Churches Sound as One Voice (Do Not Initiate a War, They All Say)

The Commercial Appeal, Memphis ^ | March 2, 2003 | David Waters

[Blue Scourge]

WOOHOO, Go Pentecostals!!! Thats me btw. I'm willing to bet that a majority of all of their denominations support the war, it's just the top few guys. Trust me on this.

[7 x 77]

No, say leaders of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops . . . [per] Bishop Wilton Gregory.

Gregory is a man of small worth who owes his postion to his skin color. He's the one who filled the sex-abuse oversight board with politicians, many of whom are Rats such as Robert Bennett; that Californian Congressman who was Clinton's chief of staff; and Anne Burke the judge whom the newly elected Rat governor of Illinois invited to swear him in.

[GOP_Proud]

A lot of people don't know that The National Council of Churches helped raise money and donate to the defense of Angela Davis. For those who don't remember or are too young, Angela Davis was a political activist of the 60's. She was involved with a group called the Soledad Brothers who took a judge hostage and later murdered him. (There's a famous picture somewhere of them holding a sawed-off shotgun to the judge's head). Davis was tried for complicity in the murder but was acquited. She later ran for president on the Communist Party ticket. Yeah, the National Council of Churches supported this scum. Check an see if your church is a memeber and if you care raise a fuss.

[Conservababe]

Try the Southern Baptists, Church of God, or Assembly of God.

Sorry, but those churches in my area are also preaching anti-war sentiments.

[GOP_Proud]

You obviously have not looked into the background of the National Council of Churches leaders. Look it up. I would class them as anti-American also.

[MarMema]

Have they forgotten????

[smith288]

I can't find a single major Christian denomination that says yes.

Have them call my southern baptist pastor

[Iowegian]

Either you live in the wrong place or it's time to get new Pastors.

[gitmo]

No, say leaders of the Church of God in Christ.

"We do not find any moral justification for a preemptive strike in the absence of an attack, or real threat of an attack, upon the United States.

[Blue Collar Christian]

"Why do liberals only listen to religious leaders when it comes to war, but not abortion, not crime/punishment, etc.?"

They don't listen to "relious" leaders in the sense you speak of. They are of the religion of "We don't need God".

They will, however, point out the opinion of our "religious leaders" after surveying to find one or more who support their position.

Having become a Christian,(and I mean not in name only) one cannot opt to be a liberal. One cannot be both. When you see or hear of a Christian leader saying liberal jibberish, his venier has pealed, or he is just plain stupid. Then that's OK, God loves stupid people too, but usually tries to keep them out of leadership positions in His church.

[Moonmad27]

Please note they asked the Evangelical Lutheran Church which is liberal. If they'd asked my Missouri Synod, the more traditional part of the Lutheran church, the answer might have been quite different - in which case the writer probably woudln't have quoted it in his article.

[Charles Henrickson]

". . . it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature or Iraq's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11," wrote Bishop Wilton Gregory.

I agree with Bishop Gregory. But before you flame me, let me explain.

He is right about the possible criteria for a "just" preemptive strike:

1) the threat of an imminent attack of a serious nature, and/or

2) involvement in past terrorist attacks.

So now the question becomes: Is there evidence that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq meets either or both of those criteria?

If the answer is yes, then a preemptive, measured strike--with the goal of removing Saddam from power, defeating his forces, and eliminating the threat of his weapons--is indeed justified.

As to threat of imminent attack, an analogy can be made to a deranged, dangerous individual who hates your guts and now has a gun aimed against you and your family. He needn't have already pulled the trigger for you to act in self-defense.

And as to involvement in past terrorist attacks--by "involvement" I mean sponsoring, supporting, or sheltering the terrorists, and by "past attacks" I include not just 9-11 but also the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, etc.--if Saddam has been involved in past attacks against the United States, then a military strike by us would not really be "preemptive" or a "first" strike, would it?

Furthermore, in carrying out a military action, it is necessary for our government to proceed in a legitimate, orderly way, according to the established authority. Under our Constitution, then, it is incumbent upon the Bush Administration to present the evidence to Congress (this can be done without compromising our intelligence operations) and to receive a formal Declaration of War (not just some previous 9-11 "resolution").

Oh, I happen to be a Lutheran minister (Missouri Synod, the "conservative" Lutherans, in contrast to the extremely liberal ELCA mentioned in the article). The Lutheran Confessions do permit a "just war," as it has historically been defined. As far as the current Iraqi situation, though, I speak only for myself and not for our church body, since we have not taken an official position on it.

[valkyrieanne]

As I recall, Jesus called the leaders of His own people at one time "whitened sepulchers."

[Ligeia]

Tomorrow, March 3, 2003 (03.03.03) has been designated a worldwide day of prayer concerning the conflict with Iraq and for our military. We had 250 people praying last Tuesday evening for 600 individual deployed servicemen and women related to our church family, as well as for political leaders around the world.

Another special prayer time will be held tomorrow between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. at my church. Others are participating, also. No Christian I know really wants war, of course, but there are plenty of us who support the removal of evil from this world; a task that can only be accomplished with God's blessing and assistance. Scripture is clear: we'll never be rid of all of it, but we'll do our part to remove what we can.

[Charles Henrickson]

Please note they asked the Evangelical Lutheran Church which is liberal. If they'd asked my Missouri Synod, the more traditional part of the Lutheran church, the answer might have been quite different. . . .

You sent your post just as I was sending mine (which see; it follows yours). LCMS bump.

[Chi-townChief]

"And as to involvement in past terrorist attacks--by "involvement" I mean sponsoring, supporting, or sheltering the terrorists, and by "past attacks" I include not just 9-11 but also the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, etc.--if Saddam has been involved in past attacks against the United States, then a military strike by us would not really be "preemptive" or a "first" strike, would it?"

The "preemptive/first strike" argument is a red herring - by terms of the '91 peace agreement Iraq was supposed entirely disarm within six months under threat of continued advance by the allies. So we are now at the end of a 12 year long "rush to war."

[TommyDale]

Where do you live, San Francisco?

[meadsjn]

What did any of these people have to say when clinton bombed Yugoslavia to displace the "Monica" headlines?

[Restorer]

Under our Constitution, then, it is incumbent upon the Bush Administration to present the evidence to Congress (this can be done without compromising our intelligence operations) and to receive a formal Declaration of War (not just some previous 9-11 "resolution").

Nowhere in the constitution does it state a specific format for a declaration of war. If the Congress authorizes the President to use force, that is more than adequate.

The US has used military force many dozens of times in its history. In only a very few of those was there a formal declaration of war. Vietnam, Korea and Gulf War I being only the most obvious examples.

[twigs]

Everyone needs fellowship with other believers. Just keep looking. Not all churches or denominations are social clubs where ministers are more counselors than spiritual leaders. In fact, there are probably more biblical churches available now than any time I can ever remember.