Bush Library Meets Pacifist Aggression

Pages: 1 2

Leftist hardliner Miguel De La Torre of Methodism’s Iliff School of Theology in Colorado still seemed to cleave to oldline Liberation Theology.  He decried U.S. interventionism in Latin America and bemoaned that America’s “church of privilege” hypocritically urges peace while the U.S. holds the world captive economically.  De La Torre complained that only “once the Pax Americana is established, once we have the vast majority of world’s resources flowing to the U.S., at that point we can then begin to talk about [how] nobody else should do violence.”  He wondered:  “Is all this talk about nonviolence a way to keep certain people in check?’”  And he provocatively asked:  “Is our interest in nonviolence a way of making sure ‘they,’ from whom we have taken so much, don’t rebel against us?”  An advocate of open borders immigration, De La Torre sees illegal immigration as a neat way for exploited people simply to take back what the U.S. ostensibly has stolen from their native nations.

Evangelical Left ethicist Glen Stassen of Fuller Seminary in California tried to argue that neither pacifism nor Just War teachings were sufficient to prevent war.  He dreamily urged strengthening the United Nations and abolishing all nuclear weapons.

Almost alone in arguing for Christian realism, Methodist ethicist J. Philip Wogaman surmised that pacifism was ultimately unrealistic.  Most remembered as pastor to the Clintons during their White House years, and especially as a counselor to President Clinton post Monicagate, Wogaman is a steadfast liberal but realizes nations cannot function without some level of force.  Citing the threat of genocide as one justification for war, Wogaman argued:  “If sin is real, and it must occasionally be resisted forcibly, then it must be by people – especially people who are responsive to God’s purposes.”

It seems like an obvious point, and one that Christianity has nearly always taught, that civil authorities are divinely ordained to protect the innocent from aggressors.  But the mostly utopian Religious Left, amplified by anti-Americanism, is loath to admit that any evil exists outside of the U.S., much less bless forceful resistance to America’s enemies.

Like any chief magistrate, George W. Bush waged war in defense of his nation.  His SMU critics were so outraged that they opposed even a presidential library on their campus.  Religious Left pacifists will continue to vent and tout their fantasies.  But most Methodists and most Christians choose to live in the real world.


Pages: 1 2

  • TCM

    Our nation was built on religious principles and established government as a force that protects everyone, rich and poor, from thieves. Socialists use governments as their thief to take wealth from those they do not like to give it to those they do.

    The Bible considers only voluntary charity as "righteous". Those who will use the sword for any purpose except defense, are not "righteous", no matter their cause. Those that will use force to take from their neighbors are condemned as criminals. The idea that a socialist can be a follower of the Bible is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

  • Lorenzo Dow

    So much safer to espouse pacifism in a free country while others defend that freedom.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    They should consider relocating their "Method" to Mecca or Medina – both strongholds of that other "religion of peace." Then all those peaceful religiosos can sing Kumbaya in two part harmony.

  • Marty Riley

    First loyalty to Jesus Christ & His bride, second to family, third to nation.

    I am a One God Apostolic Christian, and I have no problem fighting with arms to suppress evil if it threatens the lives of the innocent. BY evil, I do not mean what the state calls evil, I mean what the Bible clearly calls evil.

    No one in the New Testament ever got rebuked for being a soldier, and no one in the New Testament ever got told to leave the army.

    The weapons of our warfare are not carnal (Conversion as the point of a sword) but that does NOT relieve a Christian's duty from protecting those who cannot protect themselves, or of protecting the innocent.

    What kind of person calling themselves a servant of Jesus Christ, stands by and does nothing as the innocent are slaughtered?

    God have mercy on the weak religious indignant who sleep happy on their pillows as braver men fight and die for their families they themselves are unwilling to protect.
    They wrap their cowardice in the pretense of a scriptural forbidding to be a soldier where none exists.

    Seriously, people should do a little http://www.churchhistory101.com



    "The Bible considers only voluntary charity as 'righteous.' Those who will use the sword for any purpose except defense, are not 'righteous,' no matter their cause. Those that will use force to take from their neighbors are condemned as criminals."

    This quote exemplifies the terrible breaches in confidence and the vast displays of gross negligence that the authoring parties of this institution are sponsoring with the recently added program that seeks to educate and defend those of human rights abuses.