Comments for What it means to be a Christian after George W. Bush at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 7 out of 7 comments http://pres-outlook.net Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:33:48 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/7231.html#comment-3921 The article by Charles Marsh ... impressed me and I want to thank you. I have been a Presbyterian all my life and was unaware that the church took a stand against war --at least I never heard it from the pulpit. I did read that one minister didn't preach extreme Christianity because some of the congregation had family in the military. Is that a good reason? If we don't take a stand against war, are we really Christians? It (is) time to say, "We're not going to do this anymore." Allene Goodfellow Wilmington, Del. - Allene Goodfellow Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/7231.html#comment-3907 My, my, what a condemnation of 87% of white evangelicals! I am one of those 87% who supported the invasion of Iraq and who support the continuation of the war, i.e., one of those being judged so harshly by Professor Marsh. I believe Marsh should try understanding rather than condemnation. I believe my viewpoint is representative of many of the 87% he castigates. Being accused of supporting a war because of partisanship rather than reason and adherence to Christian values is truly offensive. I certainly can't agree with his conclusion that support of the war marks the "passing of the evangelical movement -- if not the end of evangelicalism's cultural and political relevance, then certainly the loss of its theological (credibility)." I was traumatized by the 9/11 atrocity. I was conditioned by the Gulf War to fear the irrationality of Saddam Hussein and his potential use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), chemical and nuclear. I was intimidated by his action of gassing the troublesome Kurds, his fellow countrymen. I saw that the inaction by the U.N. and the U.S. in Rwanda resulted in hundreds of thousands of Tutsis being slaughtered. Influenced by the foregoing, I concluded a preemptive strike by the U.S. was necessary to prevent a Middle East cataclysm. Subsequent emergence of the truth about the absence of WMDs and the sight of Iraq descending into anarchy, chaos, and inter-sect bloodbaths due to the incompetent follow-up of the invasion led me and many others to the horror-instilling conclusion that it had all been a ghastly mistake. How best to mitigate this catastrophe? Tribal and sect differences, which had hitherto been constrained by Saddam's repressive regime, had been unleashed due to the dismantlement of the army and law enforcement agencies. Had the U.S. forces been withdrawn upon the realization of this calamitous misjudgment, Iraq would self destruct, probably with help from Iran, who would rush in "to restore order" and establish Shia rule. The bloodshed would be unimaginable. From a humanitarian standpoint, as well as from a sense of indebtedness to Iraq for the position they had been put into by the U.S., I believe we should remain in Iraq until stability and security are restored. I pray for the early return of our armed forces. I certainly would not allege Marsh's lack of support for the war is for partisan (anti-Bush) reasons or from a lack of humanitarian concern about the ensuing, inevitable shedding of blood, rather, it stems from 20/20 hindsight. As I supported the invasion with what I perceived as good reasons, there's no guilt on m y part, only great sorrow. I'm sure Prof. Marsh would feel the same should an early pullout of troops lead to a disaster. - R. Lewis Bohn Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/7231.html#comment-3909 There are plenty of heartaches and opportunities to point fingers. Your response is a fresh hint of reason on a topic where the price of running away is far too high unless one is willing to assign no value to the lives of Iraqi civilians. In time, a govenment may arise there which will move beyond sectarian violence to a place where peace is more than a scary word meaning time to reload. - Robert Hughes Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/7231.html#comment-3900 If Charles Marsh's appeal to the global Christian voice as it speaks to the war in Iraq is to have the importance he hopes for (and with which I do not disagree), I wonder if we can't also listen to those same voices of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world as they speak to us American Christians about human sexuality. Just a thought.... - Harper Brady Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/7231.html#comment-3896 I think the article is Great. Its about time that the Church admits that this war is wrong. There was no justification for this War at all. Over 4000 soldiers have been killed and more then half a million Iragis have been killed. This war is costing the American families $100 or more a month just so this administration can wage an unjust war. This is wrong! Plain and simple. Any Church that promotes any war or any kind of violence in my opinion is not a Church. The true marks of a church are prayer, Preaching the Gospels, Teaching the Gospels, and taking care of the Poor if it means we must sacrifice. No where in Luke/Acts does it say we must commit War....That is not Christ Message. The Church has failed in its reponsibility in promoting Christ message to the World when it comes down to this situation! The Churches stance has to be non-violence at all times! No exceptions! Non-violence! - walter poe Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/7231.html#comment-3891 When I got the March 31 issue of TPO and looked at the cover I said to myself, 'religion and the Boy Scouts'. Then I opened the paper and discovered social witness being rightly promoted. However, I was a bit disturbed by (1) the caption on Charles Marsh's excerpt which implies waiting till the next president is sworn in, and (2) the inflated rhetoric of the article. I am a two war veteran, a two union survivor, and now a retired pastor with a very biased point of view. So it seems to me that we all should continue witnessing to the faith in word and in practice, whether in soup kitchen or halls of power. 21 years in suburban DC taught me there are a lot of Christians on our govt payrolls who just need encouraged as well as challenged. And the rest need converted. - Bob Woodworth Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/7231.html#comment-3894 I must say that I do not know how, exactly, to take the piece by Mr. Marsh. At one level, I agree with much of what he writes, and I, too, am fully against the American Civil Religion that he criticizes. Having said that, it seems that his condemnation of American Civil Religion is only aimed at its Right-wing manifestation. The Religious Left in this country is equally as captive to American Civil Religion as the Right. Mr. Marsh states, 'The gospel has been humiliated because too many American Christians have decided that there are more important things to talk about. We would rather talk about our country, our values, our troops, and our way of life; and although we might think we are paying tribute to God when we speak of these other things, we are only flattering ourselves.' It strikes me that there is much about this characterization that is just as true of the American Religious Left as it is of the Religious Right. Mainline liberal denominations long ago came to the conclusion that there are 'more important things' to talk about than the Gospel. Social engineering, secular political policy, how American ought to be run,how tax dollars ought to be spend, and how America ought to be. In effect, what I am saying is that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Right-wing preachers Mr. Marsh criticizes and the Left-wing Mainline establishment. They both seem to believe that the primary purpose of the church is to perfect America. They are simply haggling over the details. - Walter Taylor Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:00:00 +0100