[soc.religion.christian] The Church's stand on the Gulf War

keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) (03/05/91)

This is written 2/28/91, one day after President Bush declared military
victory in the gulf war. There has been a great deal of discussion on
the war among Christians and whether or not a Christian should be for
or against war. Breifly let me summarize significant points in the 
debate I have read.

1) We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourself.
2) We are commnaded not to kill.
3) Killing means murder, not killing in other senses.
4) There is a separation of church and state in the U.S.
5) Everyone must pray to God and receive guidance from His Spirit on
such matters.

The operative commandment to me has been Romans Chapter 12 verses
1 and 2. We must not be conformed to the patterns of this world. Instead
we must be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Then and only then can
we understand what God's will is. This is not a matter of what one person
hears in his heart. The war in the gulf is simply God's will or it is
not. Our inability to perceive the will of God is only a reflection
of our lack of transformation.

All I can see is evidence of the Church conforming to the patterns of the
world. This extends to almost any cultural trend that has happened recently.
(I am speaking of the U.S. church here - what I am familiar with.) The Church
in the U.S. was strongly pro war during WW II, as was the majority of the
population. During the height of the anti-communist McCarthy era of the US 
the church was primarily anti-communist as well. In the Vietnam war, the
church became vocally anti-war as well. During the "me" decade of the '80s,
the "prosperity doctrine" became a significant force in the church.

To be honest, I view most anti-war opinions as simply a reflection of the
cultural attitudes prevalent in this country in the post Vietnam era. A
major part of this has been the "flower child" attitude of live and let
live. The church developed an attitude of not imposing their morality
and views on the country and quietly sitting in their pews on Sunday after
the hippie/yippie/Woodstock era stopped US society as a whole from judging
whether someone's actions were morally upright or not.

In fact, I would go further than the above and state that the US has 
been so damaged by the post Vietnam syndrome that most people in this
country had begun to think that there was very little that was worth
fighting and/or dying for. The church again reflected that by allowing
untold numbers of laws to be passed in the U.S. that restrict the practice
of Christianity. Other laws have been passed that encourage the practice 
of sin.

In summary I will say that over the years the church's actions in the U.S.
have been mostly a reflection of what U.S. society has been doing. Indeed,
many of the doctrines taught in the pulpits have been a reflection of
U.S. culture. The recent return to activism by the church has been 
accompanied by a return to activism by mainstream U.S. society.

The ways of the Spirit of God are incomprehensible to the worldly mind.
Yet all our debates on war, politics, everyday life, etc. are using
paradigms and concepts that find ready counterparts in the world. When
will we as Christians desire a transformation?

As for the war in the gulf being God's will - beats me. I know I have an
unrenewed mind. Romans chapter 12 verse 3 applies to the preceeding verses
as much as it does to the following verses.

-Keith McIntyre

CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (03/11/91)

Keith Mackintyre has some interesting thoughts on the Church and
the Gulf war. He concludes that the Church (I guess that by this
you mean the mainstream of Christian churches) usually agrees
with what society does.
 
This is very true here in Sweden, too. In the Gulf war, that tendency
meant that the Church joined in the choir of those who chanted "peace!"
with an address to both Saddam and president Bush.

Myself, being a conscientious objector (this country has a conscript
army -- I didn't serve), I find war very repulsive. And if it came
down to me personally, I'm not sure I could bring myself to kill a
human being. But the Gulf war, and the Iraki actions that started it,
made me think. I would agree that a Christian should demonstrate
God's love by not retaliating against those who hurt him, especially
not if the hurt is inflicted *because* he is a Christian. But does
that mean that we should lie down and let a dictator's army march
wherever it wants?
 
Or, put in a more secular way, is war so evil that it must be avoided
at *all* cost? Think about it. What if the western powers had ignored
Hitler's atrocities. The second world war might never have happened,
but what would have become of the world? The nazi ideology would have
plunged us down into barbarism. Without the war, it might not have
killed 45 million people -- but it would have annihilated western
civilization as we know it.
 
I find it difficult to see how it could have been morally right in
1939 to chant "peace!", provided one had knowledge of the true
nature of nazism. The cost of making war on Hitler was fearful, but
it did save the world from total barbarism. At least I believe it did.
Finally, let me quote a few lines from Winston Churchill's memoirs
of the 2nd World War:

"It is my purpose, as one who lived and acted in these days, to show
how easily the tragedy of the second world war could have been 
prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness
of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states,
unless they are welded into larger organisms, lack those elements of
persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble
masses; how even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued
for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels
of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger;
how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life
may be found to lead direct to the bull's-eye of disaster."
 
Except for his military incompetence, Saddam is little different
from Hitler. Is it really our duty as Christians, to allow such
an antichrist to roam free? Isn't it rather our duty to defend the
values we believe in, with force if necessary? 

Ake Eldberg

[One of our real pacifists should really respond to this, and no doubt
will, but the Christian pacifist position is not that we should ignore
evil, but that it is possible to overcome it with good.  The problem
is that the process of doing so may take time, and in the process a
lot of evil may happen.  However the results may be more complete.
That is, when force is used, there's a tendency for force to beget
force.  When peaceful means are used, this should not happen.  There
are certainly examples in India and the U.S. to show that peaceful
resistance can work.  The question is whether it can work against
someone like Hilter.  There are claims that there actually were some
successes against the Nazis.  There are all sorts of interesting
complexities in trying to apply these ideas on the level of
international politics.  Like what do you do when the victims are a
country where people do not have the necessary background and training
to implement a course of peaceful resistence?  It strikes me that this
position is impractical, but impractical with a kind of grand daring
that makes it sound like the sort of thing Christ might advocate.  I
dunno...  --clh]