What Would Jesus Bomb?
Week of Monday, February 17, 2003
In 1896 Charles Sheldon (1857–1946), a pastor in a struggling Congregationalist Church in Topeka, Kansas, began to read a series of simple sermons to his congregation. These sermons eventually became chapters in a book with the title In His Steps, a book which almost overnight became an international bestseller. That was 30 million copies ago. You probably know of this book by its more recent retelling under the title What Would Jesus Do?
We read this book to our children, and I have a copy in front of me as I write. Each of the 38 chapters presents a sort of ethical dilemma and ends with the question: what would Jesus do? Before each and every action or decision, Sheldon challenges us to ask what Jesus would do. Of course, many people love to make fun of this, and perhaps rightfully so if we insinuate that life's moral choices are always and only as easy as asking that question and then getting a simple, definitive answer. Part of Christian maturity is realizing that some (not all) moral choices are murky.
Like Iraq. When I joined about 100,000 people in the San Francisco peace rally (February 16, 2003), this was far and away the most provocative placard I saw: “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” Right now our country faces murky moral choices regarding Iraq, and Christians can claim no special insights into international diplomacy. But Christians can and should have very strong biases toward peace, life, and justice for every human being. When I read, think, and dialogue with others about our country's posture toward Iraq, and when I filter all of that through Sheldon's WWJD?, I become increasingly opposed to our government's stance on Iraq. Specifically, I am opposed to a preemptive attack against Iraq that does not have wide spread support from the citizens and governments of the international community. Four issues in particular bother me.
Each day seems to bring new developments, but right now our government seems unapologetic about its increasingly isolationist posture, as seen in its intentions to attack Iraq with a “coalition of the willing.” This is a pathetic admission that we have failed to garner international support. The United Nations Security Council is badly divided after hearing the most recent report from weapons inspectors that they have found no weapons of mass destruction even though they have not been entirely cooperative; NATO is similarly at odds; and across the world millions of citizens in 60 cities took to the streets to protest the possibility of war—a million in Rome, 750,000 in London, and so on. More protests are already planned. Having asked the United Nations to help solve this crisis, we should not reject the process when it does not conform to our intentions. Our country does a poor job listening to and cooperating with the international community, and if we move ahead without world support we will only further isolate ourselves.
 |
| Photo by Nick Ut; AP copyright 1972 |
One of the odd tidbits in my wallet is my tattered draft card from October 10, 1973. Mine was the last year that when you registered for the draft you were still assigned a lottery number which was the basis for being called up (even though at that time we were bringing troops home from Vietnam). My son recently turned 18 and had to register with the Selective Service System, and I know that I would not want him on the ground in Iraq fighting a war that does not have widespread international support, and which might be avoided if we allow more time for inspections and exert still more pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. But what I wish for my own son I must also wish for Iraqi families with soldiers and children just like mine. The human cost of war is too high a price to pay for what our government is telling us.
I think Iraq and the world would be better off with a regime change that got rid of Saddam Hussein. But I think it would be ridiculous to fight a preemptive war with Iraq with minimal international support, kill 100,000 of their citizens, destroy much of their social, technological and economic infrastructure, and then say, “now we would like to help you rebuild your country in our image, as a free market democracy.” This is where I think one of my favorite writers, Thomas Friedman, is very wrong. “Nation-building” in Iraq? I don't buy it.
Finally, I believe that we could make things much worse in the Middle East and around the world, especially if we win a war—which is a foregone conclusion. We will further isolate ourselves from the international community, reinforcing current opinions that we don't care what the rest of the world thinks. We will have only ourselves to blame for engendering broader and deeper hatreds of us in the Islamic world. An American victory in Iraq which devastated and humiliated Iraq will deepen Muslim resentments, recriminations and retributions. It will further radicalize Muslim extremists and so destabilize governments in even moderate Arab states. I believe an American victory will increase rather than decreaseAl Qaeda terrorism. There is also the danger that in facing certain defeat Saddam Hussein will act irrationally. These outcomes seem predictable to me; but then there are also a host of possible unintended consequences that should bother us. I find it difficult to see how a preemptive war with Iraq that lacks international support will make our world better rather than worse.
I am not a pacifist. Sometimes war is necessary. A German faculty friend recently remarked how grateful his parents were for liberation by Allied forces. Perhaps we should have done more sooner in the former Yugoslavia. Why did we do nothing at all in Rwanda? But right now I oppose our administration's position and its posture. We should give inspections more time; what's the hurry when we have Iraq surrounded by 150,000 troops? We should enlist our Muslim allies (Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia) to help rein in Saddam Hussein, much as we have asked China and South Korea to help with North Korea. We should treat Palestinians as equitably as Israelis, and demonstrate to the world that we are as pro-Islam as we are pro-Israel. And as Thomas Friedman has written, we need to develop a Middle East policy that does far more than treat that region like a big gas station.
Christians have always disagreed about war.1 That is to be expected on such a complicated matter. But when I consider Charles Sheldon's question about what would Jesus do about Iraq, I get very nervous about our increasing isolation from the international community, the potential human toll in a war, the colonizing overtones of nation-building, and the likelihood that we will make matters much worse. I do pray that God would bless America; I also pray that He will bless Iraq and its people.
The Journey with Jesus: Notes to Myself Copyright ©2003 by Dan Clendenin. All Rights Reserved.
