The remembrances of the Al Qaida attacks on New York and Washington have coincided with the debate about the possibilities of a US military intervention in Iraq. One would have to be very naïve to not suspect that administration has not intentionally so arranged it, but so be it. This is as good a time as any to debate and discuss the question.

 

Is there a special role for religious people in this discussion? Does religious belief really matter in times like this? Or are questions of peace and war simply political questions, where religious people, like everyone else, turns toward their historical understanding, their political opinions and their partisan preferences for guidance?

 

One reason why religious thinking does not mark a clear beacon in these times is that religious tradition pulls us in opposite directions.

 

On the one hand, almost all religious traditions pull us toward an uncompromising commitment to the good, toward moral idealism. Certainly, the New Testament, the central text of Christianity, insistently urges us to "turn the other cheek," to "pray for your enemies," to "forgive seventy times seven times," even to "love thy enemies." In short, don't respond to the world of hatred, violence and injustice with its weapons and tools, but respond to the world as though it were a better place than it is. Even if it costs you everything.

 

On the other hand, almost all religious traditions also call upon us to recognize the reality of human evil, not just in the enemy, but also in ourselves. A rising religious awareness of the interdependence of everything and everybody calls for us to be aware of the actual consequences of our behaviors, our actions and even our inaction. It is not enough to respond with more idealistic actions, if they are not effective. Look at the example of the child abuse crisis in the Catholic church. One of the moral failings of the hierarchy was that it made an idealistic response to evil in its own midst. It treated the evil of child molestation as though it were a simple human failing. It was, then, deceived by feigned repentance, and offered forgiveness and second chances to pedophiliac priests. The clear lesson is that if you have power, you are not only accountable for what you do, but also for the evils that you could have prevented, had you been courageous enough to recognize them for what they are.

 

There is a danger connected to either approach, especially for people whose wealth and success protects them somewhat from the world's violence. Moral idealism, which leads to non-violence and pacifism, can turn out to be a kind of disengagement, and an unwillingness to confront what must be done in extreme circumstances. Thus, it can become kind of irrelevant, like a financial advisor whose only advice is to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor, or a doctor who believes that bacteria have as much right to live as human beings.

 

On the other hand, the moral realism of facing evil head on, can lead one to become the evil that one is fighting. At worst, by providing a religious justification for war, it can intensify it by giving what is an ugly business the glow of the transcendent.

 

Much is at stake; the lives of many people, here and abroad, will be lost, or irrevocably altered by the decisions made in the next weeks and months. We, of the free church tradition, explicitly say what others already must know: the wisdom of all the religious traditions are only rough guides, resources for our discernment of the present moment. In the end, we must rely on the workings of the unfettered mind to seek the truth, the workings of a free and open community to challenge every easy opinion and prejudice, and faith in the workings of God, in whose hands, and not in ours, lies our common fate.

~Rev. Thomas Schade