Regular readers of this blog know that I've not taken a public position on the war in Iraq.
As a pastor, I don't want to take the risk of being seen as saying, "This is what God thinks about the war." Because so many Christians I respect and admire have dramatically different positions on the war, I realize that my own opinion--and I do have a personal opinion on it--could be wrong. It's stupid for a pastor to claim, "Thus saith the Lord..." on any topic--but especially on one about which people have such strong feelings--unless he or she feels personally certain about the will of God!
Besides, it's far more important to me that people wrestle with issues like this as Christians, their hearts informed by the grace and counsel of God, than that I put in my two-cents' worth of probably useless advice. Better that we all struggle to find the right path through prayerful reliance on Christ than that Pastor Mark have his ego stroked by getting some people to agree with him.
But, I do feel comfortable saying this about the debate over the war: It seems to me that the mainstream media and bloggers of both the Right and the Left have turned the whole discussion about the war into a choice between two simple alternatives.
I guess that shouldn't surprise us: Public communicators of whatever ilk seem to like battles between white hats and black; cops and robbers; Christians and lions. But I think that most people's thinking is more subtle than that!
Marshall Thompson is doing a walk for peace in opposition to the war. In this post, he excoriates those who advocate what he calls "staying the course" in Iraq as being unrealistically idealistic in their views. Be that as it may, I responded to what I regard as his--and others'--oversimplification of people's views on the war:
There are some who were opposed to the US intervention in Iraq but nonetheless oppose withdrawal from the country now. Many of these folks tell me that they believe that the US "broke" Iraq and that it would therefore be irresponsible to leave before "fixing" the country.
...In fact, one ardent dove and very liberal Democrat told me last week that the only honorable thing to do now is for the US to re-institute the draft and to send 1,000,000 soldiers to both Afghanistan and Iraq! His arguments are, for me, bookends [to views] advanced by a group of very conservative, pro-military, American Legion-member Republicans I partied with recently; they all advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq...
Whatever the merits of such arguments, their existence demonstrates that debate on the war is far more complicated and the views of the public considerably more complex than consideration of two alternatives--"stay the course" or "cut and run"--would suggest.
My guess is that a majority of the country adheres to neither position, but varied gradations of the two.
It's disappointing to see how frequently our politics devolve to a kind of Chinese restaurant menu: one from column A or one from column B, but no combinations or any consideration of a column Z alternative.
No comments:
Post a Comment