Posted on 04/10/2003 8:23:57 AM PDT by Incorrigible
BY MARK O'KEEFE
|
|
| The Rev. Robert Edgar holds a photo of an Iraqi Christian while arguing that children are the most innocent victims of the war against Iraq. (Photo courtesy of the National Council of Churches) |
It has been called organized religion's most unified anti-war stance since the latter days of the Vietnam conflict.
But public opinion polls show the spiritual movement opposing war in Iraq has had little impact on churchgoers, much less on the American public, both of which overwhelmingly support both the U.S.-led invasion and President Bush.
When former President Jimmy Carter, a born-again Baptist, wrote in early March that religious leaders had "an almost universal conviction" that an invasion would be unjust, the statement seemed self-evident. Leaders of mainline Protestant denominations, including the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church, opposed war, and the Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II worked passionately against it.
Largely overlooked in all this was the reality that the flocks didn't agree with the shepherds. According to a February Gallup Poll, two of every three Americans who attend church at least once a week supported war.
Religious conservatives see this split as evidence that a sometimes quiet majority of regular churchgoers -- even in moderate to liberal denominations -- tilt right on many major political issues.
"The mainline churches have suffered a blow to their relevancy in America that will take them more than a generation to recover from," said Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a conservative radio talk-show host from Mercer Island, Wash., who speaks frequently at Christian Coalition conferences.
But the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, could hardly disagree more. In his view, the council, representing 36 denominations, is playing a prophetic role -- much as it did in the 1960s when it took a stand for civil rights.
"None of the Old Testament prophets had a majority," said Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania. "My position is that prophetic voices are always way out ahead of the congregation. Those willing to speak out should not expect automatic enthusiasm. They should understand pretty clearly that the rank and file take a little longer to focus and to follow."
Bradley Watson, an associate professor of political science at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., likened the anti-war position of denomination leadership to the tip of an iceberg -- readily apparent because it's above water, but ultimately misleading.
"The great iceberg of popular opinion is in support of the war, even among churchgoers," Watson said.
A nationwide survey March 13-16 by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that 62 percent of Catholics and the same percentage of mainline Protestants support the war.
Luis Lugo, religion program director at the Pew Charitable Trusts in Philadelphia, called that "a significant gap" between church leaders and followers.
For years, other polls have shown mainline Protestant leaders to be significantly to the left of their members on the death penalty, affirmative action, defense spending and other issues. "Protestant church leaders ought to be concerned," Lugo said. "That's not a healthy long-term trend."
But for the most part, church leaders seem more philosophical than worried.
A former head of the National Council of Churches, the Rev. M. William Howard Jr. of Newark, N.J., explained that church leaders have "an informed" and "critical assessment" of the war and the Bush administration's justifications that church laity, relying on popular media, lacks.
While the religious right communicates to its audience through thousands of conservative radio stations, "mainline churches are completely out of that ballgame," said Howard, pastor of Bethany Baptist Church, a largely African-American congregation.
Howard said African-Americans distrust Bush, and their opposition to the war reflects that. Nationally, only 36 percent of African-Americans support the invasion of Iraq, according to the Pew poll.
On the other hand, the Pew sample showed 77 percent of evangelical Christians supporting the war.
Those describing themselves as evangelical or born-again make up more than 40 percent of the American population, according to Gallup polls. Many of their churches are independent and nondenominational, meaning they have few leaders speaking for vast networks of congregations. Some Southern Baptist Convention leaders have spoken out in favor of the war, but most evangelical organizations have been relatively quiet on the issue.
Their war support could stem from an affinity for a president who speaks their language of redemption and rejects the anti-war rhetoric of his own Methodist denomination.
It may also reflect differences in interpretation of Bible passages. Mainline Protestant leaders cite Christ's pleas for peace -- "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" and "Blessed are the peacemakers" -- in opposing the war. Evangelicals argue that those commands were intended for individuals, not the state, and that Christ spoke passionately about the responsibility to oppose evil.
This helps explain why the Bible describes Christ "rebuking hateful mobs, casting demons into the abyss and chasing religious charlatans out of a temple with a whip," said Joseph Loconte, a fellow on religion and free society at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Following that example, Christians should support a war against the evil of Saddam Hussein, Loconte and other evangelicals argue.
Among Catholics, disagreeing with the Vatican and American bishops is nothing new, said the Rev. Arthur Kennedy, executive director of the Washington-based United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"Look at the abortion issue," Kennedy said. "American Catholics are basically the same as everyone else, even though the church is constantly making the case against abortion."
But Jeffrey Marlett, assistant professor of religious studies at the College of Saint Rose, in Albany, N.Y., said the falling credibility of Catholic leadership is a factor in shaping opinions on the war.
"The church's sex crisis is percolating in the background on this," said Marlett, whose specialty is American Catholic history. "When the Vatican or the American bishops make statements on justice and peace, those words ring a little hollow now."
In Albany, Marlett said, Catholic parishioners are walking out on sermons declaring the war unjust.
"If folks don't like the message they're hearing, they'll move someplace else where they like it," he said. "The interesting thing here, for whatever reason, is that peace isn't selling well. It's certainly not selling like it did in the 1960s.
"Religious folks have favorite brands, and the favorite brand at this point is in support of the war."
(Mark O'Keefe can be contacted at mark.okeefe@newhouse.com)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
It didn't sell all that well in the '60's. More revisionist history.
Sums up my feelings exactly! I play in my Catholic Church's choir, and if I didn't have my stuff there I would have gotten up and walked out on this moronic dithering pseudo-call to be a Protestor homily I had at the last mass I went to there. I'm going back there this weekend, I'm thinking when we pray in the back before that I'm going to call "for all of those filled with hate in malice in their hearts here for the Commander In Chief, to let go of that hate in order to follow Christ."
What do ya think?
You hit the nail on the head.
On the first Sunday after 9-11-01, my Catholic priest demanded us to pray for Osama bin Laden. That was a little hard to take so soon for those of us who saw the towers burning and lost friends and relatives in a despicable, hateful attack ...
Then the other priest in the town was kicked out of the church for pedophilic activity...
Then my kid got printed "religious education" materials with socialist messages decrying the "sinfulness" of capitalism and the idealistic vision of worldwide peace "if only" people would freely share (redistribute) their wealth and refuse to fight with other people no matter what ...
Then when the question of war with Iraq was introduced, I could not get through a single church service without feeling shame and recognized the irreconciable differences with church philosophy which denigrated America's "arrogance" and "unshared prosperity".
I stopped going to church, at least for now, but I still pray for President Bush, the safe return of our troops and the future of America and a free (therefore peaceful) world.
What about those kids who were released from Saddam's jails this week by the US military? If there hadn't been this war, those kids would still be in that hellhole. This "Rev." is a modern day Pharisee.
A true prophet is one who thinks he is on God's side. A false prophet is one who thinks God is on his side.
Catholics and protestants have more in common than they will admit. One can definitely say that the bureaucracy in all deniminations is top heavy with liberals, and unaccountable bishops. As Lord Acton said "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly".
So many bishops think they are infallible and know better and are living the good life without physical want or need. The bad apples are ripe for the picking in all branches of Christianity. A grass roots Christian jihad is way over due - the term "Crusade" doesn't describe the mindless devotion needed to overcome the fanaticism of Islam.
The success in Iraq feels like the beginning of something else - a long overdue push to recognize that Western Christian values are the underpinning of civilization and the future of mankind. The lack of understanding or tolerance of this fact drives the Islamics, the Chinese and western liberals.
It is impossible to believe let alone understand the dynamic of Christian civilization if you are schooled to know only human values as relevant to existance. Liberal secular madrassas of higher education are strict interpreters of a secular reality where all things are measured against the yard stick of humanity. External interference and guidance of human affairs as historically recorded throughout history in the bible, the bagavagita and ANY other ancient document (religious or not) is ignored by current academics. Carl Sagan was a great example. Since divine influence is not under their control or not viewed by them as controllable - it doesn't exit. So they take the point of view that God, divine intervention and all things religious are superstition. It's becoming a genetic thing. Either you "get it" and understand how the spirit influences humanity or you deny its existence. Every culture in history has known about the existence of a divine force in our lives. Native Americans knew about the "great spirit". Secularization is an anomaly.
Chistian jihad - a peaceful effort to extend Christianity is way overdue. It is the duty of Christians to support their team and not hide their light "under a bushel". Christianity will overcome its opposition by culturally superimposing christian values, laws and mores. This is what JP2 has said - It is the best way but a road trip to Baghdad every once and a while is refreshing.
Those liberal Archbishops and Bishops who keep sheltering child abusers and spouting "liberation theology"-type bilge are not my leaders.
My local priests, on the other hand, lead Christ-like lives and deserve my utter respect.
May be true. But the 99% that survive are the greatest beneficiaries.
AND their 'informed' source for 'critical assessment' of the war is?????
I visited a mainstream church while visiting my family about a year ago, before this became a hot issue. But the sermon's punchline was a call for us to contact our Congressman and demand socialist legislation. Seriously doubt I'll spend much time there in future!
My wife teaches at a local Catholic school, and I'm afraid it's worse than you think. I don't know if this is strictly local, or if this is a prelude to the Catholic Church's next stand, but I can tell you what her "discussion material" includes.
She is to make the point that we are going to be helping the Iraqis set up a new government, and providing humanitarian aid - which includes feeding them (OK, that's pretty much the whole emphasis, feeding them, but then, she's teaching 2nd grade) She is then to point out that we don't make the same efforts to feed people here in our own country, where some go hungry, etc.
Personally, I find this line incredible. But there it is...
Drew Garrett
Just like everything else the liberals try to run they have to hide their true intentions. They know people don't agree with them and the only way to win is to lie.
Don't just do it, videotape it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.