Iraq and the Virtue of Ethics

Matthew 5:1-12 and Acts 2:1-12

 

            Can you imagine the power that was unleashed on that first Pentecost?  The disciples, formerly a cowardly flock, were suddenly transformed into a courageous force; the defeated who fled Jesus' arrest and crucifixion were transformed into weapons of mass proclamation.  By what power did this happen? By the power of the Holy Spirit, of course.  Pentecost celebrates God's giving the Holy Spirit to all believers; formerly, only a few, exceptional figures had known the power of "the Spirit of the Lord upon them": Samson, David, the prophets.  On the day of Pentecost, however, all the disciples knew the power of God's Spirit upon them, and it is instructive to ask the result of this unleashing of divine power.  That is, what happens when God's power becomes a force in the world?

 

            There are many ways to answer the above question, which is good news for preachers who preach a Pentecost Sunday sermon every year, but theologically the answer to this question is that Pentecost reversed the curse of Babel from Genesis 11.  That is, the rending of languages that was the result of human arrogance was reversed and languages were woven back together; the division of nations that was the result of human attempts to play God was reversed and peoples were once again unified. Such a reversal is seen in Acts 2 as the disciples proclaim the good news of Jesus to Jews, Gentile converts and God fearers from around the Mediterranean, and "each heard them in their own tongue" (Acts 2:6). Far more interesting than the mere fact of "speaking in tongues" is the significance that the division of languages was reversed.  No longer are God's people cursed by the inevitability of incomprehension, the necessity of misunderstanding and the distrust that such problems of language bring. When God's power is unleashed through the Holy Spirit the people of God can speak and understand each other. 

 

*****

 

            We need the power of the Holy Spirit to blow like a mighty, rushing wind through our midst today, for as we talk about the war in Iraq we show ourselves to be a Church in need of the ability to speak and understand other tongues.  It often seems to me that conservatives and liberals are using different languages. 

 

·                     We are haunted by different conflicts: conservatives view Iraq through the lens of World War II and see in it a great struggle for freedom against an intractable evil; liberals view Iraq through the lens of Vietnam and see in it a repetition of government deceit, hubris and misjudgment.

·                     We are clouded by different commitments: some, both conservatives and liberals, experience Iraq as those who are (or were) in the military or whose loved ones are (or were) in the military and therefore have a personal, passionate reaction to political policy; others, both conservatives and liberals, observe Iraq without any ties to the military and form opinions based on their trust or mistrust of public institutions.

·                     We are presented false choices based on caricatures of the "other" position: conservative sub-text barely hides the accusation that liberals are not truly patriotic, not really American; liberal sub-text barely hides the accusation that conservatives are not fully Christian, certainly not those who are doing what Jesus would do.

 

In many ways we are led astray by political leaders and affiliations whose framing of the war is riddled with self-interest. As Professor Dale Soden of Whitworth College wrote: "I believe it's helpful to think about how dimly we see through the glass and to remember that our brokenness makes a certain degree of humility a necessity when we regard the tragedy of this, or any, war" (Whitworth Today, Fall, 2006, Vol. 75, No. 2, page 8).

 

            Faced with such difficulties in even speaking to one another, agreement on what to do in Iraq seems like an unattainable goal; perhaps a less ambitious goal is prudent.  Rather than agreement, I propose that our goal be understanding.

 

            When I speak with married couples about conflicts they have, I draw a picture of an iceberg, complete with a tiny sailboat floating upon the water.  The area above the water is, of course, the smaller part of the iceberg; most of the iceberg's mass is below the water.  I label the portion above the water "issue" and explain that most couples focus on what they see, the issue, and their differences as they relate to the issue.  Focus on the issue, however, does not really see the complete iceberg.  Below the water I write four words in descending order, "experiences," "assumptions," "values" and "identity," and explain that attention to these words as they relate to the issue create a far more profitable and interesting conversation.  I encourage couples to "drop anchor" and try to communicate with one another at ever deeper levels. Those couples who are able to plumb the depths and share their experiences, own their assumptions, articulate their values and expose to their beloved a part of their true self, their identity, may not agree with one another about "the issue" but will understand each other in powerful, life giving ways. 

 

            I propose we seek to understand each other regarding the issue of Iraq.

 

*****

 

            To Be Fully Christian, Fully American and Pro-Iraq.  The animus for those in favor of the war in Iraq is September 11, 2001.  We sometimes forget, or at least neglect, the memory of seeing those planes flying into the Twin Towers.  The horror we felt as a nation is remembered more intimately, I believe, by those who support American efforts in Iraq: “We did not start this fight.  We did not murder innocent civilians. We did not fly those planes into those towers.” Filled with the animating spirit of 9-11, those in support of the Iraq war hearken back to World War II and the fight against Hitler. World War II is known as the last, great war, a conflict of good versus evil.  It is this war, against an enemy easily defined as evil, which calls to the spirit of those who would have us preserve our lives and culture by bringing freedom and democracy to our enemies.

 

            Christians in favor of the Iraq war cite several strands of Scripture; however, each citation is problematic in its own way.  Consider.

 

·        Christians in favor of war will cite the example of Israel in Canaan taking the land at the order of God (the books of Joshua and Judges) as precedent for our participation in war generally and our incursions into other lands specifically.  However, there are several difficulties with the Old Testament’s theology of Holy War which are too complicated to review here; let it suffice to say that, even if we accept such theology, the United States is not Israel and we have not received a direct command from the Lord.  The reference is misused.

·        Christians in favor of war will cite Paul’s admonition in Romans 13:1 to “submit…to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” The logic chain that follows is that a) President Bush, as commander in chief, says we should go, therefore, b) we should submit to his legal, military authority.  Such simplistic reasoning, however, is fabulously flawed, for we live in a democracy where, although soldiers must obey the decisions made by their commander in chief, citizens have every right to criticize those decisions.  Moreover, Hitler, too, was a governing authority, so perhaps Paul’s admonition should be observed with discretion!

·        Christians in favor of war will quote the Lord Jesus: “I have not come to bring peace…but a sword…” (Matthew 10:34). These words seem clear to the modern reader; however, the word “sword” is often used in Scripture as a metaphor for decision; at the point of the sword one must decide whose side one is on (Isaiah 49:2, Luke 2:35 and Hebrews 4:12). Moreover, Jesus follows these words with a quote from Micah7:6 – “a man against his father, a daughter against his mother” – that highlights his larger point that his message forces people to choose their allegiance.  The passage has nothing to do with actually making war.

·        A stronger point is made by Christians in favor of war when they note that Jesus ministered to soldiers and never asked them to leave the Roman army (Matthew 8:5-13).  The implication is that Jesus’ approved the soldier’s job and work, even if the approval was only tacit approval.  However, even this argument has a counter-argument, for the Pax Romana created a situation in which Roman soldiers in conquered territories did very little fighting and were more like our police officers than our Marines.

 

Christians in favor of war have a much stronger argument when they turn toward theological reasoning.  In his seminal work, Moral Man and Immoral Society, Reinhold Niebuhr put forward the framework for what has come be known as the Christian Realist position.  The title of Niebuhr’s work suggests his argument: individuals can be held morally accountable to the ideals of Jesus’ pacifist teaching “to turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39); however, societies cannot be bound by such personally oriented moral codes, for society has a responsibility to assure security, justice and freedom for all its citizens and, therefore, must utilize such tools as coercive force that are prohibited to individuals.  Argues Niebuhr:

 

…social injustice cannot be resolved by moral and rational suasion alone…conflict is inevitable, and in this conflict power must be challenged by power” (Moral Man and Immoral Society, Scribners: New York, 1960, xv.)

 

            To Be Fully Christian, Fully American and Anti-Iraq. The animus for those opposing the war in Iraq is the perpetual bloodletting we witness daily.  The British journal Lancet estimates that over 600,000 Iraqis have died since the American invasion as well as over 3,000 American dead and 50,000 American wounded.  Even if these figures are inflated (conservative estimates set the number of Iraqi dead at approximately 100,000), and even if we acknowledge that many of these Iraqis were killed by al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias, much blood has been spilled.  The word “carnage” comes to mind. As does the word “Vietnam," so when President Bush talks about a troop surge many people in the fifty and older set hear echoes of President Johnson’s ill fated attempts to pacify the Viet Cong “insurgency” with over 500,000 American troops, without success. As the English philosopher Edmund Burke has remarked: “A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.”

 

            Christians opposed to the Iraq war also cite several strands of Scripture:

 

·        “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9).

·        “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).

·        “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

·        “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:53).

 

The astute reader will notice that all of these “pacifist passages” come from Matthew’s Gospel. Commentators have noted that Matthew uses these verses in a sophisticated moral and political debate of Jesus’ day specifically to argue against first century Zionism and its military ideology.  A major strand of first century Jewish debate focused on the question of what to do with the Roman occupiers.  The political party known as the Zealots argued for a military response to secure Jewish freedom.  Against such aggressive rhetoric, Jesus countered with a call to non-violent protest as seen in the Sermon on the Mount.  The early Church understood the pacifist roots of the Christian faith.  Paul’s message to the Philippians highlights the power of God that flows from the self-emptying love of Jesus (Philippians 2:5-11), and his words to the Romans highlight the truth that enemy-love is the core of the gospel (Romans 5:8-10).  Because of this strong pacifist foundation, the early Church remained steadfastly non-violent and against war for its first three centuries.

 

However, Christians opposed to the war in Iraq still have a problem with their argument.  While the Biblical foundation for opposition to war is strong, the theological arguments against war are suspect.  Christians opposed to the war will note the “presumption against war” found in the New Testament, and they are correct.  Nations must be conscientious in how they deal in blood.  However, this pacifist leaning position, known as the Christian Idealist position, does not make a convincing argument to counter the Christian Realist position that sometimes war is necessary.  No serious ethicist can argue that use of military force was unjustified to stop Hitler’s attempted genocide of the Jews.  Turning the other cheek, to someone like Hitler, is an invitation to sit courtside and witness the carnage of millions.

 

So, where are we in our debate?  Should each one do what is right in his or her own eyes?  Or is there another way forward that creates the possibility of moving Christians beyond the current impasse?  The way forward, I believe, is to seek an ethical lens through which the war can be evaluated, to apply the virtue of ethics to dampen the vitriol of  our debates.

 

*****

 

In the fourth Christian century, St. Augustine encountered the need to counter pagan criticisms of Christians who refused to participate in the military because of the Church’s pacifism.  Augustine, thinking theologically, sought to create a framework of ethics by which Christians of good conscience could participate in the Roman military in an ethical way.  Augustine’s ethical framework is known as “Just War Theory.” Classical Just War Theory has five principles, and each principle must be met in order for a conflict to be considered just.

 

·        The cause must be just.

·        The conflict must be authorized by a legitimate authority.

·        There must be a reasonable chance of success.

·        There must be a reasonable chance of doing less harm than good.

·        The conflict must be conducted using moral means.

 

When evaluating the Iraq war through the ethical lens of Just War Theory we are able to see our current political debates in a different light.  Have you ever wondered why the political debates take the shape they do and have the content they have? That is, why we are arguing the way we are arguing and about the topics we are arguing?  Just War Theory helps us to see more deeply into our own debates.  Consider.

 

Is the cause just?  Conservatives argued first about weapons of mass destruction and now about the democratization of the Middle East.  Who can argue these causes are unjust?  Liberals, without outright accusing the administration of such, suggest the war is about oil or, worse, fulfilling a personal vendetta against Saddam who once tried to have the President’s father assassinated.  Who can argue these causes are just?

 

Was the conflict authorized by a legitimate authority?  Precisely who, or what governing body, is the legitimate authority for such a conflict?  Is it the U.S. and Britain acting alone?  The United Nations Security Council?  The Coalition of the Willing?  The Coalition of the Coerced?  Seen through the lens of Just War Theory, the debate about authorization helps one to understand that what is at stake is whether or not this conflict can be considered ethical.

 

Is there a reasonable chance of success?  Clearly our military is superior to all others in the world, but is the military the best tool with which to fight a cultural battle?  Is military superiority sufficient to break the religious intransigence of Shia and Sunni and their centuries long animosity?

Is there a reasonable chance of doing less harm than good?  No one would argue that eradicating Saddam is a bad thing, but is it worth galvanizing terrorists world wide and losing all political goodwill earned by the blood of the 9-11 victims?  No one would argue that creating a stable democracy in the Middle East is a bad idea, but is it worth seeking to establish a democracy if the more likely result is a religious civil war?

 

Is the war conducted using moral means?  No one, neither on the right or the left, condones Abu-Ghraib or the bombing of civilians. Shockingly, however, a question that President Bush’s administration has put into debate is whether or not torture is moral; does the end justify the means? 

 

Often the litmus test for this principle is proportionality; that is, are the means one is using commensurate with the necessities created by the conflict.  It is disproportionate to use nuclear arms when conventional arms will secure victory.  It is disproportionate to use air strikes, which are less precise, when a platoon of Marines can secure a facility.  The question of Iraq, then, is whether or not our use of American military power is an appropriately proportional response for securing neighborhoods and ending the insurgency?

 

For a conflict to be considered a just war, all five principles must be adhered to. I leave it to you, gentle reader, and to your fellow Christians with whom you discuss, debate and decide, whether or not all five principles have been honored.  I have my opinion.  What say you?

 

*****

 

            At the end of the day, I confess I am discouraged by our participation in Iraq.  I wish we were not there, yet I fear what horror will be unleashed if we leave. If we could but turn back the clock…. Alas, we cannot.  In many ways, I concur with the poet Ann Weems:

 

On the edge of war, one foot already in, I no longer pray for peace: I pray for miracles.

 

I pray that stone hearts will turn to tenderheartedness, and evil intentions will turn to mercifulness, and all the soldiers deployed will be snatched out of harm’s way, and the whole world will be astounded onto its knees.

 

I pray that all the “God talk” will take bones, and stand up and shed its cloak of faithlessness, and walk again in its powerful truth.  I pray that the whole world might sit down together and share its bread and wine.

 

Some say there is no hope, but then I’ve always applauded the holy fools who never seem to give up on the scandalousness of our faith: that we are loved by God…that we can truly love one another.

 

I no longer pray for peace: I pray for miracles. (Ash Wednesday, March 5, 2003)

 

Return to Sermons Menu