The occupation of Iraq is wrong, according to some.

This is old news, but my pastor mentioned it on Sunday, and I wanted to share. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) passed the following resolution at its general assembly.

NO. 0728: (SENSE OF THE ASSEMBLY): THE CHURCH’S RESPONSE TO THE WAR IN IRAQ

. . . .
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) gathered in Ft. Worth, Texas on July 21 – 25, 2007, after due reflection and a respectful discussion, go on record as conscientiously opposing the war in Iraq as an action inconsistent with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, and a violation of the traditional standards of just war, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this General Assembly reaffirm the following statement (included in the letter of February 18, 2006, from the U.S. Conference of the World Council of Churches addressed to the delegates at the WCC Assembly in Porto Alegre, Brazil) that “we lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights” ; and
. . . .

If you follow the link, you can review the justifications for the resolution. This is an example of the church participating in politics. It is also an example of the church expressing an opinion on policy rather than values. So, it gives me pause. However, I know that it also gives lots of other members of the Disciples church pause. And this decision, was not one entered into lightly. In fact, if the church has a failing in this regard, it is that it too often tries to be all things to all people and fails to act.

The point is, this resolution provides an argument by authority for me that the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq violates in contrary to Christian values.

3 thoughts on “The occupation of Iraq is wrong, according to some.”

  1. This is an impossible reconciliation. How are you supposed to take your religion: how you live your life ethically & morally and not have that inform the decisions you make about how people are to be governed?

    On the face of it, it’s a contradiction to try. But after having been humans for a few thousand years, it’s clear that too much of it and people start to kill each other a whole bunch.

    Impossible.

  2. My immediate reaction is to search for some other source by which one lives his life and question if too much of it leads to killing. And, there are some: Nationalism (or clan/cultural analogs); Ambition (maybe).

    However, nationalism is not a practice that requires absolute devotion. A patriotic Matt has zero problem saying, “Nationalism can go too far.” No true of religion. A Christian Jim has a problem saying, “Religion can go too far”; he prefers, “Religion can be perverted.”

    I think it is more than symantics. So the question I’ll explore in the next post about the Sermon on the mount is whether as a matter of faith, we should limit its influence.

    Is there a Christian value in avoiding compelling others to be Christian?

  3. My immediate reaction is to search for some other source by which one lives his life and question if too much of it leads to killing. And, there are some: Nationalism (or clan/cultural analogs); Ambition (maybe).

    There are codes of ethics/morals — secular in nature. Whatever you might define along those lines might yield a “this can go too far” kind of result. “Don’t Lie” becomes “Can I tell my overweight niece that she doesn’t look fat?”

    “Religion can be perverted” is a good way to state that. It doesn’t limit one’s commitment to God or Christianity, but it can place limits on actions one might take in the name of their faith.

    But this places more burdens on practitioners to keep vigilant on actions out in the world that are being performed in the name of their specific religion. Big job, and perhaps I’m circling back to the fact that I can’t imagine a Church, as an entity *not* having a self-imposed mandate to get involved in politics.

    Is there a Christian value in avoiding compelling others to be Christian?

    Perhaps, but that assertion itself would be an update to Christian doctrine.

Leave a Reply