quote:

---

...the next issue, which came out today is full of letters to the editor

---

quote:

---

Dear E-pistle,

I want to thank you for consistently providing
excellent resources and commentary for Christians
who are concerned about social justice. The value of
this publication was particularly evident around the
recent American invasion of Iraq, when you included
numerous intelligent and thoughtful articles from
diverse viewpoints. Having written this, I would
like to offer an alternate perspective to Peter
Larson's analysis of the anti-war movement in the
June 4th issue of E-pistle.

Rev. Larson asserts that anti-war activists have
"fallen strangely silent" in the aftermath of the
recent U.S. invasion of Iraq. If one relied solely
on mainstream American media such as NEWSWEEK, CNN,
and MS-NBC, it may indeed appear that opponents of
the war have stopped voicing their sentiments.
However, I think it would be a mistake to draw this
conclusion simply based on lack of representation on
"op-ed pages and political talk shows." In fact, in
certain communities, such as the one I belong to in
the San Francisco Bay Area, the U.S. invasion and
occupation have fueled passionate protests against
U.S. policies in Iraq and other parts of the world,
including U.S. domestic policies that increasingly
appear to undermine the welfare of poor communities
of color. Just this week, 200 activists demonstrated
in front of Bechtel, a corporation with close links
to the Bush administration that has been awarded one
of the biggest contracts by the U.S. to "rebuild"
Iraq. Eighteen were arrested. A week before that, a
free, outdoor jazz festival with the theme "Stop
U.S. Imperialism" drew thousands of attendees to a
local park. In mid-June, a broad coalition of over
20 local community organizations, primarily
representing people of color, will hold an anti-war
march and rally in Oakland. In fact, around where I
live, there have been at least several anti-war
activities in various different communities EVERY
WEEK. Based on messages proclaimed at these events,
it appears that some communities have a broader
definition of war than mainstream America and that,
from their perspective, the war is not over.
Predictably, these events are rarely covered in
mainstream American media. San Francisco, of course,
does not represent what may be happening nationwide.
However, as much as the anti-war movement may
represent a minority in the U.S., it represents the
sentiments of the global majority and has been far
from being silent worldwide.

Rev. Larson also suggests that the numerous evidence
of the "grief of Baghdad" due to Saddam's despotic
rule clearly demonstrates the moral justification of
this particular war. Again, if we are serious about
forming an intelligent and thoughtful understanding
of the current situation, we should not rely solely
on mainstream media. While the U.S. media provided a
thorough coverage of the brutality of the Saddam
Hussein regime, it did a heinous job of reporting
the terrible atrocities of the U.S. military
campaign on the Iraqis. The media also provided
ample coverage of many Iraqi people, particularly
the Kurds, welcoming U.S. troops. However, their
coverage of the widespread and growing Iraqi
resistance to the invasion and occupation continues
to be atrocious. During the time of active military
combat, many Iraqis refused to leave their homeland
to become refugees. Instead, there were numerous
reports of stiff resistance by ordinary Iraqi people
facing the most terrifying military in world
history. Instead of a huge refugee crisis as
predicted by international observers, Iraqis and
other supporters actually made attempts to travel
INTO Iraq to defend it from foreign invaders. Since
the war was declared essentially over on May 1,
there have been numerous demonstrations demanding
the U.S. to leave. Some Iraqis have resorted to
armed resistance resulting in almost daily reports
of American casualties. In fact, according to recent
reports, many Iraqis believe that the U.S. was
responsible for the two massacres recently unearthed
and not Saddam Hussein. Apparently, the moral
justification of the war is far from clear from the
Iraqi perspective. And I would argue that theirs is
the perspective that matters most.

Given "the grief of Baghdad" under Saddam's brutal
regime, why do many (perhaps most) Iraqis continue
to oppose the U.S., their would-be liberator?
Perhaps my Korean background allows me some insight
into this question which may be difficult for many
Americans to understand. After the liberation of
Korea from Japanese occupation in 1945, the southern
portion of my country fell under U.S. military
occupation. Subsequently, the U.S. instated and
supported successive dictatorial regimes that
terrorized and repressed my people for some 40
years. The dictators of South Korea imprisoned,
tortured, and murdered anyone suspected of opposing
the regime. In 1980, the dictator responded to a
democratic uprising in the town of Kwangju with
violent repression, massacring thousands of
civilians. Decades of grassroots resistance marked
by tremendous courage and sacrifice by students,
trade unionists, and other activists finally
resulted in a democratic civilian government in
1987. This was achieved not with the help of any
foreign intervention, but despite foreign powers
supporting the dictatorial regimes. From the
perspective of many Koreans, the U.S. is
inextricably associated with the dictators that it
supported. Hence, our movement for democracy always
had an anti-American flavor. I would guess that many
Iraqis are accustomed to holding the U.S. at least
partially responsible for the first 12 years of
Saddam's oppressive rule which was largely funded by
the U.S. It is no surprise to me, then, if many of
the Iraqi people do not buy the idea that the U.S.
is concerned about liberating them for democracy and
freedom.

As a Korean, a person of color, and a Christian
concerned about social justice, I would also like to
present some lessons to be drawn from the recent
invasion and occupation of Iraq:

One. There may be freedom of the press in the U.S.,
but for the most part, the media choose to present
the same side of the story, particularly in times of
war. Those of us wishing to develop well-informed
opinions should seek independent and international
news sources to supplement U.S. media reports and
analyses.

Two. The value of self-determination is priceless.
For this reason, many Iraqi people resisted the U.S.
invasion even if it meant the long-awaited end to a
hated dictator. People of the Third World have all
too often experienced foreign powers taking away our
natural resources along with our right to determine
our own fates. Even the widely-accepted American
notion that the U.S. has the authority to determine
who needs liberation and who doesn't, what is
morally justified for us and what isn't, is
offensive to many of us.

Three. The U.S. government has no moral credibility
in many parts of the world, and particularly among
Third World communities. I realize this may be
difficult for some Americans to swallow, but many of
us simply don't believe that the U.S. has any
interest in principles of democracy, freedom, human
rights, etc. This may be because the America that
many people here in the States experience is vastly
different than the America that most Third World
communities have encountered throughout history.

Four. For the American church to be relevant to
issues of global justice, Christians need to gain a
better understanding of viewpoints among the
oppressed. For better or for worse, the U.S. is
increasingly viewed as the enemy by many Third World
communities. Engaging in meaningful discourse with
these communities may require American Christians to
let go a little of their American identity and
embrace more of their Christian identity. This is
bound to be extremely difficult for many Americans,
but absolutely essential for anyone desiring to join
in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed.
- Sam Shin (San Francisco, CA)


Dear E-pistle,
I'd like to take issue with Peter Larson's piece
"The Grief of Baghdad." Larson began his piece
saying antiwar voices have grown mute since the
war ended, suggesting that such silence is proof
that going to war was the right thing to do. Though
Larson does point out that it is difficult to
express opposition to a war that has already
happened, I'd like to add that the war, finished
though it is, is indeed getting some bad press. Just
today NPR reported on the possibility that the U.S.
exaggerated its intelligence that Hussein's regime
had biological and chemical weapons to justify the
rally to war. Tony Blair is facing a lot of heat
back home for the absence of such weapons. TIME
magazine reported, "Front-page stories in Britain
now routinely question whether Blair lied to make
his case, was lied to by the Americans or was the
victim of a major intelligence blunder. A
parliamentary inquiry is likely." Most would agree
that the reputation of the United States abroad is
lower than it has been in a long time. My point is
that skepticism about the justness of the war is
still alive and well.

I readily acknowledge and am pleased to receive news
that many Iraqis are enjoying their new freedoms. I
am relieved to see photos such as the one Larson
mentioned of an Iraqi kissing a Marine on the cover
of NEWSWEEK, but such images should be seen beside
those of the young boy without arms and legs, the
man carrying his bleeding daughter from the rubble
that bombs left behind, the ransacked museums, and
Iraqis hurling rocks at U.S. army vehicles. These
are pictures of the cost of war, about which peace
advocates warned, and which are also manifestations
of the grief of Baghdad.
- Chad Allen (Grand Rapids, MI)


Dear E-pistle,
In "The Grief of Baghdad", Peter Larson makes some
good points about the weaknesses of the anti-war
movement. As someone who opposed the war, I wondered
on more than one occasion if those who claimed to be
speaking for me were trying to be stupid on purpose,
and the million Mogadhishus comment made me roll my
eyes and rant at my TV. That just goes to show that
the media is more interested in good television than
thoughtful discourse, and people who yell and say
outrageous things are more entertaining than those
who have a thoughtful opinion that does not fit on a
protest poster.

Saddam was a cynical and brutal dictator who lived
in obscene luxury, who tortured and oppressed his
people to remain in power. Anyone who didn't think
that he was evil simply wasn't paying attention. I,
for one, am not sorry that he is gone. However, I
still think that invading Iraq was a bad idea. The
problem with most of the public conversation about
the war was that it set up a false dichotomy, where
our options were war or doing nothing.

Both sides of the debate skewed reality to fit their
agendas. Although I take issue with the vast
majority of Bush's policies, he is not Hitler, but
neither was Saddam. When I say that, I am not
referring to the state of his soul, but the
political, economic and military reality of Iraq.
Saddam was paranoid for a reason - Iraq had a
crumbling infrastructure, a military with shaky
loyalty, and significant portions of the population
who had shown rebellious tendencies. Add to that the
fact that the surrounding countries would just as
soon have Saddam go away, and you have a dictator
who knew his grip on his country was a tenuous one.
Despite Bush's rhetoric about protecting us from
weapons of mass destruction, Saddam posed no threat
to us or neighboring countries - not because he
didn't have the desire to attack, but because he
knew he lacked the military power to attack us and
maintain his gig as a dictator looting his country.
If anyone has found chemical or biological weapons
in Iraq, I have yet to hear about it, and that's not
because we haven't been looking.

The outcome of the war was a no-brainer from the
start, but I have serious doubts about whether we
will have brought democracy to Iraq or whether the
people of Iraq will find themselves with a
repressive Taliban-esque regime in a few years.
Chaos and poverty are excellent breeding grounds for
extremism, and I think we will see a growing
backlash against the American troops in the coming
months, because hating Saddam is not the same thing
as liking the U.S. Saddam may be gone, but that
doesn't mean that daily life is any better for the
Iraqis. The mess in Afghanistan is testament to the
limits of a third-party military overthrow.

Rather than focusing on Saddam's possibly non-
existent weapons of mass destruction, we should have
focused on Saddam's oppression of his own people and
sought out non-military means of a regime change.
The human rights violations in Iraq are well-
documented and horrifying, and even France would
have a hard time justifying them, despite all of the
money that country has made from Saddam's regime. We
could have sought broad international support for
indicting him and his sidekicks as war criminals and
frozen the regime's assets. We could have promised
massive aid for the reconstruction of the country if
his own people would oust him. Change from within
Iraq would take longer, but it would also be more
likely to produce a stable and democratic government
and less likely to feed the perception of the U.S.
as an arrogant and imperialistic superpower.

This is already too long, but the world is
complicated, and we would do a much better job of
living in it if our public discourse and foreign
policy tried to take that complexity into account.
- Christy Lambertson (Los Angeles, CA)


Dear E-pistle,
The only positive thing I can say about Peter
Larson's article is that it is good to see PRISM
doesn't have a "party line".

This is by far the weakest piece of theological
reflection I have ever seen coming out of PRISM.
Although it was helpfully enlightening to me as a
snapshot from within American evangelicalism -
mostly American, not very evangelical in a true
sense of the word - I'm baffled why a magazine which
"encourages Christians to live out the whole of the
gospel with the whole of their lives" would think
this article could contribute to those aims.

Let's see, as a follower of Christ I can justify an
act of violent aggression against my neighbor when:
my aggression is in degree less than his; I disagree
with my critics' value system so can just ignore or
vilify them; robust theology has become a democratic
process; I find no wisdom in the counsel of others;
and I take it as healthy to ignore a persistent
voice of caution.

This may accord with the spirit of Davy Crockett (he
certainly died defending his values!), but with the
Spirit of Christ, never.

I hope you can find and present us, in the near
future, with a more thoughtful essay on Christians
and War.
Rev. Howie Adan (Christ Church Amsterdam,
Netherlands)


Dear E-pistle,
Not all peacemakers have maintained silence after
the end of the Iraq war, as Peter Larson contends.
SOJOURNERS Magazine and its community, where I'm an
intern, still openly maintains that while perhaps
not the "worst evil" (since when do Christians
measure evil on a sliding scale, anyway?), war is
certainly never the best answer. Read Jim Wallis'
post-war comments at
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?
ction=sojomail.display&issue=042403#3.

Many continue to stand for peace and justice, and
many in the body of Christ continue to speak out
against aggressive acts of war - whether they are
perpetrated against the people of Iraq or on the
working poor of our own nation.
- Kate Bowman (Washington, D.C.)


Dear E-pistle,
I find it odd that Peter Larson expects us who
opposed the war in Iraq - or even the pastors of
mainline denominations - to make a confession that
we were wrong. Why should we apologize for what
Jesus said? "He who lives by the sword will die by
the sword." "Love your enemies... do good to those
who hate you." I have compiled some 22 pages of
texts that the New Testament clearly shows that the
approach of using violence against those who do evil
is completely opposed to Jesus' method of dealing
with evil.

Jesus' approach is to allow the authoritative evil
to do its evil and allow God to destroy it. Perhaps
(even probably) Iraq and Afghanistan's regimes were
destroyed by the empire of the United States because
God determined that they were oppressing the poor.
That is well and good. But that does not mean that
the U.S. won't receive judgment as well.

This is the lesson of Habakkuk. Habakkuk wanted to
have Judah judged for their evil. And so God told
him that he would raise up Babylon to destroy Judah.
Habakkuk's response was, "Lord, but they are so much
more evil than we are! You aren't really supporting
them, are you?" And the Lord replied, "I see their
evil too and you need to believe that they will be
punished as well, even as you see them in their
glory. Every nation that oppressed the poor will be
destroyed - whether now or later."

We can learn the same lesson. There has never been
any question that Sadaam's regime in Iraq was evil
and oppressed the innocent. That regime was rightly
judged. However, in punishing evil, evil was done.
The innocent were killed in both Iraq and
Afghanistan - and in every war the U.S. was ever
involved in. And everyone who was involved in
oppressing the poor - whether done in the name of
"freedom" or not - will be judged unless they
repent.

I am not here to condemn President Bush or the
soldiers who were involved in the war. However, I
have been praying that they would repent, and they
would confess the evil they have done so that
healing in their lives may begin.
- Steve Kimes (Pastor of Anawim Christian Community,
Portland, OR)


Dear E-pistle,
Mr. Larson's criticism of the supposed silence of
those who opposed the illegal and imperialist
invasion of Iraq was saddening. Mr. Larson argues
that "war is evil, but it is not the worst nor the
ultimate evil." These words bespeak a "postmodern"
moral relativism elsewhere decried in his article
justifying the war in Iraq. Our Lord and Savior
offered no such relativist comfort to us in his
unequivocal denunciation of all violence. The evils
perpetrated by Saddam Hussein in no way justify the
American government's systematized murder and
looting of yet more innocent Iraqi people. Our
prophetic clergy who openly and consistently took a
courageous moral stand against violence may not be
relevant to the world, but then that is not their
vocation. As Christians we are to pray unceasingly
for the coming Kingdom, which will always make us
gloriously irrelevant to the worldly-minded. I am
not aware of the silence that Mr. Larson mocks; to
the contrary, the prophetic voices for peace
continue in many venues and pulpits, if not on the
Fox News Channel, but they were never heard there in
the first place. To question the peacemakers'
theological understanding of the real and pervasive
presence of evil in the world is to question the
forgiveness and redemption offered us in the death
of our Lord who foolishly forgave those who executed
him. This is not Mr. Rogers; this is our salvation.
- Laura H. Norton (Bremerton, WA)


Dear E-pistle,
I heartily agree with Peter Larson concerning the war
in Iraq and its justification. I would only add the
words of Michael Kelly, a correspondent from the
ATLANTIC MONTHLY, who died in Gulf War II:

"I covered the [first] Gulf War as a reporter, and it
was this experience, later compounded by what I saw
reporting in Bosnia, that convinced me of the moral
imperative, sometimes, for war. In liberated Kuwait
City, one vast crime scene, I toured the morgue one
day and inspected torture and murder victims left
behind by the departing Iraqis . . . After that, I
could never again stand the arguments of those who
sat in the luxury of safety - 'advocating
nonresistance behind the guns of the American fleet'
- as George Orwell wrote of World War II pacifists -
and held that the moral course was, in crimes
against humanity as in crimes on the street corner:
Better not to get involved, dear." (Quoted in the
ATLANTIC MONTHLY, June 2003, p. 10)
- Ken Koonce (Dallas, TX)


Dear E-pistle,
As an evangelical and Presbyterian Christian I am
very concerned with the position taken by Peter
Larson. As someone who was opposed to war, but who
felt that it may be the only option in the light of
the situation and who readily admits not to have all
the answers on this issue - and indeed that my
position may well be proven to be wrong in the light
of history! - I am concerned at the 'I told you so'
attitude of Rev Larson's article. For me, the jury
is still out as to whether the war was wise or
otherwise, and will be for years to come. Defeating
the Iraqi military has proven relatively
straightforward; few would have doubted otherwise.
However, winning the battle for the hearts and minds
of the Iraqi people and the rest of the Middle East
and Arab world is a totally different story. There
is no doubt that the justification for war as we
have heard it from our political leaders was on a
very shaky foundation and certainly we were only
given a distorted view of the facts.

Further, I am very concerned that the war will do
much to harm our long-term relationship with our
Muslim neighbors and make life more difficult for
indigenous Christians in Iraq and across the Middle
East.

Questions are also left unanswered about how we can
justify the cost of this war when we are not
prepared to address the causes of war and
oppression: issues like our involvement in supplying
arms to dictatorships throughout the developing
world and our reluctance to deal with the root
causes of poverty which essentially our greedy and
protectionist economic policies.

I'm sorry, but if this is where evangelical
Christianity is coming from, I'm very disappointed.
- Richard Kerr (Belfast, Northern Ireland)


Dear E-pistle,
"The Grief of Baghdad" by Peter Larson was quite
disappointing. I regret I forwarded the E-pistle to
my parishioners and colleagues to waste time reading
this theological oversimplifications and unexamined
assumptions. Don't undo your good work.
- Samir Selmanovic (samir@crosswalkministries.com)


Dear E-pistle,
Peter Larson's article made me see red. It is the
type of U.S. patriotic triumphalism that has led us
down the path of imperialism and brutal repression
around the world.

Here are a few questions:
> Since the U.S. helped install Hussein in power,
supplied him with the materials to build his arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction during the Iran-Iraq
War, and protected him diplomatically from any
consequences for the use of weapons of mass
destruction during the same period, shouldn't we
be held, at least in some part, morally liable for
what Hussein did? All of the claims that I made have
been documented in the mainstream press, including a
photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein
during a meeting in Baghdad shortly after Hussein
gassed the Kurds in Halabja.

> Is the U.S. at all morally liable for its support
of other brutal dictators? Our support for brutal
dictators in Iran (the Shah that we installed and
that the Iranian people drove out in 1979), Indonesia
(Suharto who murdered hundreds of thousands after
seizing power with U.S. complicity and murdered
hundreds of thousands more while invading East
Timor with U.S. complicity), Guatemala (various
regimes who received overt or covert U.S. support
during a genocidal assault on their Mayan population,
a fact documented in the U.N. report after the peace
accords), El Salvador, Nicaragua, and on and on. You
will have to forgive me if I find our claim to be
the liberator of Iraq out of our deep humanitarian
concern more than a little questionable.

>Is the Bush administration morally liable for its
massive use of lies and deceit in its drive for war?
It is now well documented that there was no link
between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The administration pushed
the intelligence agencies to cook the intelligence
to sell such a link as part of the propaganda
campaign for the war. I would think that the total
absence of weapons of mass destruction in a country
we have controlled for more than two months, as well
as the ease with which the U.S. military crushed the
Iraqi military, would put the lie to all the claims
of the imminent threat that justified "pre-emptive
war."

> If we are the liberators then why are we staying
in control rather than moving to set up structures
to allow the Iraqis to make their own choices? Will
they be able to establish an Islamist government
aligned with Iran if that is what the majority
wants? Will they be able to maintain state control
over Iraqi oil reserves if that is what the majority
wants? Will they be able to opt out of the U.S.
dominated global economic system if that is what the
majority wants? It looks to me more like the Iraqis
have about as much say in their affairs now as they
did under Hussein.

Oh, by the way, Hussein's government arranged to
effectively feed the Iraqi people during the
sanctions. The U.S. imposed sanctions (we effectively
forced the U.N. to continue the sanctions) were what
brought misery and starvation to the Iraqi people.
We were the ones who said, in Madeline Albright's
words, that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children
"was worth it." The statements about the Food
Program are documented by the U.N. administrators.

So excuse me, I opposed the war and I still feel
that I was morally justified. The Iraqi people are
rid of Hussein who was undeniably a brutal thug.
They are better off rid of him. But I still believe
that one fundamental principle of morality is that
good ends do not justify evil means. We will see
what the fruits of our actions are. After all, "by
their fruits you will know them."
- John Hahn-Francini



Dear E-pistle,
I must reply to the piece on the "silence after the
war." I too mourn the silence after the war from
peace activists. However, I don't think it can be
said that we were simply wrong. I read the
Scriptures that we repay evil with good...not evil
with evil. Peace-making is not war-making. If we are
ever to have a civil, humane world, we human beings
must learn to deal with evil in another way than by
seeking to stamp it out with war.

One last thought: Is it not naive and unrealistic to
assume that we are good and they are evil to such an
extent as to justify any means? Is it not true that
as Christians we believe that the ends do not
justify the means, that utopia cannot be attained by
evil means? I truly think that those who
perpetrated this war are lacking in a "radical
understanding of sin and evil."
- Larry Coleman


Dear E-pistle,
Thank you, Peter Larson, for your 5 lessons learned
from "The Grief of Baghdad." Perhaps the now silent
protesters will digest your words rather than their
feet. Well done.
- Carolyn Presley


Dear E-pistle,
On the whole, in the past I have found your articles
very worthwhile. However, since I have read "The
Grief of Baghdad" by Peter Larson in the latest
issue, I am thoroughly disgusted that you included
such an ill-conceived piece in the PRISM E-pistle.

Re: "postmodernism." Surely moral relativism and
epistomological solipsism have been around for far
longer than postmodernism. The denial of the reality
of good and evil, of objective truth and falsehood -
which Christianity must always oppose - has been
around for centuries.

Most people who have seriously studied postmodernism
recognize that it is ambiguous and complex, to say
the least! There are in fact many potential points
of contact between Christianity and postmodernism. I
am not trying to defend postmodernism, either -
merely to say that a Christian response to
postmodernism needs to be more nuanced than Peter
Larson's simplistic and facile statements.

Re: "trusting in coalitions." In the first section
Larson refers to World War II, which was obviously
not a war that was fought by the U.S. alone
(remember "the Allies"??). Moreover, the recent
invasion of Iraq was consistently portrayed by the
U.S. administration as a "coalition" effort
(conducted along with England and supported by
Spain, Poland, etc). Yet Larson writes: "Repeatedly,
God warns his people NOT to trust in coalitions or
political alliances, but to put their trust in God
alone. In the history of Israel we see the
disastrous result of a nation that put its faith in
coalitions instead of trusting God." The theological
and hermeneutical naivete evident in these
statements is astonishing, given the level of
thought that I have come to expect from the
E-pistle. Does Larson really think that all those
who advocated acting against Iraq in concert with
the United Nations failed to trust in God, and only
those who were willing to follow the demands of the
U.S. administration to attack Iraq apart from U.N.
approval trusted in God? Is trusting in God
equivalent to blindly trusting the U.S.
administration? Is trusting in God equivalent to
following the new American imperialist agenda? Such
black and white, "us" vs. "them" thinking is not only
incredibly superficial but also dangerous and
deceptive; it also maligns many sincere and
thoughtful Christians who disagreed with the U.S.
administration's agenda precisely because we trusted
in God!

It is not surprising that Larson expresses criticism
of the mainline churches' opposition to the Iraq
invasion. Nevertheless, when he goes on to say: "In
charting our foreign policy the only relevant
question should be: Is this right or wrong? In the
words of Davy Crockett, 'Make sure you're right,
then go ahead.' It is not a bad thing to have the
support of other nations, but as Christians, we
cannot abdicate our moral judgment to a coalition."
Larson here in fact treads on the very ground that
was the basis for the churches' opposition to the
invasion. They took their position on the basis of a
clearly MORAL evaluation of the situation (and I
believe that their position was far more morally
defensible than the Southern Baptists' fawning
support for Bush's relentless determination to invade
Iraq). Larson is simply wrong to implicitly deny
that only those who supported the invasion were
exercising moral judgment.

Moreover, I completely fail to understand how under
"Point 3, A Theological Crisis," Larson can make his
point about the discrepancy between the church
leaders and the views of "people in the pew" about
the invasion of Iraq and then proceed from that to
say: "In the mainline church today we suffer from a
utopian and naive theology that does not take
seriously the depth of human sin, evil and the
fallen nature of human beings. The Protestant
Reformers - Luther and Calvin - understood that evil
must be restrained and resisted. By contrast, modern
theology views the world as a larger version of Mr.
Rogers' Neighborhood, in which human beings are
basically good and reasonable. We need to recover a
true biblical theology, which comprehends the
radical nature of sin and evil."

I completely fail to see how this relates to his
earlier point about the discrepancy between church
leaders and laity in their views of the invasion of
Iraq.

Moreover, accusing the mainline churches of playing
down the seriousness of human sin and evil is an old
and tired refrain; it was certainly valid as a
critique of 19th-century liberalism, and no doubt
there are some in the mainline churches today who
hold such naive views of human nature. But to
describe the theology of the mainline churches today
as a whole in such terms is a staggering over-
generalization, indeed it is really a terrible
caricature of the faith of many faithful and
orthodox Christians (both clergy and laity) within
the mainline churches.
- Rev. Dr. Tim Hegedus (Assistant Professor of New
Testament Theology at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary,
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada)


Dear E-pistle,
Peter Larson's article, "The Grief of Baghdad," was
truthfully titled. Baghdad, along with the entire
country of Iraq, has only known grief since Saddam
came to power. However, I would like to challenge
the content of the article. The (postmodern) truth
about this war is that sometimes U.S. foreign
policy, such as supporting an evil dictator named
Saddam, is worse than war because it only served to
sustain an evil dictator and create war. I only need
to reference the Iraq-Iran war in which the U.S.
supported Saddam even with the full knowledge that
he was developing and using WMD. The moral high
ground claimed by the Bush Administration collapses
when the history between the U.S. and Iraq is
uncovered. By uncovering the U.S. relations with
Iraq, the theological crisis that should emerge
within the Christian church is one of identity. Who
will we finally place our trust in and give our
service to - God or the State? Of course, I think a
God who chose to die on a cross, in contrast to
rallying the oppressed Jewish masses to rebel
against the Roman government, would probably not
want us today supporting the violence of a state who
attacks the very ruler they once supported and
armed. Indeed, the grief of Baghdad should
especially extend to Christians who live within the
State claiming to be liberators.
- William Holley Jr. (Pueblo, CO)



Dear E-pistle,
Peter Larson wrote: "War is a terrible evil, but
there are things worse than war. For a nation to be
systematically starved and oppressed is worse than
war." Of course, it was the U.S. (with the U.K.'s
support) that systematically starved and oppressed
Iraq for 12 years. It was indeed "worse than war" -
with the ironic result that many seemed to be
arguing that our going to war against Iraq would be
a good way to put an end to the brutality of our
sanctions!

He wrote: "For a tyrant to commit genocide against
his own people - wiping out entire villages - is
worse than war." Hardly: the total death toll of
this year's Iraqi war far exceeded the size of what
most would consider a "village" - and death is only
the most immediate effect of war! This is especially
true when war is waged with weapons of long-term
environmental consequences.

He wrote: "In many ways, Iraq was our first
postmodern war. Despite the overwhelming evidence of
genocide, torture and tyranny in Iraq, many antiwar
activists saw the United States as the villain and
aggressor." Of course - the two are not mutually
exclusive! It is entirely possible for a) a target
regime to be brutal and b) the aggressor to be a
villain! Hitler attacked Stalin! Evil aggressors do
not limit their targets to "good guys"! We must not
call the evil good merely because something that
appears good results from it (and I'm not that sure
that what has resulted so far is all that "good",
even in appearance).

Besides, war is torture and tyranny, and when
directed against despised "others", looks like
genocide as well.

He wrote: "The war in Iraq reveals a profound crisis
in modern theology and the mainline church. Church
leaders who opposed the war found themselves sharply
at odds with their own congregations." Decade of
failing to teach and preach about war when war was
more distant or "reasonable" led to this! Leaders
who accepted a militarized society and economy for
generations will find that leadership cannot be
turned on like a light switch.

A pastor who has failed to speak out before will
indeed appear to be more of a leader by failing to
speak out (or going with the government) now.
Congratulations on your leadership!
- Bob Fleischer (Groton, MA)

---