Evangelical Christians need to repent for their initial support for the Iraq War.
Hadrian said 02/27, 02:40 PM
Most evangelical Christians and their leaders supported Bush when he argued that Saddam Hussein posed such a danger to America that war was necessary. Now Christianity Today, "A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction" says: "It's not enough to find a way out of this war honorably and soon. We have an opportunity to learn some deeper lessons so that we won't repeat our mistakes....When the Iraq war is over, we will need a time of national (and Christian) mourning and repentance."
Christianity Today reminds evangelical Christians that "Jesus' ethic...stands powerfully against war and all forms of violence. [O]ur acquiescence to the current war of choice in Iraq has undermined evangelical credibility with millions of people.
Also, "Jesus taught us to 'love your enemies'. It doesn't take much brainpower to reason that, whatever else the command means, it undoubtedly implies that we are not to torture or abuse our enemies! Our reluctance to speak prophetically against prisoner abuse, and the astonishing denial by some evangelical leaders that it has ever happened, undermines our credibility with millions of people".
Christians: End the war. End the torture!
Austhus said 02/27, 02:50 PM
I will not attempt to say the war was not a mistake; anyone who has read my previous debates will note that my anti-war stance is crystal clear.
However, I do not feel evangelicals need to repent for their support of the war. Yes the war was wrong and Evangelical support of Bush helped push his policies through for the past 7 years.
Evangelicals as a whole, however, did not see the War in Iraq as the defining issue of the time. Their support of Bush during the war was a "blind patriotism" sin in now way reflective of any natural thirst for bloodshed.
The Evangelical population always has been more interested in social change: prohibiting gay marriage, abolishing abortion rights, increased funding for church organizations. The Iraq War, while being central in the minds of the general population, was considered a side issue to their social agenda.
Evangelical's only sin is not recognizing the realities of politics and allying their social agenda with a man who's ambitions were in overseas military campaigns. If anyone needs to repent for the War, it's the Warhawks in Congress and in the White House.
Hadrian said 02/27, 03:16 PM
As you say: The war was a mistake and it happened with help from Evangelicals.
But you say that Evangelicals do not need to repent because the war was only a "side issue". It was not a "defining issue". Their only sin was to rendered onto Caesar a "blind patriotism".
Well, thats exactly why a leading Evangelical Christian publication says: "We have an opportunity to learn some deeper lessons so that we won't repeat our mistakes....When the Iraq war is over, we will need a time of national (and Christian) mourning and repentance."
Again, Christianity Today reminds evangelical Christians that "Jesus' ethic...stands powerfully against war and all forms of violence. Is that merely a side issue? Does not Jesus' ethic inform Evangelicals in their choice of a "defining issue".
If not, then they have much to repent for beyond supporting this war.
Austhus said 02/27, 03:44 PM
The key factor is that the Evangelical population supported Bush's social agenda as their primary platform. It's a narrow-minded approach, and the unquestioned following of a leader is surely to be condemned.
However, the blood of Iraq is not on their hands. It's squarely on the supporters of the war. I don't feel the evangelicals ever vocally supported the war. The simple answer most evangelicals gave about the war was "We support our President."
Blind Patriotism? Yes. Misguided views? Yep. Overinflated sense of self-importance? Of course.
But these are the sins of the Evangelicals that they must deal with. Iraq is not their sin to repent; it's the people who actively lobbied for the war to procede.
Hadrian said 02/27, 04:23 PM
You say "I don't feel the evangelicals ever vocally supported the war."
Well, lets not decide this debate based on your feeling. Lets decide it based on facts.
In 2002, a group of five prominent evangelical leaders signed an open letter declaring that Bush???s designs on Iraq satisfied the criteria of Christian ???just-war??? theory. They wrote the letter to counter the chorus of Christian leaders - including mainline Protestants and Catholics - who already had spoken forcefully against the war. Many of the most respected voices in American evangelical circles blessed the president's war plans, even when doing so required them to recast Christian doctrine.
Christianity Today, Feb 2006: ???In 2003, 77 percent of white evangelicals approved of Bush???s decision to launch the war in Iraq." In 2006, evangelical support for the Iraq war was at 68 percent.
National Association of Evangelicals Feb 2008 Evangelical Leaders Survey: Most still support the war in Iraq.
You say "The blood of Iraq...is squarely on the supporters of the war", I agree. And for this, they are called upon to repent.
Austhus said 02/27, 06:44 PM
Again it goes back to the initial mindset. It's not about direct and overt support for the Iraq War; it's about blind support for the President.
The Evangelical leaders as a whole are at least in part responsible for their support of the war, it's true. That being said, the leadership of a group does not always speak to the mindset of the entire group. I know that Dick Cheney's views certainly don't agree with mine, and I doubt they agree with yours, as well. In the same sense, the leadership direct support of the war cannot be attributed to all Evangelicals everywhere.
Support for the war among the mass Evangelicals can be attributed to his simultaneous pursuit of their social agenda. As long as Bush pursued their platform, they'd nod and turn their head the other way for the rest of his agenda.
Polls do show they supported the war, yes, although rationale is not polled in these cases. The Evangelical support for the war has dropped roughly in proportion to the rest of the population, which seems to indicate more people are waking up to the nature of the War Hawks in Washington.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Haha, it's slightly reminiscent of the Daily Show sketch with Gov. Bush debating Pres. Bush. I'm amused, at any rate.
Austhus | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Evangelicals need to apologize for their support of the war, but no more than anyone else who supported the war.
twelve angry men | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Great argument on both sides, though I'm narrowly leaning toward Had's argument; maybe you guys could resolve an issue I have with some informal, supplemental debate. To me, 'blind patriotism' is only a sin because it can result in negative incidents, the Iraq War being one such incident, and by being guilty of 'blind patriotism', they are guilty for the Iraq War by extension. Please resolve this, Austhus, and I'll cast my vote for you and seal the deal.
IamFry | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
First I don't think anyone needs to "repent" for stances on political issues. Furthermore I'd like to point out that though Christians ought to "love their neighbors" this doesn't mean we just sit peacefully on our porches and let terrorists (or anyone for that matter) kill us. I give the win Austhus- he has a very convincing argument.
RONPAULFORPREZ | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Your name is coulter, and they have a "Coulter" icon, but you chose Ron Paul - curious.
IamFry | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ya know... as much as I covet my record, I just don't know if I can stand anyone named Coulter supporting me. I took this debate to play a sort of "Devil's Advocate" approach. For you, Bligh, I find Blind Patriotism itself is the sin not because of the problems it causes, but instead because the Constitution itself was created on a premise of never being complacent with the government. Violating the spirit the Constitution is a sin in my views. The aftermath, however, is out of their control and not a direct sin on their part. Regrettable all the same, but it's two issues.
Austhus | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
FIRST he says "The war was a mistake and it happened with help from Evangelicals". THEN he says ""I don't feel the evangelicals ever vocally supported the war." FINALLY he says: "Polls do show they supported the war, yes, although rationale is not polled in these cases." So, when he is not busy contradicting himself, HIS verdict is "guilty as charged". All he can do is plead mitigating circumstances. Blind faith in the President lead them astray from the dictates of their religion. That is EXACTLY what they need to repent about! As Now Christianity Today, "A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction" said: "We have an opportunity to learn some deeper lessons so that we won't repeat our mistakes....When the Iraq war is over, we will need a time of national (and Christian) mourning and repentance."
Hadrian | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
The name is Coulter because she represents power in the political world. It doesn't mean I really agree with many of her stances (although I must admit the woman is hilarious), which is why I use the Ron Paul icon. I support Ron Paul and the most of his views whole-heartedly!
RONPAULFORPREZ | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
You gotta be kidding. An argument that Evangelicals did, but didn't, but did support the war won? Hahahaha. Repent all ye voters! Back to the joke resolves then I guess.
Hadrian | 02/29/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
For the record, I think this is the most substantive debate I've seen Hadrian bring to the table. Also, I couldn't resist accepting an open challenge from the only other person to use the Jon Stewart icon.
Austhus | 02/27/08
Report Offensive Comment