“The only way the wars will end, is when the soldiers refuse to fight — Napoleon

From statements issued by their leaders, it seems clear that Christian soldiers are being asked to choose between following the military leadership of George W. Bush or the spiritual leadership of their own churches.

For example, The Church World Service, a long-time Christian relief/service organization, sponsored by 46 different denominations, including Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Evangelical and most every other major Church body, is unequivocal in their stance:

“In concert with ecumenical bodies across the U.S. and worldwide, Church World Service has opposed and continues to oppose this preemptive war against Iraq. As an ecumenical humanitarian organization that has been engaged in relief, development, refugee assistance, and advocacy for more than 50 years, Church World Service knows well the human cost of modern warfare, especially to the most vulnerable. From our faith in Christ and God’s love for all people, we believe that this war is wrong and unjust.”

This statement from a central body of Christian service leaders is echoed by the individual denominations. For example:

Catholic soldiers must now decide whether to follow the leadership laid out by Pope John Paul the 2nd or of George Bush. Pope John Paul was unequivocal about his opposition to the war. He called the war a “defeat for humanity,” and current Vatican officials have argued that there is absolutely no moral justification for this “preventive” war against Iraq, since it is now clear that “prevention” was not part of the equation.
(Associated Press, March 3, 2003)

Episcopal soldiers, likewise, must decide whether to accept the leadership of George Bush or of their international church leader, Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who from the first questioned the war’s “moral legitimacy” and warned against the “unpredictable humanitarian consequences” of such an engagement. He has proven only too right.

Methodist soldiers are not excused. They too must decide whether to follow the leadership of George Bush or of their own spiritual traditions. John Wesley, the founder of the United Methodist community, condemned all war “as the prime example of human depravity.” Recently, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church reaffirmed Wesley’s position, stipulating, “We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy and insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them.”Even the National Evangelical Board, George Bush’s closest allies in the Christian community, voted unanimously not to take a stand. Hmmm….

Lutheran soldiers are not exempt from the decision of whether to support George Bush or their own spiritual community. Glen Gersmeth, writing in the magazine Lutheran Ethics, says, “The alternative of nonviolence alone offers the possibility of achieving our goals in Iraq without the terrible costs and uncertainties of war. We Christians have an additional reason in the explicit, often repeated teachings of Jesus, e.g. “You have heard it said, an eye for an eye, but I say, do not react violently against the one who does evil.” (Matt. 5: 38-39a, Scholars Version.) Theologian Walter Wink offers an illuminating understanding of this passage as a call for Christians to follow ‘Jesus’ Third Way ‘— neither violence nor passivity, but disciplined resistance to evil as demonstrated by Jesus, and later Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, Dorothy Day and many others. As Christians, as citizens, and as a nation, we urgently need to explore the power and potential of that alternative.”

And even those middle of the road, Presbyterian soldiers must decide whether to follow the leadership of George Bush or of their own spiritual community. Presbyterians across the country, across the world, individually and in General Assembly, have called the war unjust and unconscionable.

The principles of a “just war” were first developed by St. Augustine in the fifth century and expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th. From a Christian perspective, a war to be considered just, must meet the following criteria:

1. have a just cause, meaning that it confronts a danger beyond question;
2. be declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people;
3. be driven by the right intention, not ulterior economic or other motives;
4. be the last resort;
5. be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved;
6. and have a reasonable chance of success.

According to the Geneva Conventions and findings of the Nuermberg Trials, soldiers are allowed to decide for themselves, individually, indeed must decide for themselves, whether participation in any given war meets their own ethical, moral and religious convictions. Each soldier must take the responsibility to decide whether he or she is engaging in a “just war” that he or she would personally wage. If the answer to the question is no, then it is the soldier’s responsibility to refuse further participation in that action, and move to withdraw himself or herself from any further support of that war. For Christian soldiers in the U.S. Army, it would appear that their own Christian leaders have articulated the direction that the personal decision, action, based on conscience, must take.

Dads across the world support such actions.