I don’t recall “Thou Shalt Not Kill” having the caveat “Unless UN Resolutions Art Broken.”
Regardless of the legal justifications (not the issue here, since the laws of man are supposed to be superceded by the laws of God), Bush knows this will result in the death of innocents. Is this not against Christian doctrine?
My guess is that he can justify it by saying that he is sure that the innocent deaths as a result of war are less than the innocent deaths he is sure Saddam would cause if left alone. Has he ever said this? Or has he made some other justification with regard to Christianity?
Since no one here can read George W. Bush’s mind, I doubt we’ll get a factual answer to this any time soon. The cynic in me, however, believes he will use a variation of the “it’s okay if I do it” doctrine–
Avoiding war in Vietnam?
It’s bad when Bill Clinton did it, but it’s okay if I do it.
Selling White House access to special interests?
It’s bad when Bill Clinton did it, but it’s okay if I do it.
Using illegal drugs?
It’s bad when Bill Clinton did it, but it’s okay if I do it.
Packing the courts with partesian judges?
It’s bad when Bill Clinton did it, but it’s okay if I do it.
Waging war on another nation without provocation?
It’s bad when Saddam Hussein did it, but it’s okay if I do it.
First, a more accurate translation of the commandment is “Thou shalt not commit murder”. Killing per se is not judged immoral unless it is done for immoral reasons. Thus the death penalty is a valid Scriptural choice, since it is enjoined in several places in the Old Testament.
Second, Bush has never made any specifically Christian justifications of his belief in the necessity of military action to disarm Iraq. The US is not a specifically Christian nation, so this is hardly necessary as a condition for war.
Third, Bush stated in his speech last night that he believes the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action. This may be a reference to the sort of utilitarian moral reasoning you offer. In other words, the number of innocent Iraqis who die in a war to disarm Saddam is less than the number who would die under his brutal and oppressive regime, and who would die if he is allowed to continue to try to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the greatest good of the greatest number would mandate that we act.
In general, most military action (Christians are obviously not all pacificists) tends to be justified by the Pauline doctrine of the role of earthly authority in Romans 13:1-7. The idea here is that earthly governments are authorized by God to establish and maintain order and limit and punish wrongdoing. It is possible that Bush sees himself acting in this way, to safeguard the American people and the rest of the world by limiting the wrongful actions of Saddam Hussein (and others).
As I say, Christians are not always pacifists. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. He also recommended that we get swords, even if we have to sell our cloaks to buy them (Luke 22:36), and He also made a whip of cords to drive the moneychangers out of the Temple (John 12:15, Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15).
Most consistent with the facts is that Bush is a spoiled rich kid fratboy whose poppa bought him the White House and his beliefs in Christianity and democracy are both STRICTLY for the consumption of a gullible public.
It would be more reasonable and productive to make an attempt to reconcile your own Christian beliefs (if any) with waging an unprovoked war.
Shodan did a masterly job of stating the justification; I have only a few supplements to what he said:
First, we are called to work for peace. But sometimes, as during Hitler’s aggressions, the way to a lasting peace is to conduct a war first. While that sounds very much like “we had to destroy the village to save the village,” the point is that if one side in a dispute refuses to eschew force, the other side will be forced to fight or surrender, willy-nilly, at some point. To achieve peace, as the other side in such a dispute, one must pick the best time to conduct that fight in order to minimize harm to all.
I’d also add that theologians both Catholic and evangelical have over the years tried to specify the conditions that must be met for a “just war.” In the eyes of GWB and many Christians who support him, though not of large numbers of church leaders in a variety of denominations, the conflict with Iraq meets those criteria.
Finally, as a Christian, GWB sees himself as bound by his oath of office as President (see the Constitution for the text). And it includes the duty “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” and by extension the country over which it is the supreme law. From his perspective, if Saddam is a threat to this country, it’s his sworn duty to take him out.
Why not just pray? God could solve this situation without civilian casualties, it seems to me. Faith moving mountains and all, you know.
The real answer to the OP is quite simple: “Salad Bar Christian” is one word. The Bible is so contradictory that you can’t really extract a coherent moral code from it, so all Christians pick and choose - of necessity - the parts that they think they should follow. Relatively few Biblical inerrantists believe that Jesus really meant to forbid divorce, for example, and those who do believe it can easily find ways to salve their conscience.
However…GWB is a member of the United Methodist Church, whose leadership is avowedly pacifist. This article, for example, posted on the United Methodist national website, urges Bush to use “every possible means to prevent war” with Iraq. And this resolution can’t possibly be any clearer on the stance of the Church towards war:
So…how does Bush reconcile his fervent Christianity, apparently within the framework of the United Methodist Church, as compatible with his involvement in war, particularly a war in which he orders the first shot?
I have no idea how Bush, personally, does it, but given that the US Administration is strictly non-religious, Bush may consider that his warmaking is operating in a purely official capacity, as a necessity of his position as a secular leader as well as a spiritual individual.
Various Christian soldiers I have known have tended to use the justification that God gave the nations the power of the sword (plenty of Old Testament cites for this to back up along with Shodan’s NT cite up there), and that soldiers and statesmen weren’t, personally doing the actions, it was “the state” which they were bound to serve (as in, render unto caesar), working through them.
One guy also pointed out that when the Centurion came to Christ, Christ never pointed out that his job was wrong.
Personally, this strikes me as a bunch of shuffling around the issues, but to some it’s perfectly consistent and valid and I’m not really qualified to judge others interpretations of the Bible.
Though seperate to the issue at hand, this quote is priceless. Thanks Ben. It’s quite an enlightening perspective - whether you thought of it or got it from elsewhere.
The structure of the Methodists, and of most Protestant churches, is rather different from that of (for instance) the Roman Catholic church. There is among Protestant churches much less sense of authority by pastors and other leaders of the church. It is therefore entirely possible to disagree wholeheartedly on a political matter with those who lead your church without any implication (ideally) that your faith is compromised or your salvation jeopardized.
For example, the leadership of my denomination (ELCA - the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is politically about as liberal as the United Methodists seem to be. The official position of the ELCA is just as opposed to the currently threatened war as the Methodists are. The ELCA are generally sympathetic to Democrats pretty much down the line - against welfare reform, against tax cuts, against any reduction on social spending, pro-abortion, anti-death penalty, etc. I, to say the least, am not with my leadership on any of these issues (except abortion).
But there is no effort to enforce these positions on me as a condition of my membership in the ELCA or the Christian church. There is no hint that anyone is going to be excommunicated if they disagree, and the leadership is understood to be expressing an opinion rather than speaking ex cathedra. We leave that kind of thing to the Pope.
The bishops of my church are not understood to have any authority to tell me what to believe on matters of politics (except in rare cases). And the fact that they express an opinion does not affect my fellowship in the church (or the Church).
I am perfectly free to dismiss their opinions as mistaken. And indeed, I often do. This is, IMO, the symptom of a growing disconnect between the laity of many churches and their leaders, and one major reason (again IMO) for the fact that many liberal churches are losing members and many conservative ones gaining them. It gets a little tiresome to be sending money to an organization so dedicated to causes with which I disagree.
And, as others have pointed out, it would be wrong for Bush to decide for or against a war based on what his religious leaders told him to do. The case has to be decided on its own merits, or the separation of church and state that is so fundamental to our liberties could be compromised.
As the writer of a letter to my local paper asked, why should the Pope be considered a moral authority on the coming war with Iraq, but not on abortion?
The President should make up his own mind, as should the rest of us.
IMO. IANAMethodist. YMMV. Void where taxed or prohibited.
Shodan: Quite right about the resolutions of the United Methodist Church being not as theologically binding as, say, the pronouncements of the Pope in the Catholic church.
However, pacificism is one of the foundation stones of the Methodist church and denomination. John Wesley himself was a noted pacifist; that, along with temperance, was one of the defining features of the Wesleyan movement. (Would it be too wrong to say that GWB was drawn closer to the Methodist church following his struggle with drinking problems because of its noted temperance policies?)
I agree that relative independence of theology is a particular feature of the Methodist church as well. I grew up United Methodist myself, and I well remember John Welsey’s dictum that “we are all ministers.” And the United Methodist organizational structure is built in such a way as too diminish the power as such of its leaders. Pastors, for example, typically remain in a parish for only a few years at a time; the laity hold one-third of the seats in the governing council.
Yet it remains that pacificism is a historical feature of the church, and one that is deeply ingrained. Whatever one might say about the other theological instructions of the United Methodist church, pacificism would appear to me to be one to not contradict lightly, or at all.
Please point out some of those ‘contradictions’ please so we can all follow along. As from ‘extacting a moral code’ I’d love to see a better moral code than what Christianity teaches.
Is the United Methodist strictly pacifist - for instance, did they oppose the first Gulf War, or WWII? When I think of a pacifist Christian group, I think of the Quakers. And noted in passing - isn’t the junior Senator from New York a Methodist?
You are correct about the temperance movement in the Methodist church, however. My grandfather was a strict Methodist in his youth - no drinking, no cards, no dancing, no movies.
Then my grandmother (Lutheran) got hold of him. She was, in addition to being the dearest, sweetest woman on earth, a serious party animal, and “corrupted” my grandfather almost beyond recognition (by my great-grandparents, at least). Not until the birth of my uncle were the families reconciled.
I thought Bush Sr. is an Episcopalian. Maybe Laura got Bush Jr. into the Methodists.
Or maybe, in common with me, he considers many denominational differences to be almost beside the point.