ and goes against his teaching, much less wrap such things in religious/Christian trappings.

We are also told not to fear. And to take up the sword of the truth. Fear-mongering and dissimilation are, unfortunately, far more common tools used by those who favor current policies.

Mick Sheldon · 2 years ago

This is an amazing perspective Mr Wallis . I am against our policy in Iraq , just the fact we are relying on another nation "Iraq" political integrity and acceptance for their people is enough to question putting our men and women in harm's way . I have been told by liberals here my son is not a Christian because he is in the armed services on this site .

Not to mention a General who served under other Presidents , even dealing In Bosnia , was picked with full support of the Senate to lead what I consider an impossible mission has been questioned by a leftist organization, and the liberal leftist attack machinne with his honesty and loyalty to his country . Now you question Christians beliefs if they don't agree with both of us , that this war is wrong .

You remind of a Pharisee Mr . Wallis . Sometimes Christians disagree , sometimes they agree . I question you why you feel no concern over the kinds of organizations that so readily support your views and in this case mine. But instead of concern that it just so happebns the folks who support abortion rights to an extreme , also syupport your views here does not make you wonder that perhaps you look at things the same way or that you receive ALL your information from the same leftist places . Does not it bother you that you realize you attacj yoour fellow brothers and sisters , and defend those who put grenades into their shirt pockets and walk into areas with women and children , yet your major concern is America , unless it is to your benefit of speaking about Christian views outside of America . I suggest you anaylze Christian Views is Europe concerning Jews for instance , or is only Christian Evangelical views you hold accountable ?


When we stormed the beaches of Normandy , we did not question the loyalty of our military leaders , nor should we question this General's loyalty without proof , just political expediency is what you offer . The difference is only that the mission of Normandy had a greater support among Americans , but the job of our military leaders is not to try harder because of polls , but to their job . So people such as yourself , can claim a higher morality . And people as myself only pray that one day we can have a civic discourse that is not lowerd to this level , and leave so many Christians , from the right or left out of the discourse . I for one , see this war as a mess, and see the vitrolic comments from a majority of the leftist here , as they clap your message on at the cost of Christian love and a united church . A church that neither may I remind you of , that because of our own merit , are not worthy to be in .

martha ward · 2 years ago

I did not think we should go into Iraq. We went.
As a Christian and a member of the world community
I do think that we now have a responsibility to fix what we have destroyed. We can not fix the difference in ideology, but the infrastructure which is gone can be fixed when our arms become plowshares and tools for rebuilding.

these guys kill me · 2 years ago

among other things, wolverine said:

"Well, at least now we are starting to acknowledge, however grudgingly, the changes in conditions inside Iraq that Petraeus actually testified about."

and

"No end in sight? Among the many metrics that has turned the right way after the surge was a reduction in sectarian attacks."

i assume you were careful not to make a causal connection between the surge and these improvements you mention. the surge did NOT result in a reduction in sectarian attacks, nor is the reduction in sectarian attacks any kind of measure of the political situation. the reduction in sectarian attacks is the result of a massive restructuring of iraqi society along strict sunni/shia/kurd boundaries - not exactly the desired result for a stable, unified iraq.

the key is the political situation. and in fact, just in the last few days, the political situation has worsened. there is no peace without political reconciliation. and by all measures, we are not headed in that direction.

the only security improvements we've seen have not been the result of us policy, they are the result of iraqis resenting al qaeda foreigners even more than they resent us.

Daryl Allen · 2 years ago

Amen, also.
When Jesus said, "Do not say 'Do not say we have Abraham as our father...." He was warning them first, but us and anyone else that we should not have our nationality as our first identity. Our salvation depends on God's grace that is for all peoples not one more than another. But you say this better than I do. Thank you

Jean Mellberg · 2 years ago

Dear Jim,

I just turned 75 and in all my years as a Christian I have never witnessed such hypocrisy as I have seen from the so called Christian neo-cons.

If they have ever read the New Testament & the teachings of Jesus Christ it is a no brainer to see the good Lord wants us to love one another & to forgive one another.

Just what are they trying to convince of anyway?
That profit first and everyone and everything else second. They don't fool an old fool.
Wake up dear souls to the reality of what you are saying. And may God forgive you.

Blessings

Richard Nauck · 2 years ago

For both sides of this argument....
Remember who is watching your arguments....
I am.
And as one who is intrigued and can I say, even drawn, to your idea of Christianity, I have to ask one question.
What is it you invite me to?
The chasm that exists between your ideals of Christian love, peace and community, and the evidence that exists on the pages of responses to this blog, is wider than the Grand Canyon.
It is often spoken that the way to peace in Iraq is for the Sunni's and Shia to reconcile...after months of reading this blog and its many detractors, I would have to say that Sunni's and Shia have a better chance at reconciliation than the American Church does.
Again I ask, what is it you invite me to? Because if it is this, its not much of an offering.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Someone more cultured, more globalist, and more open-minded than nearly everyone wrote:
"Good for you. Did it ever occur to you that some of us may have Christian friends from outside of the country, or read the international press as well?

"(Feeling a bit combative after reading this so I'd ask the gentle spirits on this forum to forgive this outburst)"

I can't speak for Jim but I doubt very much that many of your lot do! Have you travelled much Wolverine? Ever lived outside the great US of A for more than a couple of years at a time? How many friends do you have who currently live in the Arab Gulf region? I can count several for each of these myself. I'm not a "better" person for all of that but at least I can testify to having an alternate and more credible perspective than Fox News."

This is a fine display of arrogance. Not nearly as arrogant as Wallis' post, but a nice illustration of the snobbery that the left often harbors for those too "provincial" enough to not assent to their politics.

I won't catalog how you are just plain wrong in your assumptions, but I will say that last time I checked - radical empiricism and experientialism is not what it takes to form informed opinions. This is a favorite sleight of hand preferred by those who are threatened by opposing viewpoints. Rather than interact with those viewpoints on their own merit and form a genuine refuation, it is so much easier to claim, you have no personal experience to validate your position.

I find Wallis' defensiveness interesting. A neo-conservative cabal? Right here in the comments? It's curious how the evangelical left is quite good and comfortable with criticizing their conservative brothers and sisters, but incapable of criticism of their political stances. Honestly, the lack of rigor and sophistication in Sojourner's positions makes one sad for the current state of affairs. Wallis' posts this week prove he is still re-living his New Left youth, only this time, there is more at stake. More books to sell and more cable news show appearances to book.

Why won't Sojourners take the high road and condemn the violence but also speak out with hope for the success of the troops now that they are in Iraq? Surely this would be a good time to leave politics aside and work towards peace in Iraq, a genuine lasting peace that doesn't rely on the soft words of diplomacy and a wish and a prayer that Iran's theocratic regime doesn't decide now is the time to take the Iraqi land they have warred for in the past.

Finally, an appeal that rests on the political judgment of our global churches is faulty on so many levels. First, why aren't they motivated by a nationalism of their own. Are Americans the ONLY nation to express nationalism? Second, why would an African minister or an Argentinian housewife have our best interests in mind? Is their Christianity, because it is not Western, or not from a highly developed country somehow superior to our own?

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

It is noteworthy that the people attacking the faith of those with whom they disagree politically are mainly liberal on this site. Wallis, of course, does this more than anyone. For all the complaints left-leaning people have made about conservatives telling them that Christians can't be liberals, a lot of people on the left seem happy to commit the same mistakes.

No, we're not attacking their faith, as such. It's just that sometimes we wonder just where that faith is, and that has implications way beyond "salvation."

But instead of concern that it just so happens the folks who support abortion rights to an extreme, also support your views here does not make you wonder that perhaps you look at things the same way or that you receive ALL your information from the same leftist places.

Mick, how do you know that most of the people here who agree with Wallis support abortion rights? I for one disagree with you 90 percent of the time yet am staunchly "pro-life." But that leads just of what he was talking about.

Father Anthony · 2 years ago

I am glad you explained the warrior mentality I see on this site, and the misguided attitudes behind their writings.
They are subversive.
Thank you Jim, for your thoughts.
I am with you all the way.
It is interesting to note that one of the local conservative radio commentators was decrying the fact that Muslims are called to be more faithful to Islam than to being Americans. Now you have said the same thing about Christians, and you are right if one is to believe St. Paul.
We are citizens of the earth, not of a particular country. We use boundaries to protect ourselves, and to provide for our needs. In spite of that we need to welcome the stranger, and the alien.
God says so.

cincyjake · 2 years ago

Elsa said:

Jim Wallis wrote,"Many American Christians are simply more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ. I want to suggest that the two are now in conflict, and we must decide to whom to we ultimately belong. That's the real issue."

I challenge Jim Wallis, based on that statement, to write any article condeming abortion in the name of choice.

Elsa,

Could you please explain what relevance this has to a discussion of the war in Iraq and a Christian response to it? And what abortion has to do with being more loyal to Christian nationalism than to the body of Christ? All you're doing is confusing the issue . . . your "challenge" has nothing to do with Wallis' statement.

Rich Pierce · 2 years ago

It is quite common for today's American Christians to equate patriotism, which many see as "America right or wrong- love it or leave it" with their Christian faith. It is not unusual to hear views that suggest America is a chosen nation, like the Israel of Scripture, and to see America's wars as holy wars. Yet there is little piety in our society as a whole that would suggest we desire anything more in a relationship with God than a "chosen nation" status.

From my understanding of Biblical principles of justice and compensation for wrong, once the war began, we assumed a moral responsibility to persist in Iraq for the purposes of establishing a safe and peaceful society as much as it is possible. The current strategy can hardly achieve such goals.

It confounds me that many Christians cannot fathom that Iraquis are people too, created by God in His image. Many justify invasion and occupation of Iraq for "security purposes"- even though Iraq was under essentially complete military control before the invasion, because of the "no-fly" zone and our presence in the Gulf. Others justify invasion and occupation because it is seen as "liberation" and the opportunity for democracy.

Imagine the shoe on the other foot- that a Muslim nation or any nation saw the US as a threat to their security, a country that might invade another or foster acts against military and civilian targets- and acted on that threat to their security. Might they not be able to argue successfully that this is would be a "just war"? And how would we react to an alien force bombing and destroying our cities and infrastructures, then occupying our country by force, and seeking to establish a new form of government here?

I cannot help but feel we have ground Iraq and its people under our heel without giving consideration to its people as human beings created by God, with the same rights that we would claim for ourselves.

Do I believe God can bring some good from it? Yes, He can do that with all things, but that is no excuse for callousness and self-serving policies and actions that kill innocents as well as combatants and destroy and degrade the everyday lives of millions.

Dan Barber · 2 years ago

Brothers & Sisters,

It saddens me to see us spending most of our time fighting with each other. I understand feelings are high on both sides, and both sides feel picked on at times. Can we put that aside to try and work together to find solutions?

Are we comfortable with the fact that, according to reports that I've read, success in Iraq, which everyone admits is not a certainty, will take at least 10 more years of American troops on Iraqi soil? Is that something we really want, or should we be searching with everything we have for solutions that might bring that number in?

I recognize that any solution to the current Iraq situation is going to be difficult. Are there better solutions that can be proposed? So far, sadly, most of the proposals I've heard are of the "get the troops out now" or "the current plan is working" variety. Perhaps those are the only two choices available, but I personally would like to hope other options are still possible.

Jim claims he has proposed an alternative. What do you think about his alternative? Are there areas you think might need some work? Are there some places you think his suggestions might work?

We can debate all day about whether or not this was a just war, whether or not our Lord and Savior would be happy with us, and perhaps we should take some time to think about that in order to guide us in the future. However, the Jesus Christ I read about was a man of action in the here and now. Right now people are dying daily in Iraq, shouldn't our biggest concern be finding the best way to alleviate the suffering that obviously exists today in Iraq?

In His Love,

Dan

George · 2 years ago

Jim Wallis is right on target [parden the metaphor]. American Christians have long put nationalism above Christianity; and not just in this illegal war. More than 20 years ago, a non-believer gave as his major reason for non-belief this very behavior. He cited Christian spokesmen wrapped in the flag and holding a Bible. The hypocracy of American Christians justifying Foreign policies that only serve to perpetuate our bloated lifestyles is glaringly obvious. Other comments have already cast doubt on the "just war" theory. We are instructed by Jesus to love our enemies, not kill them. In Psalm 21:7, David speaks of trusting in God for our strength, not in military migbt. Matthew 10:28 assures of God's love and protection of us. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fearthe one who can destroy both soul and body in Hell." Jesus goes on to say how much we are worth to Him. We need to be fully aware of Who or what we are trusting.

Another nonymous · 2 years ago

"I am pro-life."

"I don't want to criminalize a woman's most agonizing, personal decisions."

I have heard Jim Wallis make both of these statements. For many here, the latter apparently invalidates the former. If only those who claim to be pro-life were interrogated as closely and relentlessly about their support for war, the complaints of the neo-cons might bear more weight. I, for one, don't begrudge them their opinions, even though I opposed this war from the beginning, and have opposed every other war this country has been involved in during my lifetime. (NB: That doesn't mean I believe inaction is better, as those who have read my previous posts on this subject know.)

kevin s. · 2 years ago

"If anyone bothers to read Mark, Matthew, Luke and even John, one is quickly struck by the fact that Jesus is a person form whom justice and peace are focal points of his ministry."

I don't see this at all. Not that Christ was warlike, but the focal point of his ministry was the grace that would be offered by his death on the cross. He certainly doesn't call on governments to provide peace or justice, though he certainly serves the poor, showing acceptance and demonstating his miraculous nature to demonstrate that he is God.

"By the end of the fourth century Christianity had pretty much left Jesus the healer and reconciler in the dust of the ages and invented a new Jesus in the image of the Emperor, Constantine."

Not really, and Wallis wouldn't even agree with you on this.

What the church has proclaimed ever since is the warrior deity in the guise of Jesus the man of peace. That is what we are stuck with today.

"This Jesus who taught and more importantly lived the Kingdom values is the one who condemned violence against others under any and all circumstances."

Do you have a scriptural reference for this? Do you believe in the use of a police force?

"Jesus would have either laughed or wept hysterically at the nonsensical idea of a "just war"."

What was his reaction to the Roman Centurion?

"He would head for the nearest Synagogue and probably wouldn't care for that much either."

Well, that's a bit of conjecture, isn't it? But it is revealing of an attitude that everyone is wrong but you. Wallis seems to suffer the same affliction.

"Jesus had almost nothing to say about a place of eternal bliss, but he had a lot to say about the sick, the hungry and the marginalized in this world."

What did he say about the sick and the hungry, and why is it inherently more important than what he said about his eternal kingdom?

"Christianity will contribute little or nothing to peace unless it stops being just another pagan warrior cult."

This clearly rules out a police force. What you need to do is sell your computer (or stop using the public library's) and the rest of your belongings, protected by the pagan warriors in blue as they are.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

"The monologue of the Religious Right is over and a new conversation has begun! Join the God's Politics dialogue . . ."

But don't join if you are a "neo-conservative" or a conservative Christian or someone who likes to ask uncomfortable questions of trite partisanship.

Methinks Wallis, et al, really don't want dialogue. It's nice to have the evangelical left's intolerance and will to power out in the open.

Gordon · 2 years ago

Wallis' defensiveness is palpable here.

Greg · 2 years ago

Amen, amen and amen, Jim.

You've elegantly reminded us of the Christian presumption against war and, sadly, of the idolatrous foregrounding of the god of patriotrism in the hearts of many. Apparently, including in the heart of the US president. As a believer and a US citizen who has lived outside the US for ten of the last seventeen years, it saddens me to be associated with the the foreign policy choices of Mr. Bush and his administration. These choices have strayed from the two strong historical stands of Christians regarding war, pacifism and just war.

churchlady · 2 years ago

I'm new at this, so please be patient with me. (Back in the day, we didn't have such things as blogs, but I don't want to become a fossil before my time.) I sense a lot of pain in these postings. Some acknowledge the hurts; some try to bandage them with anger. I'm trying to sort things out.

I hate this war. But I don't hate the people who are fighting it. I detest war and violence in general. But I can understand why, in extreme circumstances, people might feel that fighting is the best choice available. I disagree, but I understand. I used to think that way myself.

What I'm having trouble understanding is why some Christian groups, including churches, seem to be
glorifying war - or maybe it's just this war, I'm not sure.

I went to church on the weekend of July 1. At the beginning, the American flag was carried in and everyone was asked to stand. I felt a little uncomfortable with this, it being the LORD's house and all. But I do love my country and I don't understand love of country to be contrary to loving God. So I stood.

Then we had music, lots of music, and pictures of soldiers holding guns, and singing all the military songs.

At the end of the service they carried in the Christian banner. I waited for someone to ask us to stand, but it didn't happen. So I stood up anyway. I stood alone - realistically, it must have been 20 or 30 seconds, but it felt like 20 or 30 years. Finally, a few around me stood up, and then it slowly spread through the sanctuary.

I was and am deeply upset. The people around me genuinely believed they were doing right. Their words praised God for making us a mighty nation. They just weren't thinking about that Christian banner or the cross that's on it. I went home that day and cried.

I still don't understand how we humans can get so mixed up so easily.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

But don't join if you are a "neo-conservative" or a conservative Christian or someone who likes to ask uncomfortable questions of trite partisanship.

Perhaps that's not the kind of person who ought to be asking about "trite partisanship."

carl copas · 2 years ago

Jim,

a terrific post.

The feeble reactions of some people on here were very telling: change the subject by bringing up the Second World War or abortion; name calling (Pharisee, hypocrite, intolerant), absurdity (Wallis's defensiveness is palpable; Christian peacefulness would rule out a police force).

I am more convinced than ever that this is a wicked war and we have a Christian responsibility to try to stop it. May Jesus guide us.

Heather · 2 years ago

My sister, a Presbyterian minister, had this to say in reply to my brother's query about patriotism and Christianity -

This is interesting. Christians cannot, really, be good Americans -- if they're truly Christians.

Theologically, the Christ is Lord -- and Christians surrender all they have and hope for to the God who knows no bounds. One cannot have two masters, one must choose: God or country. Christians choose God. Christian allegiance is not to country but to God.

Religiously, American patriotism supplants any kind of worship of the One True God (God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) in freedom -- slavish idolatry of the flag, the government, and the war machine: these are blasphemy.

Scripturally, Christians are called to live in a way that much more resembles socialism or communism. Capitalism and the exploitation of those who live on the marginalized is not exactly what Jesus had in mind. You may want to check out the Sermon on the Mount, The Last Supper, The Crucifixion.

Geographically, we are called to sister- and brotherhood with all the world, so it's not really possible to even call ourselves American. Because we are Christian. AND we trust in God's purposes to save all of creation, all children of the world, so we would not make any distinction between Christian or Jew or Muslim.

Socially, were Americans who call themselves Christian to live in a truly Christian way, our social system would be utterly destroyed as the poor, the sick, the old, the oppressed are raised up and those with access to affluence and power find themselves bowed-down out of choice, humble to the last.

Domestically, Jesus encouraged the destruction of the family and the "tribe" in favor of living in peace and pilgrimage with those also seeking the Kingdom of God -- not the kingdom of affluence, influence, or domination. Christ calls us to leave our family, to let the dead bury themselves, to give all that we have to be poor and to serve the Lord.

Intellectually, true Christians, called to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, would challenge this nation to live up to its ideals and principles, not swallow fear as facts and war as hope.

Philosophically, because of the values of the United States, its idolatry of money (which is diametrically counter to Christ's command to "take all you have and be poor,"), its commitment domination (flying in the face of Jesus' urging us to "turn the other cheek,"), and love of war ("blessed are the peace-makers, the penultimate blessing in Christ's Sermon on the Mount) make it impossible to be a good American.

Spiritually, the concept of being a nation under God is utterly foreign to Christians -- for we know that God is the God of the entire universe. And that God's purposes are being fulfilled even now -- the redemption of the world in love and grace. We also know that bigotry and the evil of prejudice and judgment is temporary and that God's forgiveness, mercy, and justice for every person is unstoppable.

I suspect that Christians do not seek to be good Americans, but rather, good citizens of God's creation and in God's Kingdom which is coming. I suspect that it is the responsibility of Christians seek to herald the coming of the Kingdom by the way they live in this place and time -- welcoming those whom the culture despises: Our Muslim brothers and sisters.

Our task is to love as Christ loved: arms outstretched, receiving every single living thing, and open to death itself if it reveals God's love, and not the hate and bigotry of humanity.

That's what I think. Your sister

Wolverine · 2 years ago

Splinterlog wrote:

So let me get this right. When it comes to giving gay brothers and sisters the opportunity to have their unions blessed in the Church, your lot screams bloody murder and accusing us of ignoring the worldwide Christian community's concerns over the issue (c/o Nigeria). But when it comes to the war, the worldwide Christian community doesn't matter to your lot. Have I got that right?

Splinterlog is referring to the current conflict in the Episcopal church, of which I am still a member. The conflict was triggered by the consecration of an open homosexual as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, although the roots of the division lie in more fundamental theological questions.

Here's the thing: the Episcopal Church has effectively sanctioned the blessing of gay unions (in other words, gay marriage) but has not approved the war in Iraq, so there is no conflict within the church over the war, only over gay marriage.

Now there is a schism in the church developing, and there is likely to be an official "break" within a few months. When that happens conservative congregations and dioceses will have more room to speak their mind on a host of issues, including, possibly, the Iraq War.

But my knowledge of the conservative priests and bishops leads me to expect that few if any will announce any official support for the Iraq War, out of respect for the opinions of the bishops of Africa and Asia. For their part, the bishops of Africa and Asia have not, to the best of my knowledge, made any demand that the American church condemn the Iraq war.

In short, we conservative Anglicans have managed to disagree agreeably on the war, while the liberal Anglicans have forced a confrontation on homosexuality. That's the difference.

Wolverine

kevin s. · 2 years ago

"change the subject by bringing up the Second World War or abortion; name calling"

If someone is questioning the authenticity of you faith based on your political stance on a particular issue, it is fair to put other issues to the same test. And there is plenty of name-calling in Wallis' post.

"Christian peacefulness would rule out a police force)"

This wasn't in response to Wallis, but to the poster that claimed that Jesus spoke against any violence at any time. His vision of Christ's peacefulness would rule out a police force.

"I went to church on the weekend of July 1. At the beginning, the American flag was carried in and everyone was asked to stand. I felt a little uncomfortable with this, it being the LORD's house and all. But I do love my country and I don't understand love of country to be contrary to loving God. So I stood."

Well put. I don't get patriotic services and the like (I was actually unaware of their existence until recently), and I understand the objections to them.

sandra s. · 2 years ago

I am not surprised that one of Rev. Wallis' points was overlooked in the comments. Christians and others around the world are tired of hearing citizens of the USA speak as if their theological and political viewpoints are common to reasonable people around the world.

Yours in Christ from Vancouver, Canada
Sandra

Trent · 2 years ago

An Aussie perspective,

Yesterday there were many comments about how Wallis doesn't respond to comments on these blogs. Today he has responded (and he unfortunately engaged in name-calling), but has been criticised for responding. What's up with that?

As an Australian, our regular press does provide a mixed coverage of the war (though mostly pro-US). We are exposed to the mixed coverage without having to search for foreign websites or media outlets.

In regard to where to go with Iraq, there is an obligation on the part of the US and her supporters (including Australia) to assist with the mess in Iraq. Part of that obligation will necessarily involve the US divesting itself of Iraqi interests (bases, oil, contracts) because the US presence is inflamatory to the situation. If the US were to maintain their current financial contribution to Iraq (and you are spending a lot there now), but use that to support international peacekeeping efforts it would diminish the anti-US sentiment, it would save the lives of US soldiers, it would still seek to protect Iraqis (by not abandoning them to Iran), it would stablise the entire region (as the US occupation is a rallying point for terrorists) and the divestment would raise the US stature in the world.

Finally, the the point was made earlier, every country has some sense of Nationalism. I don't suppose that that is a bad thing. But to the best of my knowledge only the US has tied it's Nationalism to Christianity (ok. maybe Samoa as well). One of the dangers of Iran is that their Nationalism is so often tied to Islam (Australia's nationalism is tied to beer and football and legends of the bush). I'd like to suggest that the recognition of the danger of Iran comes in part from the resonance of their situation to that of the US. It's like the speck and the log in the eye (I'm not arguing whose is bigger), just that you see it because in some way you own it for yourself.

Be Blessed,

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

Heather's sister's pastoral observations could veer into wishful thinking, even if for many of the right intentions, I believe. All religion is not the same - else, there'd be no disagreement even among those who self-identify as Christians, as there obviously is here. There does need to be content - everything is not equal, even if all are equally human and worthy of respect in their being.

While welcoming, we need to engage as well. We can accept others while remaining skeptical of their beliefs and motivations - as well as of our own. There is no growth without discernment and that is unwise.

As we have seen, religion - and I don't spare mutations of our own - can be highly destructive.

I really think it's a complete misunderstanding, though, to think that Jesus urged complete destruction of the family. I understand how some from destructive families and with an different ideological bent might favor this, just as Marx did.

However, there is a view of the family that is not exclusivist. It is that the family properly constituted is the crucible for developing love, trust and caring between man and woman and children that produces individuals who can then in turn extend this love they have learned in that protection as they grow up towards everyone else.

In other words, family is to be the place where we learn to practice in a protected place what the family of God should be like, so that we are not thrust too early into the harsh world environment without development of character that can resist its blandishments to cruel competition and the crushing of others.

How many of our families do nurture developing individials in this way? I know those that do, and those that don't, and there is a striking difference in the behavior they tend to produce.

Wolverine · 2 years ago

Please bear with me while I expand on one point in my comment on the Episcopal Church:

The conflict over homosexuality taps into larger issues of the divinity of Christ and his unique role as redeemer of mankind, and even to the essential truth of his resurrection.

If the issue really were only about homosexuality, I doubt that we would be threatened with a schism right now.

I hope this fully answers your question Splinterlog,

Wolverine

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

I think there's been a truth unearthed when someone of the perspective from Down Under notices that a lot of us in America see the country as the indispensable "Christian Nation" and that there aren't many others - and even that one might be an American territory.

If America, as is believed by many, is indeed founded by God's command and a Christian Nation, then it seems to follow that it has a mandate from God - its policies, from the seizing of the continent from "pagan savages" in the manner supposedly of ancient Israel, all fall under this rubric of carrying out God's plan for the world.

Anyone opposing it is by definition - since they are not the quintessential Christian Nation - opposed to God's will.

This does explain the Southern Baptist website, with its commitment to world missions, emblazoned over a rippling US flag - and for that matter, the view of the flag as a holy object.

Under this view, real Christians around the globe will become supporters of the US within their own countries, and their allegiance will be to this global movement of American dominance, under Christ, rather than to their own nations.

Rick · 2 years ago

I want to pick up on Sandra's comments on the world's perspective. A few years ago I traveled to South Africa. It was eye opening in terms of hearing Christians there talk about their perception of the US and Christianity in the US. We are seen as a global bully, and Christ's name is being dragged through the mud (a modern translation of blasphemy?).

I think what the church in the US needs is a healthy dose of global Christianity - we need to really listen to our brothers and sisters around the world have to say, particularly around the experience of deep poverty and generations of war. We have been looking across the oceans from a seat of comfort and complacency, disconnected from real brokenness. Only when our hearts are broken by the same things that break the heart of Jesus will we be able to escape the grip of nationalist fervor.

One of my most profound learnings from South Africa was the word "ubuntu" - a word Desmond Tutu used regularly. A person with ubuntu knows that his/her humanity is inextricably bound up in the humanity of the other - their welfare is tied to one's own welfare. It would world changing for all of humanity to embrace that idea - that would be ideal. But just imagine the difference we would see in the world if only Christians were to embrace it! If Christians refused to kill other people - if Christians believed and acted with "ubuntu."

This is my prayer...

Trent · 2 years ago

Wolverine,
The Australian experience over homosexuality (in the Uniting Church - a hybrid of Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist), where afetr fifteen years of debate they've decided not to make a decision, didn't cause a schizm, though individual congregations and members did leave.
The issue like you stated wasn't homosexuality at all, it was more simply an issue of Biblical Authority. If you accepted homosexuality as a life-style option, then that necessitated a very liberal view of scripture, which many in the church weren't (and aren't) willing to accept.
{It's not related to all to Jim's blog, but is interesting nonetheless}.
Be Blessed.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Trent wrote: "Yesterday there were many comments about how Wallis doesn't respond to comments on these blogs. Today he has responded (and he unfortunately engaged in name-calling), but has been criticised for responding. What's up with that?"

I, while very disappointed with Wallis' response, am in NO way criticizing him for responding. In fact, no here who disagreed with him said as much. I think the point is that to finally engage the comments and to do so with such nasty name-calling and arrogance is a great disappointment. Wallis' posts set the tone for the entire site, and he is a self-proclaimed leader of the evangelical left. So when he is so dismissive and hostile to fellow evangelicals wanting to engage the evangelical left in discussion, you shouldn't be surprised when disapproval is voiced.

Now, on to a real question - it would be interesting for Wallis to unpack his claims about Christians' responsibilities as citizens of America who are really first members of the global church. I mean, if we should be citizens of the world before we are American Christians, then we should seriously reconsider social reform efforts. First, any poverty relief or work with the lower classes of America is a waste of time and money when we consider the vastly greater level of poverty and suffering that goes on among our brothers and sisters throughout the world. In true renunciation of nationalism and misguided patriotism, I call on Sojourners to lead the way and call on other Christians to redirect our efforts to the truly poor, since our poor are so rich in comparison to the rest of the world.

Phyllis · 2 years ago

To whom do we belong? We belong to Christ; not the world. For those American Christians that are more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ, well maybe they should open up their Bibles to see what Christ has to say about that.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

Wallis' posts set the tone for the entire site, and he is a self-proclaimed leader of the evangelical left. So when he is so dismissive and hostile to fellow evangelicals wanting to engage the evangelical left in discussion, you shouldn't be surprised when disapproval is voiced.
NO, HE IS NOT!!!!

For openers, I challenge anyone to say where he has said that about himself. Nowhere I can tell. Second, he has long been dismissed by the evangelical right for not being with it, never mind that he's been doing what he's been doing for over 30 years! He's outlasted both Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy, the former of which insulted him, and I'm sure he's never been invited on "The 700 Club." So, really, who's dismissing whom? And BTW, where did he call anyone names? He said only that he thinks his critics have often missed the boat, which is a fair statement.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

"To whom do we belong? We belong to Christ; not the world. For those American Christians that are more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ, well maybe they should open up their Bibles to see what Christ has to say about that."

Phyllis,
Contrary to popular misreadings of Christ's ministry - he and his disciples did not advocate any form of anti-nationalism. Christ submitted to the injustices of the Roman government, even when it meant death. (Which God intended to use for his own good, but it worth noting Christ submitted to the civil authority of the Romans, even in their imperialist, colonialist mistreatment of Jews and their land.)

Peter famously calls on slaves to obey their masters, not to overthrow them. Paul calls on women to be silent in the congregation and to submit to their husbands. And the list could go on. The point is - Christ and his apostles had little to say about social revolution and a lot more to say about the revolution that comes from radically surrendering oneself to the will of God.
Oh, there was that part of render to Caesar what is Caesars, but still, no call for the Jewish people to throw off the often oppressive rule of their Roman colonial government.

Trent · 2 years ago

Rick,
Wallis in the Blog does call names. In particular he calls them, "Neocon war promoters' and 'Christian Warriors.' He further accuses them of 'vitriol,' 'clogging' and of 'dominating' these comments.
It was unfortunate, unnecessary and distracted from the validity of his argument.
It shouldn't be defended.
Be Blessed,

Koda · 2 years ago

Bravo, Jim. Too many americans seem to believe that God is an american (and a Repulican man, to boot). God doesn't favor us over any nationality and if you look back at the details of our history (not the "God fearing Christian nation rhetoric) you will see that the U.S. since its founding has consitently operated on a "what's best for us" platform, regardless of the consequences to the rest of the world's population. We are not the only ones, of course. The current nation of Iraq is a result of post-WWI dictatorial imperialism that deicded to form a nation from an area inhabited by people who have hated each other since time began. We are not going to get them to suddenly love each other (or, evidently, even tolerate each other), especially at the point of a gun. The Islamic fundamentist movement in Iran is the direct result of the U.S. backed overthrow of their democratically elected leader because he decided that nationalizing their oil was the best policy for his people. We put the corrupt Shah in his place and supported his tyrannny so we could get cheap oil. The Islamic fundamentalist movement and its hatred for America grew out of this repression. Yet, our leaders (and most of our citizens) ignore the lesson of history, as well as the lessons of Christ, while we fool ourselves into believing the lies about how we are only trying to imrpove the lives of other peoples.

Wolverine · 2 years ago

I can't speak for all of us conservatives, this is how I see things:

Personally I've never been persuaded that Americans are any more of a "chosen people" than Germans, Brazilians, Indians, or Ethiopians, and I've always considered it dangerous to attach any larger theological significance to American military or economic strength.

I know there are people who think in those terms, and a lot of them are my allies on a lot of political issues. I've often tried, with varying degrees of success, to talk them off of that limb.

While I have sensed that God has wanted me to develop my interest in political issues, I've always tended to view public policy itself in mostly secular terms.

American influence is not a necessary consequence of there being a just and holy God, it's a simple fact that we have to work with. Whether it works for good or for evil depends on what we do with it.

As a Christian I understand that I have brothers and sisters in nearly every nation. I do not expect them to share my political views, and I am not shocked by the fact that they are not all as pro-American as I am -- although I have met a few Chritians from other countries who are.

I think we are allowed to have a certain affection for our home countries: the land, the people, the music, the language, the games, the history, the culture that we grew up with.

I have always sought to broaden my horizons, but I do not pretend to be particularly cosmopolitan. America is the country I know best, the country where I have the most realistic chance of exercising some positive influence. But sometimes I struggle to understand the country I grew up in -- so how can I pretend to be a "citizen of the world"?

I'm an American. I'm doing the best I can with what I have to work with. May God have mercy.

Wolverine

Nancy Stromer · 2 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more, Jim. People seem to be Americans, or maybe just far right wing extremists, first, and professing Christians next. I live in Focus country, and I just can't believe how out of focus Christ is all around me.

Signed, Nancy, Colorado Springs

Rev. Dale Shotts · 2 years ago

I really enjoyed your column, Jim.
I received my alum newsletter yesterday from Augsburg College in Mpls. The commencement speaker's comments were condensed and here is the core of his talk.

Eboo Patel, founder of the Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core. "There are many who are eager to divide humanity along a faith line: Sunnies vs. Shias, Catholics vs. Protestants, Hindus vs. Buddists.
I believe there is something else going on. I believe that the "faith line" is indeed the challenge of our century, but it does not divide people of different religious backgrounds. . . . The faith line separates religious totalitarians and religious pluralists.
A religious totalitarian is someone who seeks to suffocate those who are different. Their weapons range from suicide bombs to media empires,(and political empires)my addition. There are totalitarians in every faith group,(my paraphrase). They are on the same side of the faith line: arm in arm against a dream of a common life together.
A pluralist is someone who seeks to live with people who are different, be enriched by them, help them thrive.
Pluralists resonate with the Qurannic line: 'God made us different nations and tribes that we may come to know one another'. Pluralists love the words of the poet Gwendolyn Brooks:
We are each other's business
We are each other's harvest
We are each other's magnitude
and bond

We pluralists far outnumberr the totalitarians. We if we let ourselves imagine? What if we began building?
What if every city block were a cathedral of pluralism; every univesity campus; every summer camp and day care. There would not be enough bombs to destroy all our cathedrals". Read the full address at
www.augsburg.edu/commencement/pagtel.
pdf

I think these comments are closely related to "We are to be Christians first, and members of nations or tribes second." That simple affirmation, if ever applied, would utterly transform the relationship of American Christians to the policeis of their own government" and the conclusion: "Many American Christians are simply more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ. I want to suggest that the two are now in conflict, and we must decide to whom to we ultimately belong. That's the real issue." I choose to be a member of a global community who recognize our connection with one another as brothers and sisters and who seek to live peacefully with one another.

Rev. Dale Shotts United Methodist Church, retired, Kansas City MO.

Rev. Dale Shotts · 2 years ago

I really enjoyed your column, Jim.
I received my alum newsletter yesterday from Augsburg College in Mpls. The commencement speaker's comments were condensed and here is the core of his talk.

Eboo Patel, founder of the Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core. "There are many who are eager to divide humanity along a faith line: Sunnies vs. Shias, Catholics vs. Protestants, Hindus vs. Buddists.
I believe there is something else going on. I believe that the "faith line" is indeed the challenge of our century, but it does not divide people of different religious backgrounds. . . . The faith line separates religious totalitarians and religious pluralists.
A religious totalitarian is someone who seeks to suffocate those who are different. Their weapons range from suicide bombs to media empires,(and political empires)my addition. There are totalitarians in every faith group,(my paraphrase). They are on the same side of the faith line: arm in arm against a dream of a common life together.
A pluralist is someone who seeks to live with people who are different, be enriched by them, help them thrive.
Pluralists resonate with the Qurannic line: 'God made us different nations and tribes that we may come to know one another'. Pluralists love the words of the poet Gwendolyn Brooks:
We are each other's business
We are each other's harvest
We are each other's magnitude
and bond

We pluralists far outnumberr the totalitarians. We if we let ourselves imagine? What if we began building?
What if every city block were a cathedral of pluralism; every univesity campus; every summer camp and day care. There would not be enough bombs to destroy all our cathedrals". Read the full address at
www.augsburg.edu/commencement/pagtel.
pdf

I think these comments are closely related to "We are to be Christians first, and members of nations or tribes second." That simple affirmation, if ever applied, would utterly transform the relationship of American Christians to the policeis of their own government" and the conclusion: "Many American Christians are simply more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ. I want to suggest that the two are now in conflict, and we must decide to whom to we ultimately belong. That's the real issue." I choose to be a member of a global community who recognize our connection with one another as brothers and sisters and who seek to live peacefully with one another.

Rev. Dale Shotts United Methodist Church, retired, Kansas City MO.

Eric Nord · 2 years ago

Kevin S wrote:

I can't speak for all the neocon war promoters, but I have forgotten neither. I simply disagree that a presumption against war mandates that we continue a failed tract of diplomacy and sanctions with a man who spent 13 year defying UN mandates.

What I have heard very little reflection about in this country is the fact that, to a large extent, Saddam was a monster of our creation. The US sold many weapons to him because he was fighting Iran.

The fact that he turned into a tyrant points out that the US missed many opportunities to help build democracy in Iraq - if our foreign policy in the 70's and 80's had been less about what was good for America in the short term and more about what was good for all of us in the long term (ubuntu??), Saddam may never have been empowered to spend 13 years defying UN mandates, oppressing his own people, etc.

My whole point is that "If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword", and America has spent a long time swinging that sword around the world.

My $ 0.02

Ben Schmidt · 2 years ago

Trent,

Do you really think that those references are name-calling? "Neo-Conservative War Promoters" is what most of them call themselves. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. All Neocons and they promote war. The president was just on TV tonight promoting war. "Christian Warriors" is just describing what they are as well, not calling them names. I'm sure a lot of Christians would call themselves that name. I've heard them call themselves and "Army of God," what's the difference? Accusing them of using vitriol language is quite accurate. I really don't see how these thngs are name-calling. "Clogging" and "Dominating" these comments is not an insult, just stating the obvious.

Michael Gorman · 2 years ago

A good friend of mine is the chair of the board of a major international Bible-translation and Bible-distribution ministry. When the 100+ representatives from around the world gathered together two summers ago for meetings--people from every imaginable denomination and theological perspective--they had two things in common, according to my friend: commitment to Bible translation/distribution and opposition to George Bush and his war. No dissenters.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

Wallis in the Blog does call names. In particular he calls them, "Neocon war promoters' and 'Christian Warriors.' He further accuses them of 'vitriol,' 'clogging' and of 'dominating' these comments.

Those descriptions are plenty accurate especially to those people who are not conservatives, to be truthful. The "neo-cons" have shown themselves to be de facto "war promoters," and I think everything else he says about them is, frankly, totally accurate. On top of that, for some 30 years I personally have endured plenty of pure, unadulterated hate from those that I don't agree with. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and if that ticks people off, well ... Jesus Himself was not always nice when describing his critics in the religious world.

On the other hand, those same opponents have, among other things, impuged his motives and, in one case, accused him of envying conservatives with "bigger" ministries. They actually try to change the subject because they don't have a leg to stand on. They consistently show disrespect to the "liberals" her and then complain that they're "hating on" them when they react strongly and that they just want to "dialogue." They are fooling only themselves.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

Peter famously calls on slaves to obey their masters, not to overthrow them. Paul calls on women to be silent in the congregation and to submit to their husbands. And the list could go on. The point is - Christ and his apostles had little to say about social revolution and a lot more to say about the revolution that comes from radically surrendering oneself to the will of God.

Actually, that was Paul, and that phrase "slaves" is probably better translated "workers" today. But in fact, Jesus and the Apostles did call for revolution -- but not in the way anyone expected. Since Rome was so powerful the early Christians had to subscribe to a policy of subversion, to expose Roman law as unjust. When, for example, Paul tells husbands to "love their wives as Christ loved the church," that was a totally radical statement because, in those days, a woman was literally the property of her husband. The Christians stuck out like a sore thumb but eventually outlasted the Roman Empire.

Judithod · 2 years ago

I'm appalled that you are misusing Christianity in defense of your opposition to the U. S. involvement in Iraq. You've made a sweeping, arrogant statement in claiming that "the body of Christ internationally is against the U. S. war in Iraq and the whole direction of current U. S. foreign policy." When did you acquire omniscient, divine powers or become a spokesperson for all Christians?

Unlike you, I've never told my children to avoid defending their liberty or the right of others to live in freedom. In fact, I'm the mother of a Marine captain who has deployed twice during the conflict. According to your vitriolic labeling, both my son and I are "neocon war promoters." So be it.

Why do you choose to condemn U. S. Christians and others who may choose to support the advance of freedom in Iraq (and beyond) and blatantly avoid condemning the terrorists? Who are the suicide bombers? The roadside bombers? They are not U. S. soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen. They are not Christians, Jews, Buddhist, or Hindus. They are Muslim extremists who hate "infidels," an appellation that includes you.

What is playing out in Iraq is a series of clashes: the mentality of the 21st century versus the mentality of the Middle Ages, human rights versus violations of human rights. What is at stake is not the honor of the U. S. but the privilege of people to live respectfully and safely regardless of gender, ethnicity, and religious beliefs.

justintime · 2 years ago

'Wallis in the Blog does call names. In particular he calls them, "Neocon war promoters' and 'Christian Warriors.' He further accuses them of 'vitriol,' 'clogging' and of 'dominating' these comments.'

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Wolverine · 2 years ago

Richard Nauck wrote:

For both sides of this argument....
Remember who is watching your arguments....
I am.
And as one who is intrigued and can I say, even drawn, to your idea of Christianity, I have to ask one question.
What is it you invite me to?
The chasm that exists between your ideals of Christian love, peace and community, and the evidence that exists on the pages of responses to this blog, is wider than the Grand Canyon.
It is often spoken that the way to peace in Iraq is for the Sunni's and Shia to reconcile...after months of reading this blog and its many detractors, I would have to say that Sunni's and Shia have a better chance at reconciliation than the American Church does.
Again I ask, what is it you invite me to? Because if it is this, its not much of an offering.

Richard,

I wish I could tell you that this sort of thing was unusual. The sad thing is, it's not.

As the old bumper sticker says, we're forgiven, not perfect. We come out of a fallen world and cannot help but drag some of that fallenness into the church with us.

All I can say in our defense is this is a political blog and politics is especially contentious. In a more spiritual setting, such as a eucharist or a mission trip or a retreat, or even a blog centered on theology or service, you would probably see people acting in a more generous manner, but even even in the best of groups you will occasionally encounter disputes and bitterness.

God calls on all of us to forgive one another. How that works out in the political realm is subject to a lot of heated debate, but even among fellow Christians in the best of settings it is mercy, rather than good manners, that makes a Christian a Christian.

God is perfect. We are not. I wish we were better, but "it is what it is".

It is Christ that calls you. If you would follow him you will at times need to ignore the rest of us.

Wolverine

Trent · 2 years ago

Name calling is name calling. The name may be apt, the name may be appropriately descriptive but it is still name calling.
A lot of my work is in the field of special education. In this field effort has gone into distinguishing between the person and the disabling condition. Calling someone 'Intellectually Impaired,' (I believe the US uses the term 'retarded') is very different to saying that 'John Smith has an Intellectual Impairment.'
In the same way calling someone a 'neocon war promotor,' categorises them as a person and reduces their humanity (as all categorical labels do). Saying that they 'hold to neocon war promoting views' is bulkier but more accurate, more descriptive and less offensive.
Over a few months of reading these blogs and comments there has been plenty of name calling and Wallis has copped more than his share. It just isn't good practice and the suggested revenge motif doesn't sit well with Christian ethics.
And for the record, if Bush and Cheney did describe themselves as 'neocon war promotors,' that still doesn't excuse applying that label to posters to this site.
Be Blessed,

Richard Pierard · 2 years ago

Thanks, Jim, for so forefully speaking out. As one who has been ignored and forgotten for my own futile efforts to make evangelicals aware of how they sold out our biblical faith to the political order, it is profoundly encouraging that you are able to reach people with the message that the political gospel being preached today is a false gospel. You have given this old has-been a new sense of hope.

jesse · 2 years ago

Rev. Alterman,
Polls matter little--it's unsurprising that many of the public want us to leave but they would likely not like the consequences of us leaving. These polls reflect ambivalence. The Iraqi government wants us there now, and if they wanted us to leave we would. I obviously do not think that peace should be achieved at all costs. I also believe that war is sometimes the best way to achieve peace (and believe history and the Bible are on my side in this regard).

For those of you defending Wallis' name-calling, you show little understanding of Christian charity or the concept of grace. Wallis' vitriol in this post reflects an attitude that wishes to see his opponents in the poorest of possible lights (it's equivalent to me calling him a "flaming liberal" or an "abortion-lover"). He impugns the motives of every he disagrees with. Whatever happened to just honest differences in opinion? I try not to judge a person's faith on all their political positions.

Nathan Rayner · 2 years ago

Jim,

I'm all for the United States pulling its military out of Iraq but I don't know if you've addressed the issue fully. You Americans under your president invaded Iraq, threw the country into turmoil and chaos. Now a majority of your citizens have decided they want to pull out.

So what about the mess you created? Don't you have some responsibility to the people? Your stating that this war is not moral or just and walking away from the disaster you created is not moral or just either. You made the mess. You clean it before you pull out. The Iraqis and the rest of the world deserve at least this. The wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth without consideration to the terror you will condemn millions to is just not acceptable. Solution? I haven't a clue but Americans got into it, you figure it out.

Sarasotakid · 2 years ago

Thank you, Reverend Wallis, for this great post. Thank you clearly stating what support of this war has become- sheer, unadulterated idolatry. And thank you for speaking out against the vitriol of the select few who add nothing to the conversation here but who are quick to detract from those of us who want peace.

ACH · 2 years ago

It's about time, actually long overdue & past time, that Jim Wallis himself voice his disgust over the Ultra-cons & Neo-Cons that clog this outlet. It'd not be half as bad if they had something new from time to time, but, no, it's straight from the old gristmill of extreme fundamentalism & obstructionism. I am sure these ilks know they aid the rest of the world in misunderstanding the rest of us Xns as the kind they hear about almost exclusively & unfortunately. When will a filter dismiss these without taking up space or some editorial oversight eliminate them otherwise? I no longer try to read through these & am only marking my second appearance here in the last couple of years because who has the space clogged with trifle. Same old names/pennames: same old stuff, with obstruction their only purpose. There will be many confused christians in Hell & rightly so: may their dysfunction to there with them.

Wolverine · 2 years ago

ACH wrote:

There will be many confused christians in Hell & rightly so: may their dysfunction to there with them.

Well...

I've been called many names on this board, but this is the first time I can recall being condemned to hell.

Wolverine

Richard Nauck · 2 years ago

Wolverine,

Bear with me for a moment, but your response to my post I think somewhat hits at the heart of this whole debate.

You wrote:
"All I can say in our defense is this is a political blog and politics is especially contentious. In a more spiritual setting, such as a eucharist or a mission trip or a retreat, or even a blog centered on theology or service, you would probably see people acting in a more generous manner..."

If I can elaborate, does this then mean, the God-thing or the Christian-thing only really works in "more spiritual settings"? But when put into the crucible of a political blog it has no staying power.

I asked the question, what is it you are inviting me to? Am I to take from your response and that which I see on the page before me, that I'm being invited to something that really only works in confined safe spaces.

The problem is I don't live in a confined safe space.

What I find most interesting about this debate is that you have these polar opposite groups, both apparently reading the same text (the Bible) and both completely convinced that they are right.

I wish I could label the issues in this blog as just simply 'political', but at the core of what is being discussed, if you can call it that, are fundamental philosophies on the shape of how groups of people (in this case a really big group of people called Americans) should operate in the global community. At the heart of this, what I see is how Christians think their faith should be outlived in society. Because its a political blog, this isn't just how they think they their faith should be outlived, but how the country should outlive its? faith.

And probably most interesting, is I see how this particular set of Christians outlive their faith in dealing with those who have a different opinion.

Please don't get me wrong, I am far more for this God-thing, than against. But as someone looking through the looking-glass, I have to question if given their own inability to live "at peace one with another", if we really should be taking foreign policy advice from the Christian Community.

Trent · 2 years ago

Wolverine,
I must admit admiring the way you do not respond in kind.
If all who agreed or disagreed with you were as respectful as you've shown yourself to be then fewer readers would be taking offence at the contents of these comments.
It's a mirror of war, where the world's pattern is to retaliate and escalate. Yet instead of retaliating to the name calling and accusations you've responded with courtesy and appear to have 'turned the other cheek.'
It reminds me of the parable of the two brothers who were asked to work in the field. One says yes but doesn't go, while the other says no but does.
You, who've been called a neocon war promoter, practice turning the other cheek, while some who claim to be seeking peace, engage in name calling and other accusatory and derogatory behaviour.
Isn't it ironic?

Be Blessed,

Wolverine · 2 years ago

A little while ago someone comented that Jim Wallis was a self-described leader of the Christian left, to which Rick Nowlin subtly replied:

NO, HE IS NOT!!!!

For openers, I challenge anyone to say where he has said that about himself. Nowhere I can tell.
(bold in original)

Rick, Rick, Rick,

If only you'd looked up at the original article you would have read this:

Because of my work and transatlantic family ties, I travel extensively around the world, frequently talk to others who do, regularly read the international press, frequently host international Christian leaders, and often attend international Christian gatherings. Last week, I wrote on this site about my recent journey to Singapore to join 500 leaders of World Vision from 100 countries...

At which point Mr. Wallis proceeded to bestow upon us a portion of the many insights he has gleaned from his many travels around the globe visiting with Christian leaders, the vast majority of whom happen to agree with him. And then he helpfully reminded us: "And if you don't know that perspective, you simply haven't had much experience with Christians outside of the United States." Which certainly put me in my place.

Now, I'm not a big one on false modesty, and I don't expect Jim Wallis to act like he's just another shlub. But if that's not tooting your own horn, I've never heard a horn tooted.

Wolverine

canucklehead · 2 years ago

>>>>Wallis in the Blog does call names. In particular he calls them, "Neocon war promoters' and 'Christian Warriors.' He further accuses them of 'vitriol,' 'clogging' and of 'dominating' these comments.
It was unfortunate, unnecessary and distracted from the validity of his argument.
It shouldn't be defended.
Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | September 13, 2007 9:30 PM


Come on, Trent. what world do you live in? Jim uses decent terminology (some of it self-descriptive of many of the regular conservative contributors to this blog) in addressing an issue he feels about passionately. The neo-cons on this sight can be legitimately seen as promoters of this war and at times they do spew vitriol and clog the site.

Calling people names means you call them "intractable poopyheads" and "ignorant morons" - the ad hominem type of stuff.

One of the things I've enjoyed about reading this thread is hearing from all kinds of people I've never heard/seen here before - I've learned tons, from the left and right.

One thot that keeps recurring to me is - don't we all constantly struggle with getting ME out of the picture in observing and trying to interpret what God is doing in this world? Whether it's the personal ME, the ethnic ME, the national ME, sometimes it does us good to try and see and hear this world w/o the American perspective or the Canadian perspective or the British perspective. We are, after all, a comparatively small portion of the people on this terrestrial ball.

As Anne Lamott says so pointedly "We're right, it's not about me, it's only one six-billionth about me."

canucklehead · 2 years ago

Richard Pierard, good to hear your perspective (TEDS, early '80s!)

justintime · 2 years ago

Ten tactics observed on this forum, utilized by
deluded conservative authoritarian fundamentalists, trapped in the past;
whenever they encounter new facts at odds with their delusion:

1. If the facts are embarrassing, they may try to deny the facts.
2. They will complain how the liberal media is slanted and suppressing the truth.
3. If denying the facts fails to convince may try to change the subject.
4. If you continue pursuing the topic at hand they may try to ignore you.
5. If you refuse to be ignored they may play the Bill Clinton card.
6. If you refuse the Clinton card, they might try the Ted Kennedy card or the Jane Fonda card or the Saddam Hussein card, or the Osama bin Laden card, etc.
7. If they run out of cards they will complain about how unfair or mean you are or how you've insulted their righteousness.
8. They may even pout and leave the discussion.
9. But they will always be back, disrupting discussion of the next topic.
10. Only under rare circumstances will they dare to talk about the embarrassing facts of the topic at hand.
.....
Trent just put tactic no. 7 into play.

Wolverine · 2 years ago

Trent,

I appreciate the thought. The truth is I can be as snarky as anyone on the board. I like to think I'm cleverer about it, but don't be fooled, I'm definitely a smart-aleck.

Richard Nauck,

Here's the thing: if you're expecting Christians to be all that much better than everyone else, you're liable to be disappointed.

CS Lewis actually argued that Christians would tend to be a bit meaner than average because the really nice people with good upbringings would tend to believe they were okay as they were. The hotheads would be more aware of their failings and more likely to turn to Christ. That's not to say that Christianity cannot help, but its a slow process and there's liable to be bumps on the way. That was his theory at least.

Wolverine

Rev. Ian Alterman · 2 years ago

I'd like to offer responses to a few scattered comments, mostly theological.

"'I am pro-life.' 'I don't want to criminalize a woman's most agonizing, personal decisions.'
I have heard Jim Wallis make both of these statements. For many here, the latter apparently invalidates the former."

They are no more mutually exclusive than the statements "I am against abortion" and "I am pro-choice." In fact, when fully correlated, most polls show that 75% of Americans hold these two seemingly contradictory views. It is simple: abortion is "wrong," whether or not it qualifies as "murder." But this does NOT equate to believing that morality should be legislated. If abortion IS wrong/murder, it is between the woman and whatever God she believes (or does not believe) in.

"'This Jesus who taught and more importantly lived the Kingdom values is the one who condemned violence against others under any and all circumstances.' Do you have a scriptural reference for this?"

The clearest Scriptural reference is Matthew 5:43-45: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

This is not just "pretty words" or metaphor. It is a direct "command" from Christ. It does NOT say "do this only under this or that particular circumstance, or only when this or that particular set of parameters is met." The clear implication is that it is to be done ALL THE TIME, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

"'Jesus had almost nothing to say about a place of eternal bliss, but he had a lot to say about the sick, the hungry and the marginalized in this world.' What did he say about the sick and the hungry, and why is it inherently more important than what he said about his eternal kingdom?"

If you don't know what Jesus said about the sick and hungry, you are not particularly well-versed in the New Testament. Suffice to say that much is said. And it is not that it is "inherently more important" than other things He said, but that it is JUST as important, if not moreso.

The word "slaves" rendered in the King James (and some other) versions of the Bible is actually closest to the Greek word for "servant." Thus, Paul is NOT condoning "slavery," but urging servants to obey - in the same way (i.e., in the same spirit) that Christ obeyed the Father, even unto death.

As for "destruction of the family," I am guessing that someone is thinking of the phrase at Matthew 10:34-37: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

If so, this was not a suggestion for the destruction of the family. Jesus was simply noting that belief in HIM would cause internal rifts in families, setting family member against family member, and that salvation requires that one love Him even more than one loves one's own family members.

Finally, as for name-calling, it is wrong. Period. However, not all of what people here are referring to as "name-calling" is such. Calling someone a "Christian warrior" is not name-calling; it is an appellation for a type of Christian, and has as much positive as negative connotation. (I have friends who happily and seriously refer to themselves as such.) Similarly, "neocon war promoter" is an appellation; it is an observation that a person is expressing neocon views and is pro-war. That observation may be wrong, but that does not make the phrase "name-calling." "Name-calling" would be "neocon moron" or "neocon jerk," etc.

Peace.

jesse · 2 years ago

They are no more mutually exclusive than the statements "I am against abortion" and "I am pro-choice." In fact, when fully correlated, most polls show that 75% of Americans hold these two seemingly contradictory views.
--Not true at all. Most polls show Americans about evenly divided on the legality of abortion. The public and the news media at large also know what the term "pro-life" means, which is why politicians who are pro-choice do not refer to themselves as "pro-life". Wallis uses this trick with words in order to broaden his appeal to pro-life individuals who don't know his views.

I think Trent gave a good rebuttal of your uncharitable views on name-calling above. Wallis frequently throws around the word "neo-con" like another N-word...in a way that is meant to dehumanize and disregard the people he is referring to.

justintime · 2 years ago

Nathan Raynor says:

I'm all for the United States pulling its military out of Iraq but I don't know if you've addressed the issue fully. You Americans under your president invaded Iraq, threw the country into turmoil and chaos. Now a majority of your citizens have decided they want to pull out.

So what about the mess you created? Don't you have some responsibility to the people? Your stating that this war is not moral or just and walking away from the disaster you created is not moral or just either. You made the mess. You clean it before you pull out. The Iraqis and the rest of the world deserve at least this. The wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth without consideration to the terror you will condemn millions to is just not acceptable. Solution? I haven't a clue but Americans got into it, you figure it out.

Right now the only valid argument I've seen for staying in Iraq is:
WE'RE STUCK IN IRAQ, as Nathan points out.

But nothing positive can happen in Iraq until the Bush crime syndicate is removed from power.
They have too much invested in the occupation of Iraq to end the occupation or to negotiate for peace in the Middle East.
Even if they wanted to they are incapable of negotiating peace.
No one will trust them anymore.

The longer they stay in power, the more destruction they will wreak on the planet.

This is why I'm working to impeach these criminals.

Trent · 2 years ago

Justintime,
I quite liked your list and the bold heading, except you appear to have mistaken my position. In my first post today I indicated that I supported the blog, but that I found the name calling unnecessary and distracting.
I wholly believe that we can disagree and be much more polite than an outside reader of these comments would currently perceive. I also believe that if someone of something is under attack, even if its over a little thing like suggesting they'll go to hell, then they should be defended, even when their actual views run contrary to your own.
As has been pointed out so ably by Richard and Wolverine and Ian, at the heart of this debate are two opposing worldviews, both supposedly drawn from the same text. They're both in fact agreeing with Wallis' own comment that this is about theology.
So either this is a post-modern field day and two mutually exclusive positions are both simultaneously correct, or one or both sides of the argument are wrong (I personally think Jesus would make a great post-modernist). And if one or both sides are wrong, then it makes great sense, as Wallis suggested, to really spend time listening to those who are removed from the argument (which could be global Christians). Get together for some therapy or a mediation.
I'm off now (not running away Justintime).
Be Blessed,

kevin s. · 2 years ago

Wow. I leave for poker night and I have been condemned to hell... So much to which to respond (that's the sort of sentence you get when you criticize Minnesotans for ending sentences with a preposition.)

" Today he has responded (and he unfortunately engaged in name-calling), but has been criticised for responding. What's up with that?"

I don't care whether Wallis responds. He did engage in name-calling, which is neither impressive nor unexpected.

"So, really, who's dismissing whom?"

It's Pat Robertson dismissing Jim Wallis and vice versa, with loyalists (including you) on both sides, and the rest of us left elsewhere.

"And BTW, where did he call anyone names?"

"neocon war promoters" doesn't exactly have positive connotations. Calling those with whom he disagrees "Americans first and Christian's second" is ugly, if not name-calling, though the implication is clear. He also states that we are "clog(ing)" his blog, as though our opinions were but hair in his drainpipe. But, since you agree with his stances, it isn't name-caliing, but truth-telling. I know how you roll.

"What I have heard very little reflection about in this country is the fact that, to a large extent, Saddam was a monster of our creation."

But a monster nonetheless.

"Do you really think that those references are name-calling? "Neo-Conservative War Promoters" is what most of them call themselves."

Example?

'A good friend of mine is the chair of the board of a major international Bible-translation and Bible-distribution ministry."

Congratulations.

"Actually, that was Paul, and that phrase "slaves" is probably better translated "workers" today."

Peter wrote it as well. Your condescension is unwarranted.

"When did you acquire omniscient, divine powers or become a spokesperson for all Christians?"

He wrote a best-selling book. And he has had drinks with both Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair! He is important.

"Name calling is name calling. The name may be apt, the name may be appropriately descriptive but it is still name calling."

Yeah, but Wallis has his people charged up now. Now is not the time for reason.

"There will be many confused christians in Hell & rightly so: may their dysfunction to there with them."

This is absolutely the implication of Wallis' statements.

"I've been called many names on this board, but this is the first time I can recall being condemned to hell."

When we get there, let's do lunch. Fortunately for us, Jesus spoke out against portabella mushrooms (probably) so we'll have that going for us.

"As Anne Lamott says so pointedly "We're right, it's not about me, it's only one six-billionth about me.""

She also quipped that fetuses were, essentially, sea-horses. She lost my attention at that point, but you are the funnyman, so keep going.

No posts from Juris, Squeaky or Neuro yet? Hmmm... I would hope I'd at least get a pat on the back from them before I suffer eternal damnation.

justintime · 2 years ago

Kevin,
Salvation is possible for those who see the light.

TURYAHEEBWA Satu Johnmary · 2 years ago

How I wish all Americans knew where their country and culture stands in modern civilization! It is a pity the world is having to put up with an international scandle of unimaginable magnitude in Iraq just because some christian leaders are "wise".....what irony!!

How on earth can we accept death by injection (in defence of devine ordinance) but turn around to say death by hunging is primitive? Come on: the guys that took war to Iraq are same ones who had previously signed numerous death sentences in Texas. We all sadly remember their happiness when the deposed Saddam Hussein was captured.....what a coincidence that he followed the Texan victims of the higly unpopular death penalty! How on earth, then, do such people turn around to condemn abortion and homosecuality under the guise of preserving Christian values? I do not only find them hypocritical but also see in them a cancer eating into the body of the church they claim to defend.

To hell with anything the Holy Scripture condemns. The war on terror for which Iraq continues to paid dearly has set a dangerous precedent around the world. The stories of people in detention for terrorism related charges abound here in Uganda are as disturbing as there are others about corruption in a country whose population is over 90 percent Christian and whose leadership is largely born again!!

And the excellent relationship that exists between the leaders? Don't forget Ugandan leaders did not just support the ivasion of Iraq but have thousands of our reserves serving as auxilliaries there. Shame upon our defilement of God in the Iraqis (and others) whose lives we have turned up-side-down!

Richard Tucker · 2 years ago

Jim - Amen! Amen!
I'm sorry if some of your bloggers are upset by 'name calling'.
But on the big issue you are right. American policy in Iraq is seen by the vast majority outside the USA as both a failure and a disgrace - and by most non-American Christians, myself included, as bringing shame on the name of Christ whenever God's name is invoked in support of the war. The added whiff of greed in the allocation of reconstruction contracts and the grab of oil revenues makes things worse.

Rev Richard Tucker, Birmingham, UK

James · 2 years ago

This is an incredibly good post and it is long overdue. I see that the same voices who have been so offensive in the past are now playing the offended ones- I guess that it will have to be that way and so be it. Their absurdity is manifest.

Thank you, Jim Wallis

"Now, I'm not a big one on false modesty, and I don't expect Jim Wallis to act like he's just another shlub. But if that's not tooting your own horn, I've never heard a horn tooted."Wolverine

It could be that, or it simply could be true or it could be both. I choose the second option (it is true and Jim is not bragging) because I don't hold misplaced and irrrational disdain for Jim Wallis and because there are any number of us on this blog who have traveled and can confirm what Jim has said. Your jealousy over Jim's travels is palpable. There is a solution. Obtain a passport, travel and broaden your horizons.

Caroline Blakers · 2 years ago

Bravo Mr Wallis. I am an Australian Christian, living in Belgium, about to move to Ireland, and I have friends, Christian and non Christian all over the world.The sentiment I continually encounter from people about American politics and foriegn policy has been well summed up by your article.The United States is seen as a self serving agressor that continually casts aside human rights and international laws, and greedily marches across the rest of us, taking what it can and not caring a hoot about the debry it leaves behind.It's so sad that this nation has the potential to do so much good, yet chooses to do so much harm instead.And most certainly, Bush muddying the waters over what is American politics and what is Christian is devastating to the Christian cause.

A. Willis · 2 years ago

Thanks Jim
You have bolstered the case for Christianity and demonstrated what an amazing thing it is to be in the body of the church - Worldwide. One of the strongest messages to "love thine enemy' is of course one of the hardest to follow but it is inexcusable for some in the church to stubbornly add to the chorus of war mongering. We are being watched and judged by our actions. It cannot be otherwise.
As N. Rod points out, Biblical justification for slavery was sought and "found" when it was necessary and expedient for the slave holders and I believe the whole conservative movement flows from there.In the reconstruction era and civil rights era what really outraged the class of powerful in the south and then throughout the country was that they might have to pay for the education and advancement of a people they could not exploit in their "genteel" customary way. The dots are quite easily connected to the wolves in sheeps clothing today who thwart the gospel to the poor for the sake of corporate and govermental policies. Let those with eyes see and those with ears hear - the gospel still speaks to the earths people and to the church. Maybe thats why so many of us can no longer hear Mr. Bush and his apologists.

Moderatelad · 2 years ago

WOW - I worked with High School kids on designing the set for the fall play and spent the evening watching my son play soccer and it is going to take me days to get through all these posts. Wallis shure hit a nerve on this one.

It's Friday - have a great weekend and I might post something later.

Blessings on all.
.

jesse · 2 years ago

I see that the same voices who have been so offensive in the past are now playing the offended ones- I guess that it will have to be that way and so be it. Their absurdity is manifest.
--I doubt any of us are offended (I'm not). We just wanted to point out the hypocrisy we're seeing from a minister on a Christian website who decries our "vitriol" one second and then attacks our faith and calls us names the next.

I would also like to see the religious left not demonize, insult, and treat unlovingly the people with whom they disagree. I have a number of Christian friends who are into Sojo, and for the sake of the body of Christ, I hope they would not emulate the rhetoric seen here. The church is made of Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in between. If we truly care about the church, then attacking each other's faith over political disagreements is the last thing we should be doing.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Trent Said: Name calling is name calling. The name may be apt, the name may be appropriately descriptive but it is still name calling.
A lot of my work is in the field of special education. In this field effort has gone into distinguishing between the person and the disabling condition. Calling someone 'Intellectually Impaired,' (I believe the US uses the term 'retarded') is very different to saying that 'John Smith has an Intellectual Impairment.'
In the same way calling someone a 'neocon war promotor,' categorises them as a person and reduces their humanity (as all categorical labels do). Saying that they 'hold to neocon war promoting views' is bulkier but more accurate, more descriptive and less offensive.
Over a few months of reading these blogs and comments there has been plenty of name calling and Wallis has copped more than his share. It just isn't good practice and the suggested revenge motif doesn't sit well with Christian ethics.
And for the record, if Bush and Cheney did describe themselves as 'neocon war promotors,' that still doesn't excuse applying that label to posters to this site.
Be Blessed,

Trent,

Congratulations on changing the entire purpose of this blog. You have succeeded at building up a straw-man position and then tearing it down.

Your position on name calling, however, still does not work. If we followed your direction we would have to refer to Democrats and Republicans as those that hold the views of the Democrats or Republicans. To call someone a Christian would be name calling. I would have to refer to someone as holding the views of Christianity. I actually kind of like that one because there are so many that call themselves Christians that aren't; I would get to look at their actual views and compare them to Christianity rather than refering to them as Christians automatically just because they call themselves Christians.

BTW, those in the US that call people retarded are in the wrong and it isn't the standard, regardless whether it's the norm or not.

Now, let's get back to the actual topic at hand and see what you have to say about war in Iraq rather than some off the topic name calling blog.

odoco · 2 years ago

Um, let's see:
4 million Iraqi refugees . . .
Most of the educated class has left the country . . .
No infrastructure after four years of war
Still no electricity for much of the country
Still little potable water for the people
Increasing segregation of Iraqi nationals
More instability in the Middle East because of our actions
An overwhelming majority of the world's people condemn our actions
10% of 'American' dead are actually non-citizens
The "All volunteer Army' is mostly comprised of lower social/economic youths who simply join to gain access to money for schooling - take away the $10,000 to $50,000 sign up bonuses and see how many 'volunteer' to fight and die for corporate greed.
US personnel in Iraq lost about $9 billion dollars!!!! Nobody knows where it went!!!! Where is the accountability???
US personnel cannot account for about 200,000 weapons!!!! Think that was an accident??? Where is the accountability????
Corruption at a level that defies belief
Perhaps more than half a million Iraqi dead
Nearly 3,800 US fatalities (does not include Afghanistan or 'fatal mishaps'
1/2 Trillion dollars of tax money has already been spent - now we're told we will be there for years to come
Iraqis object to the 'oil law' benchmark - they know we are stealing their wealth - no mainstream media reporting on this!!!!
No accountability at command level for Abu Ghraib - we knowingly implemented policies of torture - Christian ethics?????
We have illegally kidnapped nationals off the streets of their own countries - Christian ethics??
We have operated a series of secret prisons outside the purview of legal oversight - Christian ethics???
No bid contracts
Lies that led to war - prosecutable?
OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL
IMPERIALISM - PURE AND SIMPLE
This war of choice is a crime. Its perpetrators should be held accountable in an international court of law, and if found guilty of international crimes should be imprisoned. The US should be required to pay reparations to the Iraqi government for the rebuilding of their country.
The vast majority of the people of this country continue to go about their way, ignorant at best, uncaring at worst, about what their government is doing to other human beings. If this administration is representative of Christianity - then I am no longer a Christian. If this administration is representative of American values - then I no longer want to be an American.

Ben Schmidt · 2 years ago

Judithod wrote:
I'm appalled that you are misusing Christianity in defense of your opposition to the U. S. involvement in Iraq. You've made a sweeping, arrogant statement in claiming that "the body of Christ internationally is against the U. S. war in Iraq and the whole direction of current U. S. foreign policy." When did you acquire omniscient, divine powers or become a spokesperson for all Christians?

Unlike you, I've never told my children to avoid defending their liberty or the right of others to live in freedom. In fact, I'm the mother of a Marine captain who has deployed twice during the conflict. According to your vitriolic labeling, both my son and I are "neocon war promoters." So be it.

Why do you choose to condemn U. S. Christians and others who may choose to support the advance of freedom in Iraq (and beyond) and blatantly avoid condemning the terrorists? Who are the suicide bombers? The roadside bombers? They are not U. S. soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen. They are not Christians, Jews, Buddhist, or Hindus. They are Muslim extremists who hate "infidels," an appellation that includes you.

What is playing out in Iraq is a series of clashes: the mentality of the 21st century versus the mentality of the Middle Ages, human rights versus violations of human rights. What is at stake is not the honor of the U. S. but the privilege of people to live respectfully and safely regardless of gender, ethnicity, and religious beliefs.
----------------------------------------------
Judithod,

If you have read other statements, speeches, or books by Jim Wallis, you would realize that he does condemn the actions of terrorists. He even called for the removal of Saddam from Iraq, but with an alternative to war. Perhaps you have forgotten, but there were no terrorists in Iraq before the US invaded; Saddam made sure of that. I, like your son, served two tours with the Marines in Iraq. What's his name, I might know him? I think you have also forgotten the human rights violations that the US government and private companies have taken part in since the invasion (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, destroying habeas corpus, etc.). Also, what is the difference between an IED or suicide bomber that kills innocents and a US bomb that kills innocents? I think that we are arogant to claim that others aren't free and that we need to free them. If we believe in Christianity, then we should believe that Christ died once and for all so that we may be freed. No one can take that freedom away and no one can give it except one that claims to be God. Therefore, if we claim to have that power, then you do the math. Christ calls us to love our enemies, not kill them in the name of our freedom or anyone elses. Christ already died for that freedom.

Ben

Donny · 2 years ago

"For all the vitriolic debate about politics this week in relationship to the war in Iraq, I think the real issue is our theology and ecclesiology."

Mr. Wallis,

You sound like a Democrat's pet parrot. Your politics are as transparent as the name of your blog.

You speak like a Christian "sometimes" and you act like a socialist-progressive Democrat all the time. No Christian can support that.

The issue IS your theology and ecclesiology. You want peace to inflict your hedonistic and perverted socialist agenda on the entire earth. We non-progressive-liberal Christians know what you and your kind are up to. Just one look at MTV or Vanity Fair and your kind of life jumps off the page. .

Eric Nord · 2 years ago

Kevin S.

My point about Saddam being a monster of our own creation is not that he is not a monster, but that if the US continues in the "business as usual" mode in foreign policy, without really reflecting about the results of some of our past actions, we will only continue to create more monsters. Then in 10-30 years we will be saying," XXX is a monster who oppresses his own people, so we have to start a pre-emptive war against YYY to bring democracy them."

I really think Wallis is right here - we have too often been Americans first and Christians second. I confess this to be true about myself, even thought I refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag. I confess this because living in this country, in incredible wealth and luxury (and I say this as someone who qualifies for Government Assistance), I believe that I have been, in a sense, bribed. I have everything I need and more, and it is not hard to get. Yet I worry about if my home is appreciating fast enough, or if I should buy a new computer. I find it is almost impossibly hard to "Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness (justice)" in the midst of such overwhelming, distracting privelege.

Only my $0.02

Peace in Christ

Simply put · 2 years ago

The New Testament Christians rejected Progressive politics 2000+years ago.

Dan Delventhal · 2 years ago

Jim,

Nice writing today.

I appreciate your reminder of a biblical basis for promoting peace. A very religious friend of mine had suggested that the bible supported war-like behavior, which was disturbing.

Keep up the good work and loving, peaceful, and practical ways.

Dan Delventhal

Dan Delventhal · 2 years ago

Jim,

Nice writing today.

I appreciate your reminder of a biblical basis for promoting peace. A very religious friend of mine had suggested that the bible supported war-like behavior, which was disturbing.

Keep up the good work and loving, peaceful, and practical ways.

Dan Delventhal

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Kevin S. wrote:

Wow. I leave for poker night and I have been condemned to hell...

That's what you get for playing cards and gambling. I'll bet you were drinking beer too. You're gonna pay for all that wild living someday.

James,

Thanks for your concern about my spiritual condition. I do often wish I had travelled more. But if it's any comfort, I do have a passport, and I know how to use it. I've even met some big shots overseas although sigh not as many as Jim Wallis has.

Wolverine

A. Willis · 2 years ago

Well, I can't sleep so why not get into it!
As you know lots and lots of people are dying - real serious things are at stake and to paraphrase the quote about Mom -"When God ain't happy - nobody's happy!" I certainly ain't. Jesse is bothered by name calling...particularly when it comes from the otherside. Perhaps he should consider Jesus who called members of his society hypocrites, vipers, thieves etc..- he was very creative and ariculate... but hey, he was God. The point is again is that there is a lot at stake. If your son if lobbing in artillery from 20 miles out in Fallujah and getting medals. While you're on a corner screaming at my daughter "Baby Killer" as she enters a clinic... something is wrong with somebody's perception. Thus far US policy in the world has been sanctioned by consent of the governed(I am using a very loose definition of consent) but those policies have always been debatable. The conservative wing of the church has more recently attempted to sanctify the actions of the conservative administration. And would seem to want to quash debate as effectively as the administration has been quashing human rights. Right now nothing is going according to plan as both have become hopelessly ensnared in the ruinous policies they have pursued. The rest of the world is hurriedly waking up and looking for alternatives - Enter Christ(never far from the scene - sort of an "outside agitator" one might say! It should be expected that the arguments would get louder because he came as he said to divide. We in the church who believe Christ's gospel to the poor is a obligatory "good news" for the world, have to oppose the forces aligned against it. The church may split - as it did over the question of slavery. That is part of the process. Our world is being dragged by tremendous powers toward an unhappy end. I believe the church can get itself together and demonstate to the world a saving grace(I believe this will become possible when we stop baiting them and start loving them)
The desire to call me a commie must be fairly palpable by now... hey, I can take it. If you need to call me a name before the real message of Christ breaks into your mind that is OK too. It took me 50 some years to finally hear it. Along the way I was an arrogant, elitist, militarist, racist....hey why should i do the work for you. I ask everyone in the church to boldly reconsider their support for the war in light of the opinions of our brothers and sisters around the world and in the name of our Saviour.
Peace out A. Willis

47891 · 2 years ago

You have arrogant Elitist's on the Left and arrogant Elitists's on the Right. It looks like a ten-tousand to one when comparing the numbers of Elitists on the Left to the miniscule amount of them on the Right.

John · 2 years ago

Jim (or whoever),

This is a little off-topic for this particular entry, but perhaps you or some of the posters can point me to some material to help me. I email Sojourners the following question and they have not yet responded (unless it got blocked somehow):

------------------
Hi. I have a question regarding your mission. Perhaps you can point me to an article or other resource that provides the answer from your perspective.

Why does Sojourners believe that the power of government is required to care for the poor and needy? Would not a foundation built on voluntary contributions preserve not only the care of the needy but also the morality of the giver? With the government solution, support for the needy is compelled and therefore is not a matter of stewards of the Lord's resources distributing them. It seems to me that the morality of giving to the needy -- and perhaps the spiritual benefit of freely giving to those in need -- is lost when the compulsory government solution is adopted.

Do you have an article or other resource you can point me to that will help me see your point of view?
Thank you very much.

A fellow sojourner on this earth,
John

jerry · 2 years ago

since this country, the u s a, is not a theocracy, how does jim blame american christians for the war? this war was supported by nearly all the congressional politicians. how does jim pick, pick, pick on a small group of christians he does not like or agree with? and.....whom did not have a say in the decision to go to war. jim has no answer to the terrorists. only an opinion on the war. and...disdain for those who do not agree with is philosophy.

Robert Alu · 2 years ago

Hi all,

The religious 'evangelical' authorities conspired to have Jesus crucified, for political reasons. Their followers went along, possibly because the majority imagine might is always right. Possibly because it was the only show available in town at the time. Possibly because they depended on someone else to read Scripture for them. They were 'evangelicals', but a bit wishy-washy, you see.

These followers possibly had no clue that they were part of a political strategy that they knew little of ...

A very tiny minority was left to defend the cause of Christ. For some reason I think of the evangelical church in America this way today.

I am an African, as is the Secretary General of the World Council of Churches.

(I WILL SAY THIS NOW: I am not writing about anyone in particular in the following, but if the cap fits ...)

Many God's Politics commentators who wait for the next Jim Wallis or Diana B Bass or Daoud Kuttab article to criticise here possibly do not have a clue of the existence of the WCC. They may also have no clue of the Church body represented by the Pope in Vatican City. They possibly know that there is an Anglican Church head. Quite likely they express, in the name of evangelical Christianity, the same contempt for all the above as they do for the United Nations.

But,

Even before the so called war in Iraq all of the foregoing organisations, plus all but a dozen or so countries worldwide, opposed the invasion. Over the years many have continually pointed out the injustice of that and other American backed positions that I regularly see applauded by writers to these pages.

Given the antagonistic 'bent' to many of the posts here I think they would simply dismiss Catholics, Anglicans and possibly all of us evangelical Christians who question their way of thinking as simply "not Christians."

It is possible, of course, that if I were an American 'evangelical', with the Star Spangled Banner adorning my mega church, with my pastor justifying the war, I may be forgiven for imagining that 'we', in "the land of the free and the brave" are right, along with our mighty government and most of the rest of the world is wrong, wrong, wrong ...

Depending on my desire (or lack of) to have my worldview challenged or my ability to challenge my opinion leaders etc, my ignorance may be forgiven.

But,

Given that the rest of the world has access to the same information that Americans have got, surely hubris has got to play a major part in such ignorance.

I guess we can always pray.

And my prayer would be for 'evangelicals' everywhere to go back to the meaning of the term, i.e. 'followers of the Lord who emphasize the authority of the Bible.'

Thank you Jim Wallis.

It must be a very difficult task for you, going on like this month after month and year after year. As for the church in America ... Surely not all is lost? As you have pointed out "a new conversation has begun ..."

I read the comments here daily and, every once in a while, I come across something erudite, written with sensitivity, thoughtfulness, compassion, empathy and humility.

Sure, such happenings are a lot fewer than the 'shoot from the hip' fare but we needs must thank God for them.

Once again, if the cap fits ...

GOD BLESS AMERICA - AND EVERYONE ELSE!
(Chris Rock - Head of State)


Robert Alu
Dar es Salaam

Jerry · 2 years ago

Bill,

You spend 90% of your article trying to convince the reader that most Christians outside of this country do not support our policies in Iraq. That approach fits about 90% of the far "left" and their 'reasoning' for an unjust conflict. "Just gather enough petitioners and you have a solid case." Do you really consider your audience to exist that far down the ladder of understanding when compared to yourself? Where is your sound "reasonable", "likely to succeed" counter approach to the conflict. Not just the "so heavenly minded it's of no earthly good" concepts that you shroud your version of Christianity within.

You are, however, most correct when you claim that most of us are Americans first and Christians second. And that is supposed to convince me that the "rest of the Christian world" has it figured out? You simply leave it there? I suggest to you that THEY are "anti-American" fist and Christians secondarily. You seem to me to come closer to that view yourself as you develop your own worldview more completley, these last several years. Convince us otherwise, please.

And just for your uniformed "readers"/bloggers: The Christian Crusades were more about recapturing lands that had been torn (first) from Christian peoples in the past than about militarily advancing Christianity into those "stolen" areas. You pander to your readers when their reasoning seems to support your "bigger" position, when your duty as a defender of the faith, and more to the point, a child of God who has been given brains and reasoning abilities (Christlikeness too) to take every thought captive unto Christ. Paul reasoned his faith, rigorously, with those whom opposed him or who just plainly had absurd worldviews. I don't recall reading about any polling going on by him so he could better convince his audience that lots of folks agreed with him, so as to be able to better claim that what he was saying must be true.

Be careful Mr Wallis, lest you become too populist minded. That would certainly not be exemplary of taking every thought captive......

Good day sir!

Anonymous · 2 years ago

At which point Mr. Wallis proceeded to bestow upon us a portion of the many insights he has gleaned from his many travels around the globe visiting with Christian leaders, the vast majority of whom happen to agree with him. And then he helpfully reminded us: "And if you don't know that perspective, you simply haven't had much experience with Christians outside of the United States." Which certainly put me in my place.

Wolverine -- That still doesn't answer my original objection, that he "referred to himself as a leader of the "'evangelical left.'" As I said, he hasn't specifically said that about himself, ever -- it's what some conservatives have assumed he is based on some of his ideological positions. Now, it may be that non-American evangelicals hold positions that, here in the States, may be interpreted as leftist, and if what he said sounds arrogant, it's in response to arrogant, culture-bound American conservatives who insist, "The Bible says ... " when it actually doesn't say that.

And even if he did say that he was a leader of the "Christian left," it's not as though there's some hard-wired "left-wing" movement in the same way there was and is a hard-wired right-wing movement. But that points out one issue I've tried to address: People who criticize the "right," for any reason, aren't necessarily by definition "left." Canucklehead once referred to me as a "crafty leftie" even though my personal morality is extremely hard-right -- For example, I've always been staunchly anti-abortion and wrote an op-ed in my newspaper over 10 years ago defending my then-denomination's stance in specifically barring "sexually immoral people," including practicing homosexuals, from official leadership. (And BTW, those same evangelicals that Wallis was meeting with probably hold those same positions for the same reasons.)

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Rick said: "Actually, that was Paul, and that phrase "slaves" is probably better translated "workers" today."


Rick,
Get your facts straight!

Peter DID call on slaves to submit to their masters.
1 Peter 2:18, Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

AS for the question of how to translate the word for today - the word "worker" would hardly work since these slaves were not free to choose another employer or break a contract at will. We all realize today that the Greco-Roman slavery wasn't chattel slavery, but it was still slavery nonetheless.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

At which point Mr. Wallis proceeded to bestow upon us a portion of the many insights he has gleaned from his many travels around the globe visiting with Christian leaders, the vast majority of whom happen to agree with him. And then he helpfully reminded us: "And if you don't know that perspective, you simply haven't had much experience with Christians outside of the United States." Which certainly put me in my place.

Wolverine -- That still doesn't answer my original objection, that he "referred to himself as a leader of the "'evangelical left.'" As I said, he hasn't specifically said that about himself, ever -- it's what some conservatives have assumed he is based on some of his ideological positions. Now, it may be that non-American evangelicals hold positions that, here in the States, may be interpreted as leftist, and if what he said sounds arrogant, it's in response to arrogant, culture-bound American conservatives who insist, "The Bible says ... " when it actually doesn't say that.

And even if he did say that he was a leader of the "Christian left," it's not as though there's some hard-wired "left-wing" movement in the same way there was and is a hard-wired right-wing movement. But that points out one issue I've tried to address: People who criticize the "right," for any reason, aren't necessarily by definition "left." Canucklehead once referred to me as a "crafty leftie" even though my personal morality is extremely hard-right -- For example, I've always been staunchly anti-abortion and wrote an op-ed in my newspaper over 10 years ago defending my then-denomination's stance in specifically barring "sexually immoral people," including practicing homosexuals, from official leadership. (And BTW, those same evangelicals that Wallis was meeting with probably hold those same positions for the same reasons.)

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

We all realize today that the Greco-Roman slavery wasn't chattel slavery, but it was still slavery nonetheless.

My comment stands, because in that day it was not uncommon for people to pay for their travel with "indentured service." That was the "slavery" Paul talked about, and thus "workers" would be a good contemporary rendition.

dlowen · 2 years ago

Excellent post. For those offended by the criticism of the "Christian warriors" that clog the blog, "If the shoe fits..."

In Matt 5, there is an interesting break in the flow of blessings. The peacemakers aren't blessed by receiving peace, they are called God's children. To be a peacemaker, you must already have received the Peace of Christ. The world sees everything differently than God sees it. Pax Americana is a form of peace, but not God's peace. May the peace from within an not the peace that flows from the barrel of a gun abide with all.

squeaky · 2 years ago

Richard Nauck,
I second Wolverine's response to you. I don't think this is the best place to learn what Christianity is about, although it perhaps is a good place to learn that not all Christians are conservative Republicans. As you can see, we do span a wide range of political views. But as Wolverine said, politics is contentious.
For the most part, there are very few people that I have seen posting here who denegrate each other's faith based on their political views. At the end of the day, I think most of us would be in one accord concerning who our Lord is and that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I know there are exceptions to that statement, but I think the exceptions are few. We may attack each other's politics, but it is rare to see us attack each other's faith (or at least I haven't seen it much).
I understand where you are coming from because for several years, I had become very disillusioned with Christianity because of politics. I came close as I ever have to letting go of faith, but fortunately, I have a pastor who lets me ask any and all questions, and helped me work through some doubts. He also helped me see that it is really all about Jesus, not about all these political trappings.
And, it has been helpful for me being on this site because it is good to see there is more than one political perspective in the world of Christianity, and I know I have found some like-minded people here. I've enjoyed the discussion even with those who are not like-minded politically, as well.
So then, to your real question: What do we have to offer you? Well, we ourselves have nothing to offer you but our broken humanity, which as you know is all too evident on this site and elsewhere. The question is, then, not "what do we have to offer you," but "what does Jesus have to offer you?" He is who you should be focusing on. All we can do is feebly point you to Him. To adapt a line from Kramer on Seinfeld "Look away! We're hideous!" Instead, look at Christ.

t20 · 2 years ago

Sojouners is absolutely the wolf in sheeps clothing. Trumpeting Progressive and Democrat politics incessantly proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. I wish they would just declare their Wiccan identity and be done with it. But then that would be asking a Democrat to be honest and I know how impossible that is.

Carolyn Bullard- · 2 years ago

Take out all the non-Christians from that global population sample and among the people of God the opposition remains the same.

I agree with Jim on almost everything, but I take issue with the implication that only Christians are the "people of God." The God that I know and worship is the God of all creation, all people. Is this not part of the problem? We polarize, us and them, me and you, until there is conflict and war. We, all of humanity, are God's people.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

To the minister who claims the Greek word for "slave" is better translated as "servant" -

Well, I don't have a REV. to put in front of my name, but I have studies Greek and Hebrew in post graduate degrees, and last time I checked it would be confusing for the modern reader to read "servant" when the term is used to describe someone who does not have an "at-will" contract.

The point stands that one would be hard-pressed to find a consistent vision of "social justice" in the Bible. Talk about imposing political motives onto a sacred text.

Jeff Blanton · 2 years ago

I echo others, Amen. Thanks Jim.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

I have never commented on one of these blogs, but felt compelled to do so now.

My father was a Lutheran Minister. I grew up in a Christian household and went to Christian elementary and high schools. My family is divided between supporting the war and not. I do not support it and have asked my siblings that do support it a few questions. I have never gotten any answers as they have said "we agree to disagree". To me that statement is a blanket response that allows this most important issue to be glossed over and never really be discussed. Could someone clarify something for me?

How is it that Christianity and the military are so closely tied?

How is it that before going to battle with gun in hand to potentially take the lives of other humans, a prayer is offered up to garner support from Christ our Father?

What has happened to obeying #6 of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" ?

~~If I have a gun and you have a gun and the option is to kill or be killed, what choice do you make?~~

~~~If Christ had a gun and another had a gun and the choice He has is to kill or be killed, what choice would He make?~~~

We know the answer...He chose death. We know that it was well within His power to kill all those that persecuted Him, and yet he chose death. He chose death on the cross so that we don't have to fear death. He died so that we may live with Him forever in eternity. It seems very clear to me. If in fact we were true Christians that followed and lived by the teachings of Christ our Savior, wouldn't we also choose to obey those teachings and in this case commandment #6 and not take the life of another?

In my opinion every time that we as a nation go to war...and we do it more and more often...we are not representing ourselves as a true "Christian Nation". And therefore the reputation that we ultimately spread is not one of Christian Love, but one of hatred and killing. In turn, this promotes more hatred and more killing in those that we pursue. At some point someone has to make a concerted effort to stop the killing. I wish it could be the US.

Love begets love...war begets war.

David

Wolverine · 2 years ago

Squeaky,

That last post was very well put. Thanks.

Wolverine

Anonymous · 2 years ago

I am still not clear on why the evangelical right is to blame for the Iraq War. Wallis and others seem to assume a level of power and influence that the evangelical church does not possess. In the interest of seeking peace, it would be edifying if Wallis acknowledged the possibility that Christians can have legitimate disagreements over political issues. Wallis' failure to state this clearly leaves the impression (and it is up to Wallis to clarify if he intends this or not) that Christians on the right are not obeying God with their politics.

If this is the case, and based on my reading of Wallis and his supporters one is led to believe it could be, it means Wallis is advancing a political agenda that oddly parallel to the Religious Right of the 1980s - and by suggesting to be Christian you must also assent to a particular political position.

As a conservative (for philosophical and policy reasons) and an evangelical (by the grace of God I have seen the "light" thank you very much and please don't keep questioning my faith justintime)
I propose a truce - less talk about "God's" politics and more talk about what it means to be a faithful Christian in our world.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

I am still not clear on why the evangelical right is to blame for the Iraq War. Wallis and others seem to assume a level of power and influence that the evangelical church does not possess. In the interest of seeking peace, it would be edifying if Wallis acknowledged the possibility that Christians can have legitimate disagreements over political issues. Wallis' failure to state this clearly leaves the impression (and it is up to Wallis to clarify if he intends this or not) that Christians on the right are not obeying God with their politics.

If this is the case, and based on my reading of Wallis and his supporters one is led to believe it could be, it means Wallis is advancing a political agenda that oddly parallel to the Religious Right of the 1980s - and by suggesting to be Christian you must also assent to a particular political position.

As a conservative (for philosophical and policy reasons) and an evangelical (by the grace of God I have seen the "light" thank you very much and please don't keep questioning my faith justintime)
I propose a truce - less talk about "God's" politics and more talk about what it means to be a faithful Christian in our world.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

I agree with Jim on almost everything, but I take issue with the implication that only Christians are the "people of God." The God that I know and worship is the God of all creation, all people. Is this not part of the problem? We polarize, us and them, me and you, until there is conflict and war. We, all of humanity, are God's people.

A nice sentiment, but theologically incorrect. Everything (including all persons) is His creation and ought to be treated with respect, to be sure, but it takes some kind of personal relationship to be "one of His." Anyway, His intention in setting people "apart," ancient Israel then and the Church of Jesus Christ now, always was to bless the whole world. It is not for nothing that Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father except through Me" -- even though the world may appropriate some of His principles. God's attitude is "Obey me, and just watch how I will bless you."

The point stands that one would be hard-pressed to find a consistent vision of "social justice" in the Bible. Talk about imposing political motives onto a sacred text.

Study Isaiah, Micah and Amos sometime, then say that. My white, Republican pastor preached through the entire book of Isaiah about five years ago and found all kinds of stuff on social justice.

squeaky · 2 years ago

Wolverine--thanks. Yours also!

Anonymous · 2 years ago

The point stands that one would be hard-pressed to find a consistent vision of "social justice" in the Bible. Talk about imposing political motives onto a sacred text.

Study Isaiah, Micah and Amos sometime, then say that. My white, Republican pastor preached through the entire book of Isaiah about five years ago and found all kinds of stuff on social justice.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | September 14, 2007 11:27 AM


Rick - believe it or not, I am not biblically illiterate, and I have studied the OT prophets. I dispute the claim that somehow they provide a blueprint for modern political action in the 21st century. If one were to read the OT prophets literally, I can see how one would reach that conclusion. But if we read with an eye to authorial intent, intended audience and the particularities of the prophets' context, then a direct application of their message that had a very specific meaning in its time and space becomes pretty difficult to do.

Also, it strikes me as odd how the evangelical left is eager to quote the prophets on issues like poverty, but seem far less likely to go along with their occasional war-mongering. My point is that we all should be humble and careful in our claim that we can discern from our sacred, ancient text the roadmap for todays social programs. It is a biblical literalism that I cannot go along with personally.

squeaky · 2 years ago

t20--
"Sojouners is absolutely the wolf in sheeps clothing. Trumpeting Progressive and Democrat politics incessantly proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. I wish they would just declare their Wiccan identity and be done with it. But then that would be asking a Democrat to be honest and I know how impossible that is."

So ironic that you would post those comments right after mine. Sigh...

N .M. Rod · 2 years ago

...and still no Just War Theory application details...

Since I myself originally supported the war (or what I thought it was going to be) because I was told it did without actually examining the basis myself, and then upon doing so when discrepancies of truth began to emerge, I have to think that an honest appraisal would produce either re-evaluation or a hardening of the spirit, which I am sure most people really want to avoid.

Does avoiding the hard questions give one "plausible deniability" before God?

Carol Bergmann · 2 years ago

As always, I would like to thank Rev. Wallis for his thoughtful, insiteful and faith-filled comments. I couldn't agree with him more on all of the points made in this column.

I, too, have been overseas to visit relatives in Europe this past summer and one does, indeed, get a much broader picture of the views on the war, American foreign policy, etc. when one leaves America. We have once again become "America First," and in this case "Only," to the detriment of our long-term standing in the world.

It is going to take the next president, regardless of party, probably his/her entire first tenure to make a dent in improving our relations with the rest of the world. If we don't though, the consequences of terrorism will only increase.

Thank you, Rev. Wallis, for being a voice to which we should ALL listen.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

But if we read with an eye to authorial intent, intended audience and the particularities of the prophets' context, then a direct application of their message that had a very specific meaning in its time and space becomes pretty difficult to do.

That avoids the issue, frankly, because many of those same conditions -- corrupt judges that were bought off and economic exploitation, among others -- exist today even among God's people.
Also, it strikes me as odd how the evangelical left is eager to quote the prophets on issues like poverty, but seem far less likely to go along with their occasional war-mongering.

It's not quite like that. The Scripture doesn't teach pacifism per se, but name me a prophet that directly participated in any war, let alone a "pre-emptive" one.

squeaky · 2 years ago

I don't know John--Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. I think His words on how we should treat our "enemies" somehow trumps those OT examples. Jesus died for the sins of even those opposed to God's Kingdom. As for the soldiers, He may not have told them to not be soldiers, but in the whole context of Luke 3, you see the kind of conduct He expected from all people. I am sure these soldiers would realize they would have to abandon the cruelty that many Roman soldiers engaged in if they really wished to live like Christ. May even cause a soldier, or a tax collector, for that matter, such cognitive dissonance that they would change professions.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

If I can add this without anyone trying to stick me in a box, there are times when a prophet either killed or called for killing. I just want to add some more scripture into the discussion.

However, in these cases we're talking about an internal matter for disciplinary reasons, not two sovereign states going at it. For example, God had already decreed (Deuteronomy 17:6 and 7) that false prophets should be killed; Elijah was simply carrying out the law. And there's nothing wrong inherently with Christians joining the military because national defense is a legitimate concern. The problem with war is at heart a political one.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

I guess one of my biggest concerns with the anti-war evangelical left is not their position on the war - that is a viable (though often poorly argued) position, but the insinuation that to disagree with their anti-war position is to somehow not be fully Christian or to be actively embracing immorality. This strikes me as a very unfortunate feature of the evangelical left's political worldview - if you are not for me and my policies, then your politics, morality, and Christianity are not honoring to God.

This reduces a really complicated and important issue to stark, Manichean terms that shuts down true debate. It also is a very uncharitable way of dealing with Christian brothers and sisters who don't agree with your politics.

Why has it gotten to this point? I am not sure - but the references to "Bush's crime syndicate" are not very encouraging and reveal the paranoia that many anti-war critics have sunk to. Again, I am NOT saying it is unviable to be anti-war, I am just highly dissatisfied with the quality of their debate.

Also, to argue for multilateral diplomatic solutions (a paraphrase/quote from Wallis) is not a genuine alternative. Why? Because it does not deal with the infelicities of details, reality, and the question of how to implement such a grand, abstract plan.

I had once thought my friends who read Sojourners and put the God is not a Republican bumper sticker on their cars were just less-informed, more crude versions of what Wallis actually advocated. I am now seriously reconsidering that conclusion and fear their extreme disgust and anti-evangelical right language is not to far from the fountainhead.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Rick wrote:
However, in these cases we're talking about an internal matter for disciplinary reasons, not two sovereign states going at it. For example, God had already decreed (Deuteronomy 17:6 and 7) that false prophets should be killed; Elijah was simply carrying out the law. And there's nothing wrong inherently with Christians joining the military because national defense is a legitimate concern. The problem with war is at heart a political one.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | September 14, 2007 1:39 PM

But what about the times God did call on the Israelites to commit genocide and to wipe out their political enemies?

The point is, we should be VERY careful about proof-texting the OT. Otherwise, we could give really nasty arguments in favor of:
polygamy, genocide, death penalty, etc.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Squeaky,
Good point, but I wonder what we should make of Jesus' concern for the powerful to look after the weak. The NT church's concern for the widows and the orphans is a great example of how people with the means and ability have a responsibility to help others. Doesn't that same principle have any bearing on the weak who are not just hungry but also threatened by horrific evil and tyranny?

Much like Niebuhr saw in fascism and Nazism an evil power that required forceful opposition, it seems that there exists in the world today evil that is often great enough to demand those of us who have much (Americans, with the money, means, and respect for human liberty and well-being) have a responsibility to respond to such evil.

Why should Christians only be called to social action and acts of justice when it involves economics, but not when it involves matters of life and death?

Anonymous · 2 years ago

What if truly radical Christianity involved compassion for the poor and compassion for the victims of Saddam's secular regime?

Should our compassion ever take the form of active resistance to an evil state? If not, how do we answer for our unwillingness to act in the face of tremendous evil - whether it be Saddam's secular Baathism that ravaged the Kurds and the Shiites or the fanatical Shiites of Iran who wish to persecute the religious minorities of Iraq?

When diplomacy fails and our attempts at peace through dialogue are fruitless, do we owe the oppressed anything beyond calls for multilateral diplomatic action?

Steve · 2 years ago

It seems Christians have barely scratched the surface discussing Christ with other Christians, much less the "unsaved". In a new poll/survey today by MSNBC about the GOP primary it quoted a 40 year Republican woman and part time homemaker who identifys herself as conservative Christian. She is very much against abortion, doesn't like immigrants, and really wants a government policy allowing torture of prisoners because "they don't play nice." WOW! I see contradictions galore and certainly don't understand how she reconciles all this with her faith? Help me understand this...

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

My bad.

In my last post I gave a misleading reference -- although it was a correct passage, it was about general idolatry and had nothing do with false prophets per se.

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

But what about the times God did call on the Israelites to commit genocide and to wipe out their political enemies?

That, too, could be interpreted as discipline, because at that point He had determined that the peoples of those lands were beyond redemption. That's the same reason He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah -- and other cities in that same area were about the meet the very same fate! Remember, God wanted to create a nation that was holy, with no corrupting influences. Of course, that didn't happen. (God, however, always made provisions for "non-believers" to join Israel -- Rahab and Ruth were examples.)

squeaky · 2 years ago

"Why should Christians only be called to social action and acts of justice when it involves economics, but not when it involves matters of life and death?"

I don't think we aren't, Mysterious-Poster-With-No-Name. But what does it mean to be called to action over matters of life and death? Is war the only way to respond? I don't think it is. And then, too, when a government is involved, one also must weigh the motives of that government in terms of the armed conflict. Is it always a Christ-centered motive? We have more interests in the Middle East than the freedom of the people who live there, for example...

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

The majority of religion (and as Dwight Eisenhower observed, "I don't care which one it is") is always going to play cheerleader to the state, no matter what those state aims are.

Even in oppressed Israel in Jesus' time, the Jewish leaders averred, "We have no King but Caesar!" And the religious majority went along with them in their rejection of Jesus.

If you remember, the disciples weren't exactly out in front, either - Peter denied knowing Jesus.

As for who's a Christian and who's not, any person has the right to be self-identifying. Although, along with Arthur Schlesinger, we should not forget that "everyone's entitled to his own opinions, but no one's entitled to his own facts."

No one can deny that not everyone in the visible church of organised structures and membership is going to be recognised by Jesus.

The way is narrow, He said, and He will say to many, "Depart from me - I never knew you," despite the prophecying in His name and all the trappings of religiosity, because although they recognised Who He Is, they did not act on His commands.

So it ought to give us pause as it's a given that the majority of the majority religion on the planet will be found unacceptable when their hearts are examined.

As for here, it's supposed to be a dialog, which means engagement and consideration - and learning - which means promoting a particular viewpoint in a propagandistic sophomoric debate fashion to "conquer" ought not to be the reason to come here. As someone observed, it makes Christianity look like a nasty private brawl in a kind of hate-driven cult of antagonism.

For those who want to know who Christ is, I suggest engaging Him directly, because He won't disappoint.

neocon ron · 2 years ago

So then we should spit on the troops as they return to our churches for not standing up to the oppressive government that sent them there to do the devil's work of bringing freedom to Iraq. Right?

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

The point is, we should be VERY careful about proof-texting the OT. Otherwise, we could give really nasty arguments in favor of: polygamy, genocide, death penalty, etc.

This is true, and it's never good to take Biblical passages in isolation. Polygamy was indeed practiced in the OT but, as Jesus and Paul made clear, always morally wrong. The passage in Deuteronomy I mentioned which referred to the death penalty specifically gave the manner in which it was to be carried out -- which, by definition, meant that few people would have actually died. (This is part of the reason that the woman "caught in adultery" could not have been stoned, ever under Jewish law!)

Why should Christians only be called to social action and acts of justice when it involves economics, but not when it involves matters of life and death?

I agree. The same Bible that condemns economic injustice compels me to oppose legal abortion.

squeaky · 2 years ago

Rick Nowlin,
The violence of the OT has always troubled me, although I have heard the argument you present before. It's hard to imagine the sin in the land was that much worse back then--beyond even God's grace. It's humbling, to say the least. Do you think God changed how He dealt with sin--the OT being raising a people who wiped out sinful nations, and the NT being sending His Son to vanquish sin's hold on our lives through His death on the cross? Or was sin in the OT just far more wicked than we can imagine and therefore beyond even the grace of the cross?

kevin s. · 2 years ago

"What has happened to obeying #6 of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" ?"

Was David in violation of this commandment?

" I think His words on how we should treat our "enemies" somehow trumps those OT examples."

His words on how we treat out enemies do not trump the examples, though his fulfillment of the law does indicate that we ought not destroy those who worship false Gods. If Christ's whole life centered around promoting peace (as some here have suggested), wouldn't he have taken the time to at least find one soldier and tell that soldier to lay down his arms?

It is not putting America before Christ, then, to support a certain war effort. It might be empirically wrong to do so, but Wallis' premise is flawed.

By his logic, those who support the war effort are putting America before Christ. Why? Because Wallis believes that he has argued against the war so compellingly that it is impossible to disagree. Therefore, those who persist in supporting the war effort are disregarding the "facts" in favor of a faith in America's execution of this war.

Essentially, then, the standard for idolatry is supporting policies against which Wallis feels he has successfully counter-argued. Once he comes to a conclusion, it becomes God's politics. That is problematic on many levels.

Brad · 2 years ago

Jim:
I just got your email asking for more $$ to "end the war." After supporting (with huge $$) the last election of those who promised to end this war ... and have not done it ...

... why don't you contact the new Congress for any additional $$ required for them to pass the legislation to stop the war. President Bush, obviously will not change his mind ... however, we control House and Senate and could pass non-funding at any moment. Why aren't they????

Very Frustrated,
Brad

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

The majority do want their religion, and they want it to tell them they are right in what they already want to do.

Mysterious-Poster-With-No-Name · 2 years ago

Ok Squeaky,
You wrote:
"I don't think we aren't, Mysterious-Poster-With-No-Name. But what does it mean to be called to action over matters of life and death? Is war the only way to respond? I don't think it is. And then, too, when a government is involved, one also must weigh the motives of that government in terms of the armed conflict. Is it always a Christ-centered motive? We have more interests in the Middle East than the freedom of the people who live there, for example..."

Posted by: squeaky | September 14, 2007 3:02 PM

Of course war isn't the only way to respond. But why should a government's standards for waging war be is it Christ-centered? America, as we are reminded often on this site, is not a CHRISTIAN Nation. It is instead a nation full of many religious groups, although Christianity remains the predominant private expression of religion.

Our gov't is secular though - so if your argument is that Christians can only support wars that have Christ-centered motive, then point taken and there isn't much that Christians will have to say in influencing American foreign policy since that will never be the terms of military action by the U.S.

I think my original question still stands, unanswered - "Why should Christians only be called to social action and acts of justice when it involves economics, but not when it involves matters of life and death?"

Because in reality, no one's motives are ever 100% pure, and if that keeps us from ever acting, then shame on us. The same standard could be applied to relief for the poor. What if the only reason evangelicals want to get on board with curbing AIDS in Africa is because it is psychologically unpleasing to think of poor children dying so we act in part to appease our conscience and help us sleep at night? Does that mean we should not work to end AIDS when our motives are sometimes selfish there?

Why is action with mixed motives justified for economic or health reforms, but not in matters of life and death? Why must motives be so closely scrutinized they never meet our standards in one, but not in the other? Why is "social justice" not applicable to the sufferings of Iraqis and Kurds?

sara · 2 years ago

Holy smokes! People really went to town on this one!

I do think that it is a mistake to quickly dismiss anyone with a different view than our own.

I used to think that the war in Iraq was a good idea, that the Iraqi people wanted it, and that it would mean their freedom. Hearing from Christians from other parts of the world who told me that violence will never bring peace was one of the things that helped to change that view. I do believe that this war is a tragic mistake.

I also believe that there are plenty of soldiers who are good, strong men and women with pure motives who are braver than I can ever hope to be and I mean no disrespect to them whatsoever by denouncing this war. I pray that they come home safely and soon to nation that honors their sacrifices.

And at the same time I pray for an end to this war.

I think that it is understandable that people on both sides of this debate have been responding with some heat as this is not simply some academic problem, but rather, a matter of life and death for many. A verse comes to mind that comes from somewhere in the epistles (I've never been very good with Bible verse addresses): "In your anger, do not sin."

One thing that I appreciate a great deal about Jim Wallis' post (and book) is that he does point to a solution. It feels a bit sometimes like an un-ending circle of despair, listening to arguments that go something like this:

"The war is wrong and we must stop"

"But if we just up and leave it will be horrible for the Iraqis"

"But it's wrong to stay"

"But it's wrong to go"

I guess that's what "quagmire" means. Anyway, I appreciate Jim Wallis' plan and think that it makes the most sense of any of the ideas that I've heard tossed around.

I'm going to keep praying that God gives us love for each other, our soldiers, and the Iraqi people, and the people who are our enemies (cause Jesus said to and who am I to argue with him?) and that he give us imagination as well, so we can have a vision for a way of doing life, both as individuals and as a nation that doesn't involve violence. I really don't have any answers and I know that on my own I'm pretty lacking in both the love and imagination departments, so it's a really good thing that Jesus came to save "intractable poopy-head" (kudos to whoever used that phrase earlier; it was too good not to use again) sinners like me.

God, teach us the ways that lead to peace!

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

Squeaky -- I don't think God changed, but WE change over time. Perhaps after Israel wiped out those other nations such "genocide" was no longer necessary. And as for God's grace, he has every right and reason to wipe out any of us at any moment but doesn't.

Essentially, then, the standard for idolatry is supporting policies against which Wallis feels he has successfully counter-argued. Once he comes to a conclusion, it becomes God's politics. That is problematic on many levels.

A tad simplistic. I would agree, however, that this war was not a last resort but a first one -- we now know that Bush, from the time he took office, was looking for an excuse to send troops there, and that's where the idolatry came in. Thing is, virtually no one disagreed with sending troops to Afghanistan to get bin Laden after 9/11 because doing so was justified.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

23 He makes nations great, and destroys them;
he enlarges nations, and disperses them.

24 He deprives the leaders of the earth of their reason;
he sends them wandering through a trackless waste.

25 They grope in darkness with no light;
he makes them stagger like drunkards.

Job 12

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

25 They grope in darkness with no light;
he makes them stagger like drunkards.

Job 12

Hey, I resemble, er, resent that!

We're staggering like EX-drunkards I'll have you know!

Anonymous · 2 years ago

"a 40 year Republican woman and part time homemaker who identifys herself as conservative Christian. She is very much against abortion, doesn't like immigrants, and really wants a government policy allowing torture of prisoners because "they don't play nice." WOW! I see contradictions galore and certainly don't understand how she reconciles all this with her faith? Help me understand this..."

Posted by: Steve | September 14, 2007 2:35 PM


I'm not sure I can because you are operating on the assumption that to be consistently Christian you can't be a Republican. (Why do most people only really buy into half of Wallis's slogan that God isn't a Republican. I think there was something in there about God not being a Democrat either!) So there they go again - if you don't buy into my left politics, then something must be wrong with your faith because your non-left politics "contradict" Christianity. The parallels to Falwell are really delicious here.

As I said before:

I am still not clear on why the evangelical right is to blame for the Iraq War. Wallis and others seem to assume a level of power and influence that the evangelical church does not possess. In the interest of seeking peace, it would be edifying if Wallis acknowledged the possibility that Christians can have legitimate disagreements over political issues. Wallis' failure to state this clearly leaves the impression (and it is up to Wallis to clarify if he intends this or not) that Christians on the right are not obeying God with their politics.

If this is the case, and based on my reading of Wallis and his supporters one is led to believe it could be, it means Wallis is advancing a political agenda that oddly parallel to the Religious Right of the 1980s - and by suggesting to be Christian you must also assent to a particular political position.

Jay Abels · 2 years ago

There are many things about this war that sadden me, but the loss of respect for the church in the USA and for Christianity in general is probably the worst. I have spent most of my adult life as a missionary in South America. I can only admire those who go out today. In addition to overcoming the typical obstacles to spreading the gospel, they have to overcome so many new negative attitudes.
I have a friend who is still on the field. Even though he was a strong Republican, four years ago, he began instructing new arrivals that they were never to say the word "bush" in any context. It takes conscientious dedicated work to avoid getting caught in political debate.
In this country church parking lots still have cars in them with "W" bumper stickers. In other countries either your car windows would broken, and/or church attendance would seriously decline.
One of the hardest transitions for me has been the feeling of going from Kingdom to a more localized nationally bounded church group that is estranged from the rest of the Kingdom.
There is no denying the vitality that Islam is experiencing, sadly Christianity is not being helped by the current situation, and even more sadly, so much of the church in the USA proudly marches on, self convinced that it is right and can never be wrong.

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

Once again, everything reduced to a matter of "left" or "right," "liberal" or "conservative."

Why is serving Christ assumed to be confined to, or even necessarily part of, either one of these cultural constructs?

Aren't they not even really definable in any immutable way?

Are they eternal truths? Well, obviously not, for they seem to be mutually incompatible, and on a continuum in some people's minds as far as evil is from good and vice versa.

Why must everything first be evaluated as to whether it is "left" or "right"?

What the hell does that have to do with Jesus?

More and more, as soon as someone starts in as their first "principle" being "left" or "right," I stop paying attention and my mind wanders away.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

"Why must everything first be evaluated as to whether it is "left" or "right"?

What the hell does that have to do with Jesus?

More and more, as soon as someone starts in as their first "principle" being "left" or "right," I stop paying attention and my mind wanders away."

Posted by: N.M. Rod

That, N.M. Rod, is a very "other-worldly" perspective. Are you arguing for a separatism from politics since it is so base and devoid of the "spiritual"? (Don't worry, I won't accuse you of being a close-minded fundamentalist with guilt by association tactics.) Or, are you saying you have somehow found a way to transcend these earthly iron cages of right and left and your truths about civic life (don't worry, I won't sully those truths with the adjective "political") have escaped the confines of cultural constructionism? If if it is the latter, then please inform on how that is achieved, and I promise I won't attach the modifier "moderate" to it!

Rev. Ian Alterman · 2 years ago

Once again, a few responses to scattered comments, mostly theological.

"For example, God had already decreed (Deuteronomy 17:6 and 7) that false prophets should be killed."

Actually, that is not correct. Deut. 17:6-7 does NOT apply to "false prophets," but to anyone who engages in pagan or other non-Jewish practices or rituals.

"The passage in Deuteronomy I mentioned which referred to the death penalty specifically gave the manner in which it was to be carried out -- which, by definition, meant that few people would have actually died. (This is part of the reason that the woman "caught in adultery" could not have been stoned, ever under Jewish law!)"

Again, not so. In fact, the only passage that mentions specific punishment in Deut. 17 says "Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." However, as above, the "wicked thing" specifically referred to is engaging in pagan or other non-Jewish practices or rituals.

In fact, under Jewish law at the time, adultery (among other sins) WAS punishable specifically by stoning. This is clear in Jesus' words and actions. He could easily have said; "No, you cannot stone this woman because that is not the correct punishment under Jewish law." But in fact, He knew it WAS the correct punishment. Instead, He equated her adultery with the possible (even probable) similarly punishable sins of her accusers, forcing them to "self-convict," thus making it harder for them to stone her.

"No one can deny that not everyone in the visible church of organised structures and membership is going to be recognised by Jesus. The way is narrow, He said, and He will say to many, 'Depart from me - I never knew you,' despite the prophecying in His name and all the trappings of religiosity, because although they recognised Who He Is, they did not act on His commands. So it ought to give us pause as it's a given that the majority of the majority religion on the planet will be found unacceptable when their hearts are examined."

Bravo for reminding us of this! And I will add (for the person who assumed all faiths are equal since we are all created by God): "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction [i.e., other faiths, beliefs, practices, etc.], and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life [salvation through Christ], and few there be that find it."

"Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. I think His words on how we should treat our "enemies" somehow trumps those OT examples."

Brava! And here is the crux of the biscuit. One would think that someone who self-proclaims as a "Christ-ian" would have Jesus (and the NT) as their first, primary and paramount source. Yet what we have in most of the so-called "Christian Right" and much of the evangelical community are "Old Testament Christians," many of whom wouldn't recognize Jesus if He bit them on the ear, because they are too busy ignoring what He said and did, preferring to cite the OT (often out of context).

Yes, the OT and the wisdom contained therein have their place. No question. But I find it odd (I'm being nice here...LOL) that so many self-proclaimed Christians rely more heavily on the OT than on Jesus.

Peace.

James · 2 years ago

James,Thanks for your concern about my spiritual condition. I do often wish I had travelled more. But if it's any comfort, I do have a passport, and I know how to use it. I've even met some big shots overseas although sigh not as many as Jim Wallis has. Wolverine

I wasn't voicing a concern over your spiritual condition. I was just saying that your disdain for Jim Wallis and your jealousy of his travels are palpable. I guess that could be construed as a concern over your spiritual condition but it wasn't.

I am well aware you have a passport. In another post, you so aptly quoted from it nearly word for word when you said that US citizen kids of deported parents could avail themselves of the aid of the State Department- a profoundly ignorant and insensitive remark.

Sarasotakid · 2 years ago

"His words on how we treat out enemies do not trump the examples, though his fulfillment of the law does indicate that we ought not destroy those who worship false Gods. If Christ's whole life centered around promoting peace (as some here have suggested), wouldn't he have taken the time to at least find one soldier and tell that soldier to lay down his arms?" Kevin S.


Never mind that the early church document, the Didache, strictly prohibitied soldiers to be active members of churhes- but would those early Christians who lived within 50 to 100 years of the life of Jesus know that Kevin S. doesn't know. I vote for the Kevin S interpretation because Kevin S. knows everything

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

I think it's monumentally myopic to think that politics must of needs be confined to either of, or any of, narrow definitions limited to "left" and "right."

Refusing to be caged into these constructs, as if no other sensibility is even possible, frees one to evaluate not from the "other-worldly" but through attention to reality and pragmatism instead of allegiance to narrow ideology.

Supposing I'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican, and I don't want to declare fealty to either. Does that mean I'm not allowed to participate in the process?

What kind of political freedom is that? I guess it's twice as good as a single-party system, but not much better if we're dealing with a "choice" between agreeing 100% with either Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

I recall that George Washington in his Farewell Speech decried partisanship and the formation of political parties. Why do you think that first President, who set such a high standard for those to follow (and no one has really measured up since) felt so strongly about that?

It often seems like a mindless political goose-step of "left-right-left-right" marching like wooden soldiers right over a cliff.

Now that's blind faith. I prefer being reality-based rather than that kind of phony faith. After all, real faith is based on what God has done.

I want to practically evaluate ideas of self-governance from an eternal ethical perspective, not reflections from party funhouse mirrors that imprison one in distortions of the temporary, the fallible and the petty.

I don't want to have to consider the source before I'm allowed to think about the practicality and truth of what someone proposes.

I want to be able to choose from the best of all possibilities, to exercise the freedom of mind that God has given me.

I want to be able to make up my own mind, not be told what's politically correct according to man-made theories and ideologies.

If that's not practical I don't know what is, unless being independent is no longer legal and we have an effective totalitarianism of the two.

I note that Jesus didn't join up with any of the parties of his time - Pharisee, Sadducee, Zealot or Herod-style Roman collaborator. Yet somehow they all recognised what He had to say as having consequences affecting their own political balance.

So should it be with us - or at least, so say I. :-)

Rick Nowlin · 2 years ago

I am still not clear on why the evangelical right is to blame for the Iraq War. Wallis and others seem to assume a level of power and influence that the evangelical church does not possess.

Well, how many of these churches and leaders -- not just the "usual suspects" but some others known as "patriot pastors" have acted as anything than "court prophets," telling Bush & Co. what he wanted to hear?

In the interest of seeking peace, it would be edifying if Wallis acknowledged the possibility that Christians can have legitimate disagreements over political issues. Wallis' failure to state this clearly leaves the impression (and it is up to Wallis to clarify if he intends this or not) that Christians on the right are not obeying God with their politics.

Unfortunately, the right has been doing just that for nearly 30 years now -- he certainly would have an "in" with that crew. I think his concerns may be two-fold: 1) Results and 2) Christian witness, which I would think are somewhat beyond the categories of right and left. Another is the unwillingness of the right to admit that its policies simply don't work.

Actually, that is not correct. Deut. 17:6-7 does NOT apply to "false prophets," but to anyone who engages in pagan or other non-Jewish practices or rituals.

I did make that correction above. That said, the prophets of Baal that Elijah slaughtered did fit into that category.

In fact, under Jewish law at the time, adultery (among other sins) WAS punishable specifically by stoning. This is clear in Jesus' words and actions. He could easily have said; "No, you cannot stone this woman because that is not the correct punishment under Jewish law." But in fact, He knew it WAS the correct punishment. Instead, He equated her adultery with the possible (even probable) similarly punishable sins of her accusers, forcing them to "self-convict," thus making it harder for them to stone her.

A couple of other things about that, however: 1) The Pharisees didn't bring the man in as well; 2) to prove any crime you needed to have at least two witnesses; however, watching people "doing the nasty" also was illegal, insinuating that it may have been a set-up from the get-go; and 3) they may have brought an unclean woman into the temple area, if her partner had had an ejaculation. Therefore, they broke more laws than she and thus had to withdraw the accusation.

Yes, the OT and the wisdom contained therein have their place. No question. But I find it odd (I'm being nice here...LOL) that so many self-proclaimed Christians rely more heavily on the OT than on Jesus.

Well, Jesus Himself quoted the Old Testament (remember, the New hadn't been written yet).

I don't want to have to consider the source before I'm allowed to think about the practicality and truth of what someone proposes.

Unfortunately, that's what it's come down to -- I see this because I'm in the media.

karen fulk · 2 years ago

I am entirely comfortable with the idea that it is hypocrisy to be for abortion and against war, or against abortion and for war! (Posted by: N.M. Rod | September 13, 2007 2:35 PM)

Can I post a sculpture I did in response to this?
Check out
"Hypocracy Now!" (or, "War & Peace Protestors") on my website:
http://www.karenfulk.com/sculpture.htm
8th row down, far left sculpture. What the little badges say are: "Pro Choice" for the war protestor (ie: free love)
and "Pro-Life" for the peace protestor (or pro war lady)

kevin s. · 2 years ago

"but (what) would those early Christians who lived within 50 to 100 years of the life of Jesus know that Kevin S. doesn't know."

I think what you meant to say was "what does Kevin S. know that the early Christians didn't know. I know quite a bit that they did not know. Knowledge of the dates surrounding the collapse of the Roman Empire would be a relevant example here.

john christian · 2 years ago

Though we claim a separation of state and religion it is our beliefs that define us as our political leanings define our religion. It is no better to say the devil made me do than to say God leads us to war unless we serve a God of war. As for war itself, it is never the right choice but at best the lessor of two evils. We will never be just in war or to go to war, yet we can be justified if the sacrifice of not going to war yields a worse out come. However, we are beyound that choice in Iraq. Therfore, what we must consider is how justified are we in staying: What will the Iraqis lose if we leave and what will they gain if we stay. I believe we should transition out of there being prepared to run. They will come to loath us more if they dont already if we continue to act in our own self interest by which we are never justified.

Sarasotakid · 2 years ago

Knowledge of the dates surrounding the collapse of the Roman Empire would be a relevant example here. Posted by: kevin s

And that's what it's all about for you, Kevin, right? Maintaining the empire and using any means necessary to do so- arms and religion. That is what I see in your posts. How commendable. How Christ-like.

John Rallison · 2 years ago

After reading through a bunch of stuff, I have a few comments to add.

First, regarding Just War theory.

Augustine (who, though he certainly has earned respectful consideration, does not rise to the level of scripture) formulated his Just War doctrine in a very different time.

While I would not pretend that everyone in Augustine's day and before fought war 'honorably', war was a local affair. Power could only be projected a few hundred feet. And even a catapult hurling burning matter could only inflict casualties a few feet from where the projectile landed (except if a building collapsed or caught fire, but still a very small radius comparatively). The idea of a decapitating first strike was not even considered.

WMDs and the ability to move them have created a new environment for those responsible for protecting our country. That being said, the idea of pre-emptive war (which clearly does not fit into Just War theory) scares the begeebies out of me. But what do we do? Just War basically says that war must only be a response. But in a world where a first strike is decapitating, how do we think through that?

I can feel some people's heads beginning to explode. Please don't jump on me like a rabid dog. I am not a Bush apologist. I am only sharing the thinking I have done to try to understand the situation from a leader's point of view.

9/11 and Iraq may not have a connection with each other directly, but they are part of a larger national defense puzzle. 9/11 showed us that we are vulnerable to attack on our own soil. Whether Sadaam had WMDs, he was clearly acting as though he had them. Further, he had used them previously on his own people and he had demonstrated his willingness to invade another country. While you may question Bush's motives and you may say he always wanted to go into Iraq, it's possible that rather than joyfully looking for a reason to topple Sadaam, he could simply see the handwriting on the wall. (BTW - regarding the US having plans in place for attacking a country, my understanding of our defense policy is that we have plans in place for attacking every country that is hostile toward us. And this, in the military's view, is just part of being prepared, not having any operational ideas about using the plans. -- like the 'plans to invade Venezuela' thing.)

Moving on...
War is always the result of sin, but does that make war always sinful? To take the extreme, what about Hitler? Was it sinful to resist Hitler's evil with force? Some would argue that non-violence would have ended WWII more quickly and with less bloodshed. What if, instead of troops, we had sent 30,000 people to walk across Europe through the battle line with no weapons at all? Certainly the first few hundred or thousand would have been killed, but after that? There may be a few psychopaths in the world would could kill an army of non-violence, but at what point would the psychopath's forces say, "No. We're not killing those people." And then turn on their leader if he began to kill them all himself?

Of course, WMDs mess with that thinking, too. Because a psychopathic leader only needs a few people on his side to wipe out a non-violent army.

Dang, it sucks even having to have these conversations! This world (including myself) is broken. "Don't look at us! We're hideous!"

Regarding Christian political groups:

I'm slowly coming to the opinion that there should not be Christian political groups. Politics is about power. Whether you're the Christian right or the Christian left, the idea of a political group is to gain control of the government and it's laws. What if all the money and manpower used to rally to political causes was spent on public education? What if, instead of organizing the vote, Christians spent more time trying to be Christ to other people and make disciples? Then all those disciples of Jesus would make decisions, including political ones, that would lead to justice and peace, but would not have to do that from a standpoint of gaining power as a group.

I know, this discussion board clearly shows that followers of Jesus are not always in agreement, but does that mean the power solution is better? If Jesus was anything, he was non-compulsory. It seems to me antithetical to Jesus to take his way of faith and life and try to encode it in law and policy so that it becomes compulsory. (I think the founding fathers of our country would agree with me, but I never met them so I don't know for sure.)

OK, 'nuff for now.

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

Historical examples to "prove" a poinr about whether a particular war was justified, and then to invoke that as a justification for resolving present or future conflicts in a similar way are deeply flawed.

This is because history itself is poorly understood in most cases. Really, people search history and grab examples, like scripture proof-texts, out of context in order to "prove" what they want to. This is as bad history as it is bad theology.

History has to be understood wholistically, just as scripture does. Just as no scripture stands alone, neither do historical events.

Unfortunately, the "fast-food" form of history most people get is really superficial and most often self-justifying, strongly colored by cultural needs and to prove national mythologies. Because history is controversial - after all, studying it can reopen the same questions that caused all those actual conflicts - a sanitised version that's inoffensive to the culture it's taught in is most often the default.

This is going to be true for any nation - not just America.

One of the beautiful things about being a Christian is that we are freed from the narrow constraints of time and space and no longer have to be prisoners of any particular era's foibles. If we find ourselves living in a time in which everyone in society is moving or thinking along certain lines, we don't have to be rushed along in the current. We can stand with the eternal and measure what we live by God's unchanging essential values. We don't need to be hopelessly caught in the microcosm and unable to see beyond it.

I don't yet understand everything about history; I can't pretend to have everything figured out in a kind of "Left Behind" scenario, for instance.

Yet it's clear that the violent conflicts of humanity have a long and continuing history in which the causes of each one are intimately related to previous ones in a most direct way.

I urge people to look outside the immediate for justification and examine historical causes. It's clear that while violence does have consequences, the application of it has unforeseen ones that go far beyond the immediate aftermath of immediate results. Those unexamined consequences are the roots for later complications that produce even more violence to break out.

The escalation of violence and the cycling of it with intensification can only be ended in two ways - the complete elimination of the enemy, which means a genocide of the entire human race, since we are our own enemies or by maturing to understand that violence between states is no longer an acceptable means of conflict resolution.

There is another false way to peace that could be considered, and which we are on a dangerous path towards - a world supposedly at peace because it will be dominated through military threat by a unitary executive force known as the United States. I hope Christians at least will not be deluded into approving such a totalitarian ideology as realistic, for what I hope are obvious rational reasons as well as prophetic ones.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Yet what we have in most of the so-called "Christian Right" and much of the evangelical community are "Old Testament Christians," many of whom wouldn't recognize Jesus if He bit them on the ear, because they are too busy ignoring what He said and did, preferring to cite the OT (often out of context).

Yes, the OT and the wisdom contained therein have their place. No question. But I find it odd (I'm being nice here...LOL) that so many self-proclaimed Christians rely more heavily on the OT than on Jesus.

Peace.

Posted by: Rev. Ian Alterman | September 14, 2007 10:42 PM

"I am afraid, Rev. Alterman, that you do not harbor peace towards your fellow Christians who are not in step with you politically. This claim that conservative Christians are more reliant on the OT than the NT. This is a really odd claim, and one that demands some sort of example.

Rev., is it possible for Christians to be simultaneously - loyal and obedient to Christ but in a state of disagreement on how to interpret his words? If you are implying that this is not possible, then I fear we are treading down a well-worn and dogmatic path of someone being saved by their correct dogma and theology and not being saved DESPITE of themselves and because of God's grace.

It would be interesting to compare the sermons and scripture readings of your type of Christian (the ones who interpret Jesus the way you do) with those who don't. I suggest we start with the scripture of the day for this website. What is the ratio of OT to NT verses being cited with "poor" or "justice" in the verse?

Anonymous · 2 years ago

"I'm slowly coming to the opinion that there should not be Christian political groups. Politics is about power. Whether you're the Christian right or the Christian left, the idea of a political group is to gain control of the government and it's laws.

I know, this discussion board clearly shows that followers of Jesus are not always in agreement, but does that mean the power solution is better?"

Posted by: John Rallison | September 15, 2007 8:13 AM

Well put John. Unfortunately, the unspoken pretext of all of this debate is that this is often a desire by one wing of evangelicalism to gain prominence and voice at the expense of another.

Politics is, at its base, about power; and any discussion about how Christians should engage politics must also be forthright about the desire for power and how that cultural influence will be used.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Sarotakid, Rev. Alterman, N.M. Rod, et al:

I would be interested in your response to this passage, based on your positions vis a vis peace, social action, and politics:

"Why should Christians only be called to social action and acts of justice when it involves economics, but not when it involves matters of life and death?"

Because in reality, no one's motives are ever 100% pure, and if that keeps us from ever acting, then shame on us. The same standard could be applied to relief for the poor. What if the only reason evangelicals want to get on board with curbing AIDS in Africa is because it is psychologically unpleasing to think of poor children dying so we act in part to appease our conscience and help us sleep at night? Does that mean we should not work to end AIDS when our motives are sometimes selfish there?

Why is action with mixed motives justified for economic or health reforms, but not in matters of life and death? Why must motives be so closely scrutinized they never meet our standards in one, but not in the other? Why is "social justice" not applicable to the sufferings of Iraqis and Kurds?

**And Rev. Alterman, why would Jesus call us to only feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted, but not call on us to rescue those in extreme distress and danger? Is there anyone else who is uncomfortable with a call to social justice that requires very little sacrifice or difficulty on our part?

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Rick Nowlin wrote:
"In the interest of seeking peace, it would be edifying if Wallis acknowledged the possibility that Christians can have legitimate disagreements over political issues. Wallis' failure to state this clearly leaves the impression (and it is up to Wallis to clarify if he intends this or not) that Christians on the right are not obeying God with their politics."

Unfortunately, the right has been doing just that for nearly 30 years now -- he certainly would have an "in" with that crew. I think his concerns may be two-fold: 1) Results and 2) Christian witness, which I would think are somewhat beyond the categories of right and left. Another is the unwillingness of the right to admit that its policies simply don't work.


Rick - I appreciate you taking up this question - I notice most people are ducking the tough ones in these comments and falling back on - if you don't support Wallis or me then you don't really follow Christ.

But I guess you still didn't deal with the heart of the question which is not satisfied with people on the right did it so it is ok if people on the left do. Doesn't anyone see the incredible authority and power behind Wallis' claims that if you don't do as I say with Iraq, "social Justice", etc. then you are not being faithful to God's "politics"? This is a very bold claim and one that I hope Wallis will clearly state he is not making because unfortunately the tenor and content of his posts this week reveal this tendency.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

"Never mind that the early church document, the Didache, strictly prohibitied soldiers to be active members of churhes- but would those early Christians who lived within 50 to 100 years of the life of Jesus know that Kevin S. doesn't know. I vote for the Kevin S interpretation because Kevin S. knows everything

Posted by: Sarasotakid | September 14, 2007 11:26 PM"

So Sarasotakid, where exactly in the Didache were soliders prohibited from active membership in the early church?

You might want to tone down your sarcasm when you all you can offer alongside it is a mistaken claim.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Politics is, at its base, about power; and any discussion about how Christians should engage politics must also be forthright about the desire for power and how that cultural influence will be used.

Posted by: | September 15, 2007 10:06 AM


I don't just mean the right wing trying to assert power - I also mean the left wing too. My point is, both the evangelical right and left "prophets" or spokespeople seem to hide their will to power behind moralisms and appeals to Scripture to support their political positions.

That's why I post anonymously since in my profession any straying from the orthodoxy of the left (evangelical or secular)is not just frowned upon but not tolerated at all.

Ian · 2 years ago

One thing I'm intrigued about in the extensive comments on this topic (actually there are several threads running) is that amidst the name-calling and just war stuff is little about alternative ways forward. It seems that the majority of posts are saying the USA and its remaining allies in the coalition of the willing should either stay for ever (well, for 'as long as it takes' which could well be ten years) or they should get out now. Alternative ways forward such as Trent suggested in his original post seem to have been ignored completely.
Christianity is a global religion (not just American) and war affects more than America - but the USA influence is no longer perceived positively amongst my peers in my bit of Australia.
Dogmatism and arrogance are words now being associated with the present USA administration's Iraq policy.
I long for the time when God's wisdom is able to be applied to God's politics - (which is not meant to be arrogant on my part, but a prayerful desire to see political leaders on both sides of the Pacific Ocean [eg US and Australia] demonstrating a willingness to change tack.) The resolute insistence on their present policy being the only one to follow is now being seen as folly, rather than strength.
So I guess I'm agreeing with Jim Wallis - as a Christian who happens to also be an Australian.
And now this Ian should get some sleep. It will be more peaceful than for many soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

Vincent R. Katter · 2 years ago

For those who believe our military presence is contributing to a better Iraq - ' The War as We Saw It' ( originally in NYT on 8/19, google search for copies) can be instructive.

It is incredibly sad that the misguided and incompetent actions of this Administration has squandered Iraqi and American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and the good will of the world. We have taken a bad situation ( the status quo of Saddam's Iraq under sanctions ) and made it worse by almost any objective measure. The fact that it was conflated with Christianity is something that will take decades to reverse.

Addressing this issue will require atonement and sacrifice, and a commitment to live and act differently.

- The war needs to be paid for by us, not our grandchilden. That means taxes.

- Iraqi reconstruction will need to wait until they have had their internal reckoning, but then we will need to be generous and work with any who will be able to build in that place, and that is likely to exclude most American contractors, given their track record so far.

- American diplomacy and power needs to be far more about promoting civil society and human dignity than ensuring American dominance. One good example would be a moratorium on aid that specifies American contractors/companies as the sole supplier or implementor. Another would be ensuring that if American forces are sent into battle somewhere, we have the planning and presence to be effective in the aftermath of the battle. In the case of Iraq, this would have required far more people, material, planning, diplomacy, and money, along with constant reality checks on our hubris - and an admission that we failed miserably in avoiding the conflict in the first place. Another good example might be setting foreign non-military aid to a sizeable portion of our defense budget as policy.

After reading the column and the postings - I agree with Rev. Wallis. Too much emphasis on a very narrow reading of American self-interest, not enough on the sacrificial nature of Christ's love for all of us on this planet.

Cathie Lowmiller · 2 years ago

Why is the term "Christian warrior" name calling? If you are a supporter of war, why are you not proud of that? Why would you not want to be a "Christian warrior?"

And I though "neocon" and "neoconservative" were simply descriptive terms...like "liberal"?

Just wondering.

John Rallison · 2 years ago

I want to clarify something I wrote earlier:

---------
What if all the money and manpower used to rally to political causes was spent on public education? What if, instead of organizing the vote, Christians spent more time trying to be Christ to other people and make disciples?
---------

When I said, "public education," I did not mean public schools. I meant working toward deep education in being a follower of Christ in a free society.

Sojourners may see themselves as doing that, but that is not the impression I get lately. Same thing with the right. When the discussion centers on issues and how they relate to our faith... that is fantastic. As soon as voting guides are issued or any other means of organizing politically for power is undertaken, I begin to feel uneasy.

Here's where I stand at the moment:

Christians belong in constant and deep discussion of what it means to be a citizen of a country where the leaders are elected by the people. Christians should seek to live out Christ to win other disciples. Christians should not organize for societal power.

Which really ends prostitution? A law against it or a heart won by Christ and a person empowered to make a living?

Which really end abortion? A law against abortion or a person who has come to see even unborn babies as God's beautiful and beloved creatures and can't believe they ever used to think of abortion as simply a tissue-ectomy?

I am not saying that the government does not have a legitimate use of force to restrain evil. And since we elect our own government, we all have some responsibility for what the government does.

But making laws and using the compulsory power of government is the low road and does not win hearts and minds. I would say it often builds walls.

The Jesus road is, in my opinion, to openly live out Jesus in your life, to continue to struggle and grow in what that means, to always be open to being wrong, to serve others, and to engage them in dialog praying that the Holy Spirit will convict them of their need and bring them to the foot of hte cross.

I'm still working this all out. I think I'd rather see a dialog drive than a voter drive. My prayer would be that the dialog drive lets more and more people vote with the heart of Jesus. But I would have to trust that to Jesus.

Scott Starr · 2 years ago

Jon Rallison said this:

"The Jesus road is, in my opinion, to openly live out Jesus in your life, to continue to struggle and grow in what that means, to always be open to being wrong, to serve others, and to engage them in dialog praying that the Holy Spirit will convict them of their need and bring them to the foot of the cross."

and this:

"I think I'd rather see a dialog drive than a voter drive. My prayer would be that the dialog drive lets more and more people vote with the heart of Jesus. But I would have to trust that to Jesus."

John Rallison is of course on the money.

Bruce · 2 years ago

"Take out all the non-Christians from that global population sample and among the people of God the opposition remains the same."
I just opened this email on Sept. 15th and have not read the numerous comments so I may be repeating what someone has already said but I was most disturbed by the above quote.
I have been blessed by meeting or reading about many "people of God" who would not identify as "Christian".
How will we ever achieve peace on earth if we insult our non-Christian brothers and sisters in this way?

N.M. Rod · 2 years ago

We are not engaged militarily in the Middle East to establish democracy, but to secure the oilfields for reasons of national security, which includes having sufficient fuel to maintain the worldwide military presence as well as maintain the domestic conomic reliance on fuel most of which must be imported.

It was Jimmy Carter who first made US policy of military intervention in the MidEast a priority, by declaring the MidEast oilfields to be of strategic military importance.

In retrospect, at least he was more engaged in an active peace process, although we all got bit by the blowback from the earlier 1950s Iranian intervention where we overthrew the democratic government in favor of the Shah to protect our oil interests there, with the Iranian revolution and hostage situation just before the 1980 elections and for which Carter was blamed.

Just as Japan felt deprived when the US cut oil exports before World War II, upon which it depended, war is a strategic decision to protect economic and political hegemony in one's areas of dominance as well as at home.

So when we discuss "Just War Theory," the mindlessness of terrorism for which we seem to have no reason but that we are absolute good and those who oppose us absolute evil, let's not forget that we continue to consume huge amounts of resources compared to all the other peoples we share the globe with.

There is not enough available to support those others in the same style as to which we have grown accustomed. Therefore, we will have to, and we are, using military might and economic pressure in order to continue to take from these other areas what we no longer have ourselves.

That this will be an "endless war" just as the administration has posited should be obvious.

However, for those supplying the materiel for the endless war, of which the current one is only the prelude according to current thinking, the profits are and will be great indeed.

I do agree that the troops are fighting for our way of life.

Frank · 2 years ago

How does one, in the limitations of one's individuality, come to know what is sublime, just? I think, Mr. Wallis, the reason people are inclined to see our existence through the lens of civil service and government, in place of religion or spirituality, is because we are taught that Democracy IS the place to live and worship. We are a secular society and that will always be. Perhaps the Global Church should accept more people like shamans in the day to day affairs of society.



Frank

corazoncito75 · 2 years ago

One thing that has become particularly disturbing lately is the growing nationalistic fervor that seems to be taking over many parts of the country. While I would be careful to liken such phenomenon to the same nationalism of Germany, Italy, or Spain prior to WW II (or elsewhere for that matter), one does find it a bit difficult these days to ask where are we headed in this country, and this goes far beyond the Iraq issue. I am no historical expert but I've observed over time that the development of nationalistic extremism starts with patrotism, which develops into pride, then turns into nationalism. I don't think this is always the case but I am starting to worry that perhaps the same momentum is manifesting itself here in the US. I find that the actions of various groups in the U.S. continue to alienate the country from the rest of the world, which will take years to repair once some kind of ideological equilibrium, devoid of any extremism, is reached.

Coming to an appropriate point that Wallis mentioned about traveling, I think that many in this country would be best served by traveling abroad. The experience can be quite humbling, and it can provide a perspective from which to learn. Perhaps in this way the ego-driven and often ethnocentric rhetoric that seems to be increasing, might move in the opposite direction. This, I already know, is wishful thinking, but sometimes it is good to be hopeful.

cheers.

corazoncito75 · 2 years ago

N.M. Rod's post 9/15/07 sums it up nicely. I like the inclusion of the notion of blowback and how it is figuring heavily into much of what is going on right now. Possible suggested reading on the topic: 1. Blowback : the costs and consequences of American empire 2. Nemesis : the last days of the American Republic - both by Chalmers Johnson

Salient commentary.

cheers.

Scott starr · 2 years ago

As noted by corazoncito75:

Chalmers Johnson's commentary is valuable. In my view his book the sorrows of Empire is the best of the trilogy and very applicable to the subject at hand.

See clips of Mr. Johnson on Youtube. He also is a contributor in the movie "Why We Fight" by Robert Greenwald.

Clips of this movie are also widely available.

Frank · 2 years ago

Or, one might take a look at the same concept dealing with extravegance and war by viewing a film called, "What the Bleep Do We Know." The perfect science manual/motif for the history/religion nut.
cheers