iraq and moral values

of the moral issues that compelled some voters to choose george bush, abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research were the key. among these voters, serious reservation was expressed about the war in iraq. yet fear of threats from terrorists and worry about what are often called 'life' issues overcame the sense that neither the iraq war or the economy are in good hands. i'd hyperlink to articles on all this, but there are very many. i've mentioned this before, so check out here for starters.

one of the most important moral concerns motivating me at the polls was my anger about the war in iraq, a war that i judged to be illegal, immoral and unwise. illegal because of its prosecution outside the bounds of what civilized nations have agreed to as their charter for enacting war, immoral because it did not meet the traditional principles for a just war, and unwise because of its tremendous costs--financial, both to us and our allies, and to iraq in terms of reconstruction, and human, in terms of all the dead and wounded, but also in terms of relations between christians and muslims, between the west and the middle east.

however, i am very interested in the question of what now. rowan williams offered profound reflections on this just after the war began in 2003. and in this week's new york times book review, i found another really provocative argument made by noah feldman, a professor of law at new york university school of law. his book 'after jihad' , along with a pretty stellar academic career, got him a job as the chief u.s. advisor to iraq for the writing of its constitution. now, after a time in bagdad working on that project, he's written a short book titled 'what we owe iraq: war and the ethics of nation building'.

despite deep reservations about the decision to go to war, and concerns about failures in how it has been carried out, feldman thinks success is still possible IF americans understand that we're morally obligated to make good come out of it, and by this he means democracy--rule by the iraqis for the iraqis. i buy the colloquial summary of feldman's argument in the nyt book review: we broke it, we bought it. and by we, i mean to claim my responsibility as a citizen whose responsibility for national life cannot be set aside simply by virtue of dissent, even if i still must dissent. michael walzer placed this sort of stance under the strained rubric of 'loyal dissent.' for this reason i think progressives are wrong to yell 'bring the troops home now'. i'd like to think this through theologically, but another day, another post. your thoughts?

anon, and +peace

Comments

[Michael Kunz]

Christian:

Interesting thoughts about whether we should set aside any sort of personal repsonsibility for things that our nation does. It reminds me of the theological concepts of collective and individual guilt. Are those the concepts that lead you to feel that you can not step aside from a responsibility for what our nation does, even though you dissent?

It brings to mind Bonhoeffer. Would we hold him accountable for the acts of the German government during WWII? Or, is he "cleared" of accountability because of his active opposition. Does active opposition clear a person, or is all of it a moot question, in terms of clearing one of accountability, in that all of us stand guilty before God as sinners?

Are these two separate questions? Accountable/guilty before God by virtue of being a sinner; accountable/guilty before God and the rest of the world by virtue of being an American citizen?

One way I've struggled with this question is to think of myself not so much as, first, an American, but, rather, a Christian who happens to live in America. I think of the apostle Paul, who, when it was to the benefit of the proclamation of the Gospel (or perhaps just for his own personal benefit) laid claim to his Roman citizenship. But was it only when it was for the benefit of the Gospel that he used this Roman citizenship, or did he also take some sort of individual responsibility for the corporate acts of the Roman government. And, perhaps, is Paul even a guy who should be considered as a worthy model, or are we left to some other guide?

Just questions. Thanks for helping me think about this stuff.

Michael Kunz

[Christian Scharen]

Michael,
Thanks for your lovely and compelling engagement. I do think the case of Bonhoeffer is good. I think he 'couldn't' remain in England or the U.S. because he did feel responsible, accountable, as a German citizen, for what was happening. Not that he felt it was something he 'willed' or 'caused' directly, but that he was tied to the horror and bound to act in response.

I think Martin Luther's claim that the preacher must call the prince to account here in our context translates to the preacher calling the citizen to account. In a democracy, we're all the prince. So when I preached the night bombs began to fall on Bagdad in March 2003, and I called for a hearty dose of Christian parrhesia, or the courage to speak the truth to power, even at risk to oneself (see Acts 4:23-31), I had to speak it to myself as citizen, as one who is 'represented' by those elected officials who govern. So I want to hold closely onto the power of dissent, but also hold closely to the clarity that what is done is done 'in my name' even as I protest 'don't do that in my name.' It is the paradox that I don't want to let go of, as if by my protest I could absolve myself of what President Bush has done. No, exactly because I am responsible to him, and he to me, I have to dissent. And because of what he has done in Iraq, I am responsible to his action there, and he to me for it. I tried to vote him out, but I still am bound by my citizenship to fight like hell for the peace, that worldly peace, and its partner justice, in Iraq. This is what Feldman's work pushed me to struggle with in a deeper way, and I'm still pretty damn inarticulate about it.

[Michael Kunz]

OK, I've been thinking about this, and I read through the links you pointed to in your original post, and I'm still not convinced that I, as a Christian, who happens to live in America, am accountable for the actions of George W. Bush.

The analogy I think of that would speak to this is when my child's teacher punishes the entire class for something that one child has done. Yes, sometimes a teacher's rationale behind that is for the rest of the class to put peer pressure on the offender, but more often it merely builds resentment against the teacher.

Similarly, where I work, I helped put together revised criteria for how employees on my team are evaluated by management. With fairly enthusiastic support from fellow employees, we eliminated as evaluation criteria any item over which we as employees had little power. Employees resent being evaluated about things over which we have little if any power.

And I also have limited power over the actions of the American government. I vote against certain candidates, I can send letters to Congress and the media, I can protest on the streets and airwaves, and, still, there is little change.

I appreciate your pointing to the concept of Luther "preaching to the prince", and your claim that in a democracy we are all the prince. But I'll dispute your claim in that the prince had some realistic power to effect political and governmental change, whereas my power is limited at best.

So, I propose that I am not accountable for another's deeds.

BUT, I am yet accountable for my own deeds, and upon examining my deeds rather my government's, I find a more fruitful path to judgment, and then mercy. Rather than look at my government and say, "Oh, I am glad I am not like that sinning government", I should look to my own shortfall before God and seek mercy for that, as did the publican in Jesus' parable from Luke.

Now, if I were Bonhoeffer, and I were following a certain morality/ethics to a logical conclusion, I could plot to do away with the government leaders who propogate a wide evil. About 10 years ago when I asked Lutheran theologian Bob Bertram about how Bonhoeffer reconciled himself to plotting to kill Hitler, Bertram said that Bonhoeffer realized that all of his choices, whatever they might be, were tinged with sin, and that therefore he would choose the action that seemed least evil and trust in God's grace through Christ to deal mercifully with Bonhoeffer.

And, so, rather than use the "we must" or "we have to" language of Rowan Williams, which smacks of a certain legalism, or, at least, self-righteousness; or rather than be bound by another's sin, for example, being bound to George Bush's actions because I am related to him by citizenship; I submit that I be held accountable for my own actions, free and clear of that of my government, against which I dissent. That being said, I am still guilty, but on my own account, not somebody else's. And then, I will go forward, justified by God's grace, "sinning boldly" as Luther might put it, in order to do what good I might.

And then, rather then being something I've "got to" do, it is something I, as a free/redeemed person "get to" do. Such boldness would come from faith in Christ and his Gospel, such as you alluded to in Acts 4. Peter and John's boldness had to do with preaching the Gospel of Christ and his resurrection from the dead, not an antiwar cause, as just as that might be.

I suppose that what I'm struggling to find is a concrete way to respond to the evil, but not out of obligation tied to my American citizenship, but rather as a Gospel-imperative. This would be a response that is fueled not by my judgment against others, but by a grateful response to the one who has loved, embraced and forgiven me through Christ.

[Christian Scharen]

Michael,
a key issue here is accountablity to george bush as person, for personal actions (as a christian, yes, in the sense that one is called to admonish another who has gone done a path others consider spiritually dangerous, cf. matthew 18:15ff) or for actions of his office (as a christian, yes, in the sense that one is called to used one's citizenship to serve the neighbor and protect them, for this is how God uses government as if behind a mask, cf. Luther). In my comments above, I'm more concerned with accountability to President Bush for actions of his office, and in this sense, when protestors say, "not in my name," they are exactly stating my case that by virtue of my citizenship the actions of the president and the government in general are done in my name, and if I think them unwise or immoral, I must say so, but that does not absolve me of some compelling responsiblity for what actions were in fact done in my name as citizen.
So here I don't find the idea of guilt as compelling as the idea of civic responsiblity exactly because of God's presense in political power and the christian commitment I have to call governmental office holders to the purposes of seeking the good of the neighbor, the welfare of all, or as the pledge says, a place where there is "liberty and justice for all." This sense of responsiblity is exactly fueled by deep gratitude for the transformation of Grace in my life, and the power of the spirit of Christ indwelling in my life. Such work of citizenship is hard and messy, and I would argue, exactly the kind of grace-filled practice of gratitude that christians are called to so that we might aproximate on earth that kingdom which is in heaven.
Happy Thanksgiving, and more on this after I've finished my Feldman books and another by Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror.
+Peace

[Michael Kunz]

Hmmmm. Well, I hear your point, and I truly appreciate your learned observations.

I'm not yet convinced that because George W. Bush or the government of the United States does something, that it is done "in my name" just because I am a citizen of the United States. It sounds as if you're saying Luther speaks to that point, but this may be something on which I'll differ with Luther and you. I'm sort of hung up on the "in my name" bit. That's OK.

That being said, I still feel responsibility as a Christian to "speak the truth in love", to expose evil by bringing it to the light...even that evil in which I participate.

Thanks for the conversation. Looking forward to reading your future posts on this topic.

Happy Advent! Peace,
Michael Kunz