10/24/2004: "A new confession of Christ"

Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine has put together a seriously high-powered list of endorsers for a statement entitled "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence." There are a lot of names on the list I respect and appreciate as Christian thinkers; one is a personal friend. Almost all of the signers are academics. Here's what they have to say to the Body of Christ in these perilous times:

1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.

We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.

No problems with this. Right on.

2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.

We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done�torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction�regardless of the consequences.

Here the confession starts to drift away from being a Christian to a political statement. What does "explore every alternative before a nation goes to war" mean? And how do we know when "every alternative" has been adequately explored? Determining this undoubtedly involves prudential judgments on the part of policy-makers. As citizens we can certainly disagree with their decisions, but we have no unique competence as Christians to determine the validity of those decisions.

To say "we are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies" is likewise to elevate a prudential judgment to the level of a moral claim. What is there about "international cooperation" that is inherently more moral than "unilateral policies" (which are, in any event, irrelevant to the current international situation, except insofar as one buys the Kerry line that we have no substantive allies in Iraq)? That it is a legitimate policy preference is true. What it has to do with "confessing Christ" is not at all clear, especially since there is no such thing as a "Christian nation" that any others could cooperate with.

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

This is all unobjectionable, a true statement of Christian belief. I'm also not sure it doesn't miss the point of the current debate. There may well be those who claim America is without fault, but the war-supporting cultural conservatives are not among them. And the fact that Osama bin Laden and his ilk no doubt have their good sides doesn't change the reality that what America and its allies are opposing are evil actions predicated on an evil ideology. The point is that at the same time that these paragraphs make a correct statement of Christian theology, they also pre-suppose that human beings are in the same position as God in judging sin, and thus able to order society according to the teaching that all sin is of equal magnitude. Ask yourself this: was America morally inhibited from fighting Nazism because of Jim Crow? If not, then how is fighting the evil of Islamofascism invalidated by America's current sins?

The other interesting problem raised by point 3 is that it paradoxically contends that America, though clearly not a "Christian nation," should nevertheless act like one. If America, like every other nation, doesn't make policy on the basis of Christian theology, then how can Christians call upon this country to act according to standards about which it is officially agnostic?

4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.

Again, this is a true statement of Christian teaching, but it seems to assume that America is a Christian nation. Love of enemies, and the crucifixion to which it leads, is at the heart of Christian ethics, but it is not the way that a religiously pluralistic nation can be expected to act. What the signers reject is wholly unobjectionable, and ought to be part of the political/military policy of any civilized nation.

5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.

We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.

Amen to this. Political discourse would be much improved if humility became a defining factor. Once upon a time, there was much more general acknowledgement in political culture that virtually all policy-makers, regardless of party, had basically the same goals and motives for their actions�it was means that were at issue. Now, the impugning of motives is not only standard fare, it is much more the order of the day than discussion of ways-and-means.

To sum up: a good effort, one Christians need to hear, but one that would also be improved by the excision of the author's political biases when they are shrouded in the guise of theology.