Recently the Rev. Dr. Kent Millard of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church, Indianapolis, Indiana, delivered a sermon about how a Christian should decide on whether to go to war with Iraq. He emphasized that conscious Christian could reach diametrically opposite results through the same readings of the Bible. His key point was that whatever opinion a Christian has, it should be based on a full understanding of the facts, readings of the Bible and Christian traditions, and prayer.

His call thoughtful and prayerful opinion is a universally desirable result that humans struggle to regularly attain. His sermon has caused me to reflect on how these types of opinions on issues.

Since these types of opinion are at their core decisions about a person’s morality, what do we know about how people make moral choices? Several decades ago, the late Lawrence Kohlberg developed a study of how boys learn morality which has been critiqued by the likes of Harvard Professor Carol Gilligan. First was the stage where mom and dad herded the child away from wrong doing. Second was the stage where parental rules dictated what was wrong-doing, such as don’t play in the street. Third was the golden rule where the boy determined what was wrong-doing based on what he would like to have happen to him. Fourth was the legislative rule where wrong-doing is described by society at large. Fifth was the Henry David Thoreau-type moral vision where wrong-doing is described by thought about principles.

In light of Professor Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, I began analyzing Dr. Millard’s sermon and thesis. The sermon focused on two biblical stories. First, he described the story of Jesus’ violent attack on the money-changers’ operations, who were “stealing” from the visiting faithful to the Temple of Jerusalem. Second, Dr. Millard described the story of Jesus’ arrest shortly before his crucifixion where Jesus uttered the famous phrase “those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” Dr. Millard pointed out these passages as two passages that support different ways to interpret the Bible’s recommendations on whether to decide to go to war with Iraq.

Dr. Millard suggests that the first passage could be a representation of Jesus showing an example of violence in furtherance of protecting other persons as justified. Dr. Millard further suggests that the sword comment could represent that violence should not be used to further one’s own standing. These two rules as parental dictates seem to be self-contradictory. If we step further out from these two rules and seek a common vision, we should look at the essence of Christian thought: the sermon on the mound. There Jesus described the idea that one should love your neighbor as yourself.

As the servant of others, Jesus seems to proclaim with the violence of money-chargers’ incident and pacificistic statement at Gesamine that violent self-promotion is condemnable and violent protection of others from fraud is worthy.

This conclusion has some severe weaknesses. Unlike the Hebrew tradition that was undergoing extensive development after Jesus’ death through the collective writings of the Talmud and related documents, Chrisitianity tries to extrapolate its entire doctrine from the limited, recorded statements of one man – Jesus. Jesus focused his message on the individual. Little of what is recorded about his statements were about society as a whole. Can war be used to serve the needs of others? Has it ever been done? Let’s look at history.

Much of history demonstrates wars that were begun either for expansion of power or wealth. The Roman Republic mastered the art of war for the defense and protection of its well-placed socii – allies. Many jokes of the era allude to the danger of being one of the socii – that later became subjects of the growing Roman Empire. The cost to socii of not cooperating with a Roman, parental demand was catastrophic. Nearly 1800 years later, the French began sweeping across Europe with a book of law in the backpack of each soldier with the stated purpose of removing old monarchies. The soldiers bearing the freedom reflected in the famous Napoleonic Code shortly found that wars in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity can also lead to imposition of a French emperor. Allies and ideals have been used to further empire throughout history.
American history takes a turn in the idealism of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson began a century-long trend of war being fought without conquest or coercive mercantilist treaties. American war is now brought to bear on foreign shores in the name of self-defense and the defense of democracy around the world. Germany is beaten twice and after two generations becomes a united democracy. France, and the Benelux (the birthplace of a united Europe), and Scandinavia unleashed from despotic German rule and returned to their own unique types of democracy. Japan is beaten and made a democracy for the first time. South Korea and Taiwan are kept free of communism and two generations later become democracies. Spain is persuaded to democracy but its shielded neighbors’ success. NATO is kept intact to create new democracies throughout Eastern Europe after two generations of concerted effort against despotic, communist rule. The invitation of America’s socii is overwhelming.

At other times, America has exerted power to start the slow road to democracy that has yet to fully be unleashed. We have done it Kuwait. In the former Yugoslavia. In Afghanistan. (Vietnam was an unmitigated failure because its stated purpose and its implementation bear no resemblance to each other.)

Few places in history has a universal power invited its socii to pursue democracy and offered military protection. The most similar predecessor is ancient Rome. Unlike the Roman example of threatened annilation for failing to cooperate, the American example is replete with visions of liberty and democracy.

With so few precedents to look to the actual use of war as a power for liberty and justice, cynicism is predictable. Just as the old saw suggests: those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.

America has a vision of universal availability of the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If Jefferson’s French influence Monteseque is to be believed, the proper source of democracy truly derives from the protection of life, liberty, and property.

To avoid repeating the past, America must always keep in front of its eyes and its Thoreau moral vision that Montesque and Jefferson are correct: every person has a right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Are we in the Garden of Gesamine in asserting those rights at the barrel of a gun? Or are we confronting the money changers?

To me this seems an easy answer in Iraq. Saddam kills his enemies. Saddam threatens his supporters. Saddam attacks his neighbors – twice in a decade. Saddam has a life long history of racketeering and despotism. Should a country that was born from circumstances where its founders could freely assemble and declare its freedom from despotism not feel obligated to help shed off the shackles of despotism for a people that cannot freely assemble to issue a similar declaration?
Money changers are frauds, cheats, and thieves. If those cheats can be physically thrown out of their territory, what can we do with genocidal killers, despots, and war criminals?

Does an ability to accomplish the goal require such sudden and overwhelming force as only America can bring? If there are less confrontational means of moving toward democracy, should we choose the slower course?

In 1981 we saw the first signs of the fall of communism as a Polish electrician climbed a fence. We had no ability to protect American citizens life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness and promote that electrician’s cause by force of arms when the electrician lived the umbrella of Soviet nuclear warheads.

Today, we have no ability to free the Chinese from the oppression of communist China because of the nuclear and conventional power of China. We have seen the mass equivalent of the Polish electrician in Tiannamen Square, yet the Chinese are not yet free. Even so, Tiannamen is the sign that two generations hence, the communists have little hope of being in charge with America exerting its vision.

Today, we see Iran on the brink of a dramatic, secular, democratic revolution. What is the likelihood of that change if the Iranian people have a greater sense of security from a neighboring despot’s attack that would allow a greater sense of a right to property and life.

All cases are not the same. Our vision is clear. We have a process for implementing rules.

I do not hear America threatening war against another democracy. We do not threaten our socii with war for failing to agree with us. Our only true precedent is easily distinguished from our present circumstances. We threaten not democratic Germany or France for their foolish positions, but the despot threatening mass extermination of America and its socii. Are these cries of imperialism or war for oil important? Do we not have a humane obligation to free the Iraqi people?