Donny -- Apples and oranges, because the parallels are non-existant.

kevin s. -- It is actually quite common and Biblical for people who were not directly involved in evil to call for repentance. The Southern Baptist Convention did in fostering racism and slavery because they realized the effects they had decades later. Even Moses did so on behalf of ancient Israel, never mind that he was not directly involved in its sin.

Whether we want to admit it or not, when something/someone we're somehow connected with commits evil it stains us, thus the need to repent and repudiate those actions as not reflective of a holy God.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 10:45 AM

"Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

Cuts no ice with me. As John Wilkes Booth so aptly put it, Lincoln was a far greater tyrant than was Julius Caesar.

Posted by: Ignatius J. Reilly | February 21, 2008 11:51 AM

"I am not repenting"--kevin s

As if anyone thought you would.

Posted by: Arch D'tachd Muzing | February 21, 2008 11:55 AM

Hmmmmm. I think Ignatius J. Reilley just might be tongue in cheek. Isn't that the name of the main character in O'Toole's wonderful and funny "Confederacy of Dunces"?

Posted by: carl copas | February 21, 2008 12:08 PM

Don -- In fairness, virtually nothing down South even to this day is named for Lincoln.

And nothing up north is named for Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee, either.

I'm not sure what your point is or what bearing it has on Rev Wallis' calling for national repentance (or Lincoln's similar calling 145 years ago).

D

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 12:16 PM

Great post, Jim Wallis.

The idea, espoused by some here, that churches need not repent is baseless and erroneous. The pastors, elders and rank-in-file members who blindly repeated the worn-out, nationalist slogans in the events leading up to the war need to repent. As Jim Wallis says, we ALL need to repent on some level for this travesty. A church that does not see the need to repent for this travesty is not a church worth attending.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 21, 2008 12:30 PM

But we won't be repenting of hypertaxation, abortion, a failed Social Security system.

None of those, not even abortion strictly speaking, are Biblical issues that compromise the church's mission. Failing to challenge vigorously the powers that be, or even backing them, when they pursue evil policies, especially in this case a war that has caused more harm than good, however, is another matter.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 12:52 PM

If your "Jesus" is a "War Jesus" - that is, a syncretistic tribal war god, then it's obvious that if you are motivated by that divine sense of militaristic patriotism and messianic mission for dominance, that you'll be incensed by the very concept of repentance for actions driven by that deep sense of purpose.

That such misconceptions can nevertheless inspire highly idealistic senses of noble aim and deep meaning, along with great personal sacrifice, is one of the deeply ironic human failings that continues to fuel the greatest evil in the world.

I have a book by Thomas Dixon, a pastor and popular American novelist who was once the highest-paid and most sought after public speaker, well into the twentieth century. His popular books were the basis for the first great Hollywood films, including Birth of a Nation.

This novel, The Clansman, moves one to tears and inspiration - and all for the most evil and banal of causes - racism and slavery. Reading it, as one is caught up in the genuine idealism and patriotic sacrifice, one has a sense of engaging in something dirty, something truly subversive to what is good. One is almost convinced against one's will for the duration of reading, and is caught up in revelling at the overthrow of reconstruction by the aggrieved minority driven to ride out covered in holy white, re-establishing righteousness by terror and burning cross.

It is no accident that the South - where the name of Lincoln is still heard in discomfort and even disdain - in its historical penchant to idealize cultural and ethnic superiorities, would appropriate patriotism to serve its same tendencies of character. To make essentially the same sort of moral error in its modern practice, substituting America at large - reconceived in its own image - for the Old South and the righteousness of the its Lost Cause sublimated into "America Right or Wrong."

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 21, 2008 1:21 PM

"None of those, not even abortion strictly speaking, are Biblical issues that compromise the church's mission."

WOW!! What a statement. What a tragic, unbelievably sad understanding of the complicity in murdering millions of unborn humans.
Since I need to repent (and I do) for my complicity in the war that has taken lives, both combatant and innocent, in Iraq, surely the deaths of first and second term infants, whose hearts beat just as surely and whose blood flowed just as red as any of those victims in Iraq, also call out from their common graves for the repentance of all of us, who have followed the pronuniations of a bunch of old men in black robes in 1973.
Surely we need to think again about this!

Posted by: joekc | February 21, 2008 1:59 PM

My point is that Lincoln even now is not viewed as a national hero in much of the South.

Very true, and fair enough. But in reminding us of his call for a day of repentance, and in making the connection with what I think is today's need for national repentance, I'm only thinking of him as the head of state at the time, not regarding him to be a national hero.

Anyway, depending on ideology, often people want to call for "national repentance" to determine scapegoats, not necessary to atone for national cultural sins. It was in that ungodly spirit that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed abortionists, gays and the ACLU for September 11.

Again, and sadly, true. But I think those who so use the call for repentance ignore, misunderstand, or disregard the meaning of the term. The term means to turn around--one is going the wrong direction and one needs to turn around. It's not so much a need to repent of specific sins, like Falwell and Robertson asserted and like Donny continues to insist, but rather a call to turn our nation around. It's significant that when Jesus was reminded of the Tower of Siloam incident, he replied (in part), "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." He didn't say what specifically they were guilty of that they were to repent from.

Lincoln's proclamation said that the nation had forgotten God and had gone its own way. It had begun to believe that it's prosperity was a result of its own effort, not the grace of God. We're in the same place today, aren't we? We're going the wrong direction. We need to turn around.

In fact many people prefer to think we deserved to be bombed on 9/11, either because of our sinful nature or because of our terrible foreign policy. I tend to blame the terrorists as most Americans do.

I certainly don't believe we "deserved" to be bombed on 9-11 because of our sins. The terrorists--and only the terrorists--were entirely and completely responsible for the atrocity of that day. But God can use the evil of others for his own purposes. And in this case, I think he allowed this attack as a wake-up call to the American people. So far, we haven't wakened up, except to renewed warmongering, proud nationalism, self-righteousness and greed. I'm sure God is not pleased.

The prophet Habakkuk argued with God about the same thing. Remember? Habakkuk complained to God after God told him he would be sending the evil Chaldeans to punish the people of Israel. Habakkuk couldn't believe it. But God then said that he would be holding the Chaldeans fully responsible for their evil deeds.

The ways of God are a mystery to us.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 2:02 PM

So according to your views Jim, the US should just pull out and leave Iraq and allow the Islamic terrorist to come in and set up an Islamic police state that controls the Iraq military and oil. Great choice.

You liberals make me laugh. You offer no solutions only words. "We need to repent" should be turned toward the Islamic militants. They need to repent.

Further, how is it that you liberals love President Lincoln for his leadership, his vow to end slavery, etc. and yet he did what Bush has done and even worse. Lincoln's war cost more American lives than Iraq could ever imagine. And yet you criticise Bush and shower Lincoln with blessings. Who is the hypocrite here?

Posted by: Roy | February 21, 2008 2:07 PM

My question is: How does an individual repent for something he/she opposed from the beginning and has been feeling sorrow for these past years?
I yearn to have this war over and our troops at home. I see wrong-doing in giving this president the powers he has assumed. But individually I did not do that, nor did I vote for this man who led the nation down this path. Short of moving to Canada how could I have avoided being a part of it all?

Posted by: Beevo | February 21, 2008 2:13 PM

Beevo, didn't Moses repent on behalf of the Israelites when God vowed to destroy them, even though he had nothing to do with the golden calf incident?

How someone repents for something he/she opposed is to intercede on behalf of the nation, just as Moses did.

Do I make any sense?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 2:16 PM

We are all responsible for the actions of our government. If we disagree with anything that is directly or indirectly a product of the thinking and actions of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of our government we MUST speak out. I've written to all U.S. Representatives and all U.S. Senators about our disastrous foreign policy in the middle East. At a minimum we should all be talking to our U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators. If you like our foreign policy then tell them what it is you like. If you disagree then tell them why aslo. Then register to vote and take the next step and vote this November.

If there is an argument out there in the ether against the logic of this note I'd like to hear it please.

Posted by: Gayland | February 21, 2008 2:35 PM

"If there is an argument out there in the ether against the logic of this note I'd like to hear it please."

I would argue that your note represents the proper Christian response to bad governmental policy.

"The term means to turn around--one is going the wrong direction and one needs to turn around."

In this context, it clearly means to turn away from sin, and the Siloam reference reinforces this. I'm not sure what you are saying.

"And in this case, I think he allowed this attack as a wake-up call to the American people."

But only for war, and not sexual sin, theft, murder, and otherwise rejecting scriptures? Why is this so? You are essentially making the same mistake here as Falwell, as you are tying the terrorist attack to your own pet issue.

"Beevo, didn't Moses repent on behalf of the Israelites when God vowed to destroy them, even though he had nothing to do with the golden calf incident?"

Right, but we are not of the nation of Israel. I don't see a role for national repentance in a Christian cultural, and there is no mention of it in the New Testament. I don't see any evidence that we can intercede on someone else's behalf, much less an entire nation.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 2:55 PM

This is more of a philosophical question...

Why do people who opposed the war and have spoken out against in many, many times, voted against Bush, etc need to repent for actions in which they played no part? Is it merely because the U.S. has an elected government and therefore we're all responsible for the actions of the government? If the U.S. was ruled by an unelected dictator would the situation be different? Is it solely because we're Americans and it is our government? Or should everyone in the world repent for the war, or for anything that goes on in the world that goes against God's teaching?

These are mainly questions to those who think we need to repent.

Posted by: Eric | February 21, 2008 3:05 PM

Thank you for the Sojourners article on the Iraq War. You are absolutely right. As a mother and a grandmother I feel that every mother in this country should stand up and say, "Bring our children home from this senseless war now. And what about all the Iraqi mothers who are mourning the death of their children. During this Lenten season in the spirit of Jesus, Christians should speak out against this war and not let him be crucified again.

Posted by: Georgianna Summers | February 21, 2008 3:25 PM

Oops...that should have been "all manner of horrors..."

Posted by: Eric | February 21, 2008 3:33 PM

Sojourner Truth wrote: "We cannot excuse sin, but we can recognise that any human of sin is tragic for us too - because given similar influences and circumstances, we would do just the same as that person."

Indeed, given identical influences and circumstances, you would be that person.

I realize that this is a Christian blog, but it might nonetheless be enlightening to engage in a bit of comparative religion, and compare and contrast these issues from the frame of reference of karma rather than that of "sin".

The literal meaning of the Sanskrit word karma is "action", and the basic idea it represents is that our actions give rise to the reality that we (and others affected by our actions) will subsequently experience.

The karma of a nation arises from the collective karma of all the individuals who comprise it. In this frame of reference, the question is not whether we as individuals need to repent, or atone for, the "sins" of others, but what we as individuals can do to purify the karma of the society in which we exist, and thus shape future realities that are more conducive to the well-being of all sentient beings.

In this frame of reference, what is needed is not so much "repentance" or atonement, but clear understanding of how we have acted so far; the extent to which those actions have been founded in ignorance, misunderstanding, fear and greed; what the harmful effects of our actions have been on ourselves and others; and the necessity of cultivating understanding and compassion that give rise to actions that establish and expand well-being rather than suffering.

Posted by: SecularAnimist | February 21, 2008 3:37 PM

I am deeply grateful to Jim for calling us to collective repentance for our complicity in continued violence.

In this season when taxes again come to mind, Jim makes a connection which most citizens cannot or will not see. Paying for war (via taxes) is a form of participation in war. In a free society, where does responsibility rest? People of faith must begin to practice loving not only personal enemies, but corporate/national ones as well.

Unlike some who tie their consciences to the actions of others (won't pay taxes "if" the U.S. invades Iran, or if 9,999 also pledge), a number of U.S. citizens aren't waiting. They have joined with Kathy Kelly in a 2008 War Tax Boycott, redirecting a portion of their taxes to specific human needs. (www.wartaxboycott.org)

Historically, calls to repentance and transformation were accompanied by fasting. Perhaps some in the church will recover this discipline. I am fasting weekly during Lent and continually for several days in late March in preparation for advocacy in support of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund (H.R.1921 - www.peacetaxfund.org).

When we become clear in our religious convictions that we are one human family, believe that participation in war is a sin, are willing to sacrifice in order to live those beliefs and fully support others who do so, then perhaps we can regain our moral compass.

Posted by: Alan Gamble | February 21, 2008 3:43 PM

There is absolutely no way that we would have great difficulty of dialogue and conversation in these posts were more of us to subscribe to the understanding that truth is many sided, multi-dimensional, revelational (and therefore often incremental). Additionally, as Mr. Paul of Tarsus so eloquently said (after he himself were the recipient of such a huge expanse of wisdom and revelation), "now we see through a glass darkly.

I'd like to suggest that, in taking sides (which none can escape) in matters of morality and difficult ethical issues - even the ones we think are cut-and-dried and clear-cut - that we use an extra portion of humility, for, among us all, being confined to this dark glass of current reality, SOMEBODY may be wrong, and it could be you or me. Consequently, I urge, again, that these judgmental epithets that some of us hurl, in arrogance and smug certainty (like "liberals, all") be relegated to the dump heap of ignorance. Any reasonable student of philosophy, or theology, or even church history (and certainly, any serious debater on these posts not necessarily trained in these disciplines) should be able or at least willing, to accept , though (s)he holds to a position and cannot, for the life of them, understand why someone else should hold to something else, that this is the stuff of which truth and communal discernment is made.

That said, there is no reason why American believers in Jesus should not be urged to repent of this war. A large swath of the church was busy clamoring for war while several thousands of others in the same American Church were attempting HARD to persuade Mr. President that this was a bad decision for an even worse reason. Too few of us recall that at the same time Hans Blix was begging Mr. President for more time and was denied it, several thousand clergy, who were certain that this war was ill-conceived, were denied desperately-sought audience with Mr. President. Even though I am among those who saw the writing on the wall even BEFORE this war started, I am CERTAINLY in repenting mode, and in fact, preceded Jim Wallis in that call to my congregation at the start of Lent. Apologies for the lengthy post.

Posted by: Michael Friday | February 21, 2008 3:59 PM

Kevin, I think perhaps there's a nuance you misunderstood:

"To then argue that a church must repent on behalf of the community is even further away from scripture, especially when people within that church have legitimate disagreements about whether or not the community has sinned."

My belief is that the church is not so separated from the wider community, nor the community from the nation or the nation from all humanity, as some might suppose. It is that all are responsible for all, and that repentance is primarily about acknowledging responsibility for what one can do within one's own sphere of action to redress evil. Therefore, it's not so much "on behalf of" but for one's own complicity. Hardened hearts will fail to acknowledge this, or why would Jesus accept responsibility for all sins on behalf of mankind, individually, which He personally did not bear responsibility for? What is the meaning of "laying down one's life for another" in this context? He offered repentance, took responsibility for mankind's sins - of a mankind which He willingly chose to be part - before God. And before He did, he wept when He looked at our sins, with compassion.

I base this on a strict unreconstructionist literal, conservative reading of scripture, that is, specifically Jesus' hard teachings (to me) in Matthew 5, 6 and 7.

Moreover, all sins derive intrinsically and consequently from original sin, as expressions of the fall, so one cannot so easily isolate one's own intentions and propensities from the failings of others, outside Jesus' offer of the possibility of ending alienation from God, self and others. It's not that we would have to be "identical" to others for us to be intimately linked to the propensities and consequences suffered by all, it's that our fate as individuals in a human organism became, in effect, collective. The question is, how can faith transform that fate? It must be lived out in a way that does not absolve or separate, but engage in love and sharing of burdens, including repentance for our own part.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 21, 2008 4:10 PM

Jim's Lenten call to repentence seems to be consistent with the thoughts expressed in one modern classic:

"Christianity has dared to lower its ideals before the challenge of human greed, war-madness, and the lust for power; but the religion of Jesus stands as the unsullied and transcendent spiritual summons, calling to the best there is in man to rise above all these legacies of animal evolution and, by grace, attain the moral heights of true human destiny."

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/ub/ppr195_9.html

"Group or congregational praying is very effective in that it is highly socializing in its repercussions. When a group engages in community prayer for moral enhancement and spiritual uplift, such devotions are reactive upon the individuals composing the group; they are all made better because of participation. Even a whole city or an entire nation can be helped by such prayer devotions. Confession, repentance, and prayer have led individuals, cities, nations, and whole races to mighty efforts of reform and courageous deeds of valorous achievement."

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/ub/ppr091_5.html

Posted by: Carl M. | February 21, 2008 4:19 PM

How many of us are involved in dialoguing with people from these war-torn countries? Though I myself am not, I see that our mission as Christians is two-fold, not just one-fold: resist the call to war and dialogue with people in these lands. As an American living abroad (in Germany), I come into contact with a great deal of news about Iraq and Iran and see an undeniable push toward hatred of the US from the leaders, especially in Iran. What we have to do is reach out to people like us in one-on-one ways so we can help their government as well as ours resist the call to war, because it takes two (governments) to tango, and we have to take our individual spiritual calling seriously in a broader scheme and not just by ourselves at home.

Work for peace! (I speak to myself as much as to anyone else!!)

Posted by: sola gratia | February 21, 2008 4:23 PM

All American's need to repent. Repent of worldliness, secularism-- atheism, filth and violence, militarism, court tyranny,etc.
We need to return the christian principles our nation was founded on; the early settlers put up a cross. Life revolved around the church and the schools they built to read the Bible and overcome Satan and sin.
We should have an amendment for God and prayer and Bible and christian principles and marriage.
With prayer and praise, Way one

Posted by: wayne | February 21, 2008 4:24 PM

I agree with everything stated, excpt we are not paying for this war with our taxes. We are handing the cost of this war to our children and grandchildren. If the current adminstration would make the American people pay for this unpopular war, the apathetic and selfish people would raise a stink.

Posted by: Dave Haessig | February 21, 2008 4:29 PM

"In this frame of reference, what is needed is not so much "repentance" or atonement, but clear understanding of how we have acted so far; the extent to which those actions have been founded in ignorance, misunderstanding, fear and greed; what the harmful effects of our actions have been on ourselves and others; and the necessity of cultivating understanding and compassion that give rise to actions that establish and expand well-being rather than suffering."

A Tibetan Buddhist perspective could be quite useful for analysis of the psychological origins of our behavior - particularly that desire or greed, anger or hatred and ignorance or deceit are the roots of suffering. To our detriment in the west, we have not developed as fully these insights into the psychological basis of our behavior. However, the insights about the phenomena are entirely consistent with the recognition of the problem of alienation of mankind that Jesus was sent from the Father to heal. And there is recognition that humanity is far closer than an extreme individualism has allowed us in the west to acknowledge, distorting our own understanding of and fidelity to scripture, and making peacemaking we are called to very difficult.

This has universal application, because it is a common truth.

The usefulness of corporate repentance is in its expression of common cause with others, even enemies, and acknowledging responsibility, so that one can then realise it is one's own responsibility to alleviate suffering of others.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 21, 2008 4:36 PM

"I am not repenting, and I'm pretty my church won't be either (to the extent that a church can repent for the actions of a nation anyway)."

Your church can't repent, but the LORD knows this is a Republic-- He was there when it was set up, and didn't say anything-- and He knows the first words of the Constitution are 'We the People of the United States', so He knows that we the people are the sovereign ruler(s) of the US. He will hold us the people responsible, jointly and severally, for the behavior of our elected servants Cheney and Bush, and he will hold us responsible for permitting them to launch an unjust and unjustifiable war of adventure against Iraq.

If I were you I'd reconsider my refusal to repent-- unless of course, like me, you were opposed to the war from the start.

In Him, Love;

TV2

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | February 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Kevin: "But we won't be repenting of hypertaxation, abortion, a failed Social Security system."

Taxes aren't high and Social Security is not failed. Only a libertarian crybaby would put these issues on a par with 50 million dead children. I'm surprised to read this.

Posted by: I and I | February 21, 2008 5:16 PM

John Kludt: "His treatment of women was appalling..."

Hmmm. Saddam's regime allowed women go to school, hold political positions and professional jobs, and dress as they pleased. Compare Saudi Arabia's treatment of women. I guess you advocate bombing Saudi Arabia in order to liberate the women?

Think.

Posted by: I and I | February 21, 2008 5:25 PM

C.S. Lewis argued that national repentance is only genuine if it is done with some reluctance. He also said that many who call for national repentance give the appearance of contrition when it is actually a condemnation of others. I leave it to you to decide where these calls here for national repentance fall.

Personally, I have never been able to understand national repentance because you can't repent for someone else's sins. Old Testament rules do not apply here, since Moses (and priests) was a mediator between God and the Israelites (e.g., they offered sacrifices for their sins).

Posted by: jesse | February 21, 2008 6:29 PM

It's about time that the people of this country admit that war is evil in and unto itself. It is a barbaric ritual left over from our primitive past. It is not patriotic, not couragious, or honorable. It is simply large scale killing.

And when was the motive of the countries that make war about killing people? We all know that war is faught about economics. Wouldn't it be better to wage these wars in banks rather than on battlefields? How about making hackers the new soldiers? Think about it. Capturing the enemy's money could be the goal, rather than killing their people.

Posted by: Bobbi Ashley | February 21, 2008 7:21 PM

Personally, I have never been able to understand national repentance because you can't repent for someone else's sins.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed and then say that. The reality is that, if you look hard enough, you may find that you personally may have benefited from injustices perpertrated decades ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 7:33 PM

Some are saying that national repentance is an invalid concept because in this dispensation the death of Jesus provided all the substitutionary atonement necessary. If this is so, why then, after our initial conversion, must we ask forgiveness when we sin?

Some are saying because I didn’t vote for Bush, I need not seek repentance for his actions; because I don’t support this or that policy, I’m not responsible, therefore I don’t need forgiveness.

I say, if we as individuals--

--are not writing, calling and picketing our leaders for change, (re-the war, campaign finance, health care, education, whatever),

--are not getting off the couch, adjusting the thermostat and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, so that our leaders don’t feel the need to invade an oil rich country (let’s face it, that’s why we’re there),

--are not reducing our rampant consumerism and greed so that corporations don’t have the power to control our leaders and get a “by” to do just about anything to keep their stock prices and profitability up,

--are not supporting with our time and money, the programs necessary to make birthing their babies a meaningful alternative for desperate women,

--are not committed to fair trade with undeveloped peoples so that they can hope for a decent life,

--are not committed to buying, perhaps more expensive, locally produced goods from independently owned stores and to paying American workers a higher wage to provide them

--then we are complicit and we need to seek forgiveness.

--I know who I am (and I’m pretty sure all of you are, too)—a selfish, self-righteous, lazy, greedy, egotistical, and (because of my faults) self-loathing sinner; redeemed only by the loving Christ who dwells in me and in so doing makes be perfect and beautiful.

Posted by: Latebloomer | February 21, 2008 7:52 PM

Ignatius J. Reilly - HA!

I live a couple of blocks from John Kennedy Toole's house.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 21, 2008 7:57 PM

If there is any need to repent here, then I think it relates to the sin of presumption. In particular, the arrogance of assuming that the political opinion one happens to hold is also shared by God. Does God oppose all war? Certainly not because he specifically instructed the children of Israel to wage some of them. Did God approve or disaprove of the war in Iraq? Who can be sure? Maybe he approved of the desire to remove the evil dictator Saddam Hussein. Maybe he approves of continuing US intervention to separate the factions that would otherwise be killing each other.

James

Posted by: James Addis | February 21, 2008 8:25 PM

I am not a Catholic; but Pope John Paul II had it right when he stated in the 1980s that "the responsibility for war rests not only with those who directly cause the war, but also with those who do not do everything in their power to prevent it". It seems to me that war and most especially modern war results in such evil and immorality that it would be hard to find any war to justify. I say this as a combat veteran of World War II. I have come to believe that Christian pacifists are reading their bibles most correctly.

Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | February 21, 2008 10:05 PM

I am not a Catholic; but Pope John Paul II had it right when he stated in the 1980s that "the responsibility for war rests not only with those who directly cause the war, but also with those who do not do everything in their power to prevent it". It seems to me that war and most especially modern war results in such evil and immorality that it would be hard to find any war to justify. I say this as a combat veteran of World War II. I have come to believe that Christian pacifists are reading their bibles most correctly.

Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | February 21, 2008 10:06 PM

I am not Catholic, think Lent is absurd..

And I also thank God that we started the process of liberating Iraq, so that the Good News of the Gospel can be preached there someday.

In other words, I think our actions in Iraq are a great and wonderful thing.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 21, 2008 10:11 PM

I appreciate the responses to my initial post. I acknowledge that there are many evil regimes around the world and we can't and shouldn't bomb them all or probably any of them and my question remains - as Christians what should our response be? Hypothetical - we decide to pull our troops out of Iraq. The genocide continues in Darfur. Do we then use those same troops to stabilize Darfur or do we simply let the killing continue? We have been criticized in several circles for not more actively intervening in Rwanda. As we are repenting should we repent for not sending a stabilizing force to Rwanda? How do we decide which evils on earth require us to act and which are allowed to continue? I go back to Jim's God's Politics page 166 - what does it mean when Gandhi said (quoting Jim for the text) "nonviolent resistance is the best thing but .. violent resistance to evil is better than no resistance at all." How do I know when to intervene? And basic to this entire thread what is the Emergent definition of "evil"?

Posted by: John Kludt | February 21, 2008 10:18 PM

These comments about the South, Lincoln, etc. sadly reminds me that as a people we have not repented and tried to make this land less divided. Comments that nothing in the South are named for Lincoln are absolutely wrong and the comments about nothing named for Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee in the North is just a counter comment of no use whatsoever. The USA as a government has made mistakes, but that should not be the death nail. After all this experiment in government was made by people, not God. The beauty is that we have laws that allow us to disagree, but our religious background should cause us to do so with humility, justice, and grace.

Until we repent and forget about these past acts of hatred, we will never realize just how beautiful our democracy actually is.

BG

Posted by: Brooks | February 22, 2008 12:10 AM

Since George Jr. posted four times that "I am not a Catholic", and since four negatives equal a positive, I can only conclude that George Jr. is, in fact, a Catholic!

Posted by: Cads | February 22, 2008 12:21 AM

Just a thought from reading all these anti-war blame America blogs on here a thought struck me. Would the God of the old testament have to repent of all the nations he told Israel to invade and leave nobody alive? Since God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow would he also have to repent when he comes back a second time with a sword and to rule with an iron fist? Do people who are commenting here even read the old testement or have they forgot that God is not only a loving God but one of vengence. He will not be mocked. Justice will be served. The USA is the greastest country in the world and we do not have to not have to repent of helping to rid a great evil from this world and trying to free an opressed people.

Posted by: Doug | February 22, 2008 1:00 AM

"Would the God of the old testament have to repent of all the nations he told Israel to invade and leave nobody alive?" Doug

Great point that draws the contrast between where many of us on this blog stand and the America-worshiping conservatives who read what is written by the blog's authors so that they can attack what is said and somehow feel better about their own unconscionable positions.

The Bible is a human document and passages such as the ones you referred to do not reflect God as revealed in Jesus. I also do not hesitate to state that any interpretation that hales back to these passages to somehow justify America's war of aggression in Iraq is on par with prior generation's interpretations of the Bible that allowed them to enslave Africans, kill native Americans and see the separation of races as biblically mandated. People who would use the Bible in the way you're using it now would most likely have used it in a similar fashion in the past to justify the aforementioned practices.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 22, 2008 6:42 AM

How many hundreds of millions of lives have been taken by abortion on demand? How many lives have been taken by STD's? How many lives have been ruined by promiscuity that leads to fatherless homes? How many children are being taught that marriage is either not necessary or can be called anything? How many lives have been ruined by a needless war in Iraq, when the battle against Jihadist Islam should be waged elsewhere? How many lives will be ruined by a political system running headlong into a communistic ideology of taxation replacing marxism, becoming the law of the land?

There is a lot to repent of.

Posted by: Wondering one | February 22, 2008 8:15 AM

Wallis' post on the Iragi war in terms of repentance articulate my feelings which I have been unable to adequately express. I find it fascinating to read all the comments from those who say they do not understand why they personally should repent if they didn't vote for Bush and have never agreed with this war. Those folk are missing the point. I, too, have never felt this was a "just" war; however, there is a part of me that feels sadness and shame that I am part of a greater community that has allowed this to continue. Like it or not, as US citizens we are part of a community that has perpetuated this war. My opinion is this is the national stain we all must bear and for which be repentant. The fact is, WE have not taken good enough care of each other universally, and each one of us is part of the WE. May God forgive US.

Posted by: Noni Gardner | February 22, 2008 9:21 AM

Kevin: "So, I and I, do you think I need to repent of 50 million dead babys (sic)?"

If you have been a consistent opponent of abortion, then the short answer is no, as an individual you do need not repent. But that begs the question: would you join the call for a national repentance for abortion, even though you may have been personally opposed to it all along?

If you say yes, I agree with you. I have already repented for my past support of the "right of abortion." And I support a call for national repentance for it. Conversely, I opposed the Iraq War from day one, so I do not think I need to repent as an individual for it. But I still think there should be a national repentance for it.

Posted by: I and I | February 22, 2008 9:58 AM

::I say, if we as individuals--

--are not writing, calling and picketing our leaders for change, (re-the war, campaign finance, health care, education, whatever),::

Done, but I'm guessing my ideas of war, education adn healthcare would differ from yours

::--are not getting off the couch, adjusting the thermostat and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, so that our leaders don’t feel the need to invade an oil rich country (let’s face it, that’s why we’re there),::

Done, updated windows, insulation, lower thermostat, cfl's that are properly disposed, recycle, etc..

::--are not reducing our rampant consumerism and greed so that corporations don’t have the power to control our leaders and get a “by” to do just about anything to keep their stock prices and profitability up,::

Done, saving to pay off land, see below

::--are not supporting with our time and money, the programs necessary to make birthing their babies a meaningful alternative for desperate women, ::

I do not have indiscriminate unprotected sex, I've done my part to not contribute to the problem.

::--are not committed to fair trade with undeveloped peoples so that they can hope for a decent life,::

I believe in free fair trade for all, let's start with the lower class manufacturing abse American worker...

::--are not committed to buying, perhaps more expensive, locally produced goods from independently owned stores and to paying American workers a higher wage to provide them ::

Just bought nine acres, will be growing all my produce organically and giving away the excess.

::--then we are complicit and we need to seek forgiveness. ::

Thank god I'm good then, have fun with that repentance thing.

Posted by: aaron | February 22, 2008 10:17 AM

"This may not be lazy, but it is awfully vague. What are you saying here? Did God not bring about war? That, on account of the Bible having been written by humans, that large swaths of these texts are inaccurate? That seems to be the implication of what you wrote."

It could very well be that although the OT accounts of various wars is generally accurate, they also reflected the traditional Jewish thinking of the time that certain of those wars were ordained and even commanded by God. This is inherent in the human condition; we feel better about our killing if we believe that it is sanctioned by God. Many, many American Christians today believe the Iraq War is sanctioned by God as some sort of a holy war--we hear this expressed constantly, even by a top official in the Pentagon, Gen. Boykin.

Posted by: I and I | February 22, 2008 10:33 AM

"It could very well be that although the OT accounts of various wars is generally accurate, they also reflected the traditional Jewish thinking of the time that certain of those wars were ordained and even commanded by God."

So, by this logic, God may not have even spoken to Moses. In fact, given what you said, I don't see how you could genuinely believe that the ten commandments come from God. We can chalk it up to Jewish tradition.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 11:08 AM

"If Peter O'Toole did to "Confederacy of Dunces" what he did to "Man of La Mancha", then poor on him."

LOL. Ok, ok, my bad, I misremembered "Toole" as "O'Toole." In the spirit of the Lenten season, please forgive me.

But I sure liked Peter O'Toole in "The Ruling Class."

Posted by: carl copas | February 22, 2008 12:08 PM

How do you think he feels about all the innocent deaths?

About as bad when he supposedly flooded the planet, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, had his people kill every captive except the virgin girls, sent multitudes of plaques and other calamities throughout the years and so on?

Posted by: aaron | February 22, 2008 1:13 PM

Are you aware that the Christians in Iraq (yes, there are Christians living there) were not under pressure of persecution from their Muslim neighbors until after Saddam Hussein was overthrown? And that persecutions are occurring now? If you don't know that, learn about what's going on and don't be so quick to praise the "liberation" of Iraq until you do some reading on the subject.

I am aware that you are completely wrong about this.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 1:42 PM

"God, who you may remember doesn't fail to take note when a sparrow falls to the ground, knows the numbers. How do you think he feels about all the innocent deaths?"

He knows the numbers, but he also knows that we do not know the numbers (and neither do you). He examines the heart, and he is not going to punish a person for good faith disagreement over military issues, even if that person happens to disagree with YOU.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 1:57 PM

"Just a thought from reading all these anti-war blame America blogs on here a thought struck me. Would the God of the old testament have to repent of all the nations he told Israel to invade and leave nobody alive? Since God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow would he also have to repent when he comes back a second time with a sword and to rule with an iron fist? Do people who are commenting here even read the old testement or have they forgot that God is not only a loving God but one of vengence. He will not be mocked. Justice will be served. The USA is the greastest country in the world and we do not have to not have to repent of helping to rid a great evil from this world and trying to free an opressed people."

I have read the Old testament a great deal and you are confusing justice with war. It is easy to conflate the two. War was always judgement, which I guess could be justice but for who? It surely was not always justice for the ancient Israelites or the Philistines, or the Babylonians or the Egyptians. It was bloody and destructive.

The God of Mercy was always depicted as the God of the Old testament and even his judgement was merciful compared to what he could have done. The only notable exception was the flood which was nothing more than Sumerian myth and a absolute necessity when you look at how powerful the Nephilim were.

You better pray that God shows mercy to this nation because we are far from good. Remember he cleans out his own house before he goes global and trust me you may not want to see who he judges when. It might just break your heart.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 22, 2008 2:42 PM

"So, by this logic, God may not have even spoken to Moses. In fact, given what you said, I don't see how you could genuinely believe that the ten commandments come from God. We can chalk it up to Jewish tradition."

We could think about it this way: several of the moral precepts of Confucianism and Buddhism are similar to those of the Ten Commandments. In fact, one Confucian precept is even similar to the command "do unto others" that Christ gave long after Confucius. Even though the founders of these two philosophies did not worship the Jewish God, we can still assume that because God is the Author of all that is good, these precepts came from God.

Posted by: I and I | February 22, 2008 2:56 PM

"All well and good, Kevin, but I hardly think that simply declaring our actions in Iraq to be "wonderful"..."

Actually, Don, that wasn't Kevin; it was the guy (or dame) who said Lent is absurd. I think he may have been playing the role of "Screwtape."

Posted by: I and I | February 22, 2008 3:05 PM