Christian Unity and War

NO. 0919

ReferredReferred

(SENSE OF THE ASSEMBLY)

CHRISTIAN UNITY AND WAR

WHEREAS, Disciples founder Barton Stone, who insisted that "unity is our polar star," also declared, "Nothing appears so repugnant to the kingdom of heaven as war;" and

WHEREAS, Disciples founder Alexander Campbell taught that the church is the "one Christian Nation composed of all the Christian communities and individuals in the whole earth" and insisted that when Christians of differing countries fight each other in war this sets Christ's kingdom against itself; and

WHEREAS, J. W. McGarvey long time professor and president of Lexington Theological Seminary - then College of the Bible - appalled at the prospect of Christians killing each other in war, declared, "I would rather, ten thousand times, be killed for refusing to fight, than to fall in battle, or to come home victorious with the blood of my brethren on my hands;" and

WHEREAS, Disciples of Christ leader and pioneer of the ecumenical movement Peter Ainslie proclaimed that war offers "the most spectacular display" of the divided church's "false interpretation of religion;" and

WHEREAS, Disciples of Christ throughout our history have affirmed the unity of the church as a sign of the wholeness of the human family and that war represents the greatest rupture between humans and communities; and

WHEREAS, Disciples of Christ have not always made explicit the intimate connection between our commitment to Christian unity and our opposition to war as part of our larger witness in working for peace;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) meeting in Indianapolis, IN July 29-Aug 2, 2009 affirms the conviction of those forebears who saw that the pursuit of Christian unity entails the repudiation of war; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly acknowledges that an expression of our pursuit of Christian unity, the Disciples of Christ have a strong tradition of opposing war; and

FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly strongly urge Disciples as they work and give leadership in ecumenical bodies to highlight peacemaking as an expression of Christian unity.

Disciples Peace Fellowship

The General Board recommends that the General Assembly
REFER Business Item No. 0919 to the Council on Christian Unity
to work with Disciples Peace Fellowship in further investigation.
(Debate time: 24 minutes)

Rationale for recommendation:

  • To allow for further discussion about the Disciples tradition of individual discernment.
  • To allow for the development of the resolution as a pastoral message to the whole church.
  • To allow for further discussion about the term "war" as it is used in modern contexts.
  • To allow for further reflection about the historic Disciples' position concerning unity,  peace and justice.

Discussion on this Resolution

This discussion board is closed to new comment submissions.

Comments from the Community

31 total comments.

From: Don Childers - Tuesday, August 04, 2009
I support this resolution. Contrary to what some believe resolutions on peacemaking are reflections of the Gospels. "Blessed are the peacemakers", "love your enemies", and so forth are clear teachings from the Gospels. We can always rationalize our violent responses as standing up to evil--so can the other side. Jesus challenges us to change the systems by being a peacemaker. I wonder why we are so afraid of trying this way?
From: Paul Gibat - Monday, August 03, 2009
For years I have looked for a Church that studied and applied tyrue christian principles. It is the Gospel and thats it. I really don't see that here anymore. What I see is a denamination that is bending to the pressures of the liberal society we are now living in. Climate change, accepting other religions, universal health care, peace not war, someone show me where all these resolutions are based on sound biblical principles. I don,t see it. I am beginning to see a liberal church emerg that accepts world believes. I pray for our church very day.
From: Mark Anderson - Saturday, August 01, 2009
This is a great resolution! Time and time again Disciples have tried to declare themselves as a peace church. Time and time again the fear of not being seen as popular in our society has stood in our way of doing God's work. It's early enough in the 21st Century that making such a statement might actualy make a differenct before the next century begins. But in my broken heart, I know such a resolution will never be passed by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), at least not in my lifetime.
From: F D Kisor - Friday, July 31, 2009
It is foolhardy and irrational to think and believe that our freedom can be maintained without having to go to war to defend our freedoms.
From: F D Kisor - Friday, July 31, 2009
It is foolhardy and irrational to think and believe that our freedom can be maintained without having to go to war to defend our freedoms.
From: Chris McCreight - Friday, July 31, 2009
I believe it is our responsibility that we seek to resist violence and practice peace in all things.
From: Sam Fox - Thursday, July 30, 2009
The tradition of opposing war and the further discussion about the term "war" as it is used in modern contexts statements sound like high values. In that further discussion Jesus own comments from Matthew 10:34ff or Luke 12:49ff need understanding along with Ephesians 6:10ff. Jesus is not wishy-washy.
From: Rodney A Reeves - Thursday, July 30, 2009
I'm for "Both And" rather than "Either Or". First, I advocate Approval of Sense of the Assembly Resolution #0919 "Christian Unit and War" as submitted by Disciples Peace Fellowship. Second, I'm confident nothing but good would come from a "Blue Ribbon" panel appointed by the GM to prepare a report for the CC(DofC) that can easily embody reflection on all the reasons (& then some) given for referral by the GB. In the meantime, I agree with Dan Bryant, the fundamental essence of this DPF resolution is, in my view, a "no brainer", and it should be passed.
From: Dan Bryant - Thursday, July 30, 2009
Most of the comments here are for or against the resolution rather than the recommendation to refer. I do support the resolution so am interested in those arguments for or against referral. I am reminded of the outstanding document produced the Council on Christian Unity years ago on "Salvation Only" in response to a controversial resolution on salvation only in Jesus. I have used that document many times over the years. It may not have satisfied everyone, but I felt it did a good job of putting an end to the controversy at least as far as the General Assembly was concerned. So if the Council is willing to once again do that kind of heavy theological work, then I say go for it. We as the church would likely benefit more from such a well prepared document by some of our leading thinkers than we would by voting up or down on this resolution. On the other hand, the basic message of this resolution should be a no-brainer. It wasn't a Disciple who said it first (and I don't recall who did), but it certainly should be something we can and should say: "Let the Christians of the world resolve that they shall not kill one another." Then maybe we can expand that to "descendants of Abraham" and then "people of faith" and then... In any event, I am more interested in the pro/con responses to the motion to refer which will be the focus on the debate unless that motion fails.
From: Dr. Ronald L. Faust - Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Hmmmm...
From: PK - Tuesday, July 28, 2009
National Autonomy? Hmmmm...when I was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in '91 national autonomy wasn't the issue...cause there wasn't any...if you are speaking to Iraq...they breached the Peace Treaty signed at the end of the war...but hey...when you get to sit on the sidelines and play Monday morning quarterback...everything is negotiable....wonder if the Kuwaitis who perished while the world waited worried about National Autonomy? "First they came for the Socialists...and I said nothing because I wasn't a socialist."...ring a bell?" I came home and read Yoder...Hauerwas...Just War Theory arguments etc....but that is a luxury isn't it...to read and discuss instead of dealing with cold hard reality....come down from your Ivory Tower...
From: Dr. Ronald L. Faust - Tuesday, July 28, 2009
My previous statement still seems solid, although questions surface. Resolving tensions between Christ and culture is never easy. One of the comments starts out good – seeking peace – but later raises serious questions about what God wants...revenge or faithful peacemakers…primitive responses or a higher call…occupying another land or respecting national autonomy? How much indoctrination enters our nationalism that we miss a faithful response to peace? How long do we take the easier rationale and justify war? Yes, it takes courage to be a peacemaker.
From: Martha Curtis - Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Does anyone believe that any Christian relishes war? I don't. Of course every Christian should strive for peace! Jesus calls us to "have peace with one another". Of course war is wrong. I agree that our faith needs to have the courage to say so. However, when the peacemaker has worked as hard as is humanly possible for peace, as Christ calls them to, and someone like Ben Ladin, or some other evil person like him refuses to listen; are we to simply stand back and allow them to destroy and/or invade our land and take our peace from us? I do not believe God expects us to be complacent in such situations! "In everything there is a time" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)
From: PK - Monday, July 27, 2009
Curious...what Biblical Tradtion...Old or New Testament?
From: Dr. Ronald L. Faust - Monday, July 27, 2009
The only unity that is a barrier to this resolution is the unity around nationalism and not the unity around the Biblical tradition. Nationalism should not trump the Biblical understanding of peace, but sadly because of overzealous patriotism it often does. Patriotism that puts nation above Christ gets in the way by trying to find reasons for continuing war. Quite frankly, war is wrong. Our faith needs to have the courage to say so.
From: Martha Curtis - Monday, July 27, 2009
I think I understand the basic premise behind this resolution. I agree that of course, where ever possible, especially we as Christians are to first seek a peaceful solution to our conflicts, and encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ to do so as well. However, I believe the point of this resolution could have been made without some of the wording and language which was included. Living in a military town, I know from personal experience that many of my brothers and sisters in Christ who have either fought for freedom and peace, or have loved ones who have done so, have been deeply hurt by this resolution, particularly because of the included quote of J.W. Garvey. This quote does not speak for all Christians in our denomination. While there are many who have come back with the "blood of other human beings on their hands", and are deeply saddened by the whole process of war, they believed in the cause for which they fought, our very freedom and peace. Unfortunately, until Christ returns there will always be leaders of nations who will refuse the path of peace, no matter how hard we try. Therefore, we must be compassionate and prepared with grateful hearts to support those who are willing to defend us. Why must we keep insisting on presenting resolutions that hurt our brothers and sisters in Christ and causing divisiveness within our denomination? We need to focus on unity in our diversity and ushering in the Kingdom of God!
From: Rev. David G. Wilde - Sunday, July 26, 2009
As a craddle member of the Christian Church (Disciilles of Christ) and as an Ordained Miniserof the DOC faith, I personally support this resolution. However, the congregaiton that I serve (Blloomfield First Christian Church) and its dominant employer CRANE NWSEA would be opposed to this resoluion for economci reasons. It would be biting the hand that feeds four counites in Indiana and puts food on the tabes and in the mouths of many. I believe that it would be wiser to palce a greater emphasis for Unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ, the Indiependent Christian Churches and the Church of Christ. We should strive to unite as "One with Christ" as Axlexander Campbell would have. Once united again then we would represent a stronger unified voice for world peace.
From: William D. Meyer - Friday, July 24, 2009
I believe this modest resolution to be fully congruent with the Gospel of Jesus, and I believe it should be passed by the General Assembly. An excellent discussion of the "What about Hitler?" question is contained in a challenging book by Roman Catholic philosphy professor (St. John Fischer College in Rochester) Robert W. Brimlow, titled appropriately: "What about Hitler: Wrestling with Jesus's Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World," 2006, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press. Brimlow concludes, with much reluctance, (1.) that Jesus' statements in the Gospels cannot be faithfully read except to support a Christian peace position and (2.) that Brimlow's own Roman Catholic Church has simply gotten this question wrong since the time of Augustine. Brimlow spends a great deal of time with Augustine's "just war" criteria. Brimlow very convincingly points out that almost any war or bloodshed can be made to fit Augustine's "just war" criteria by its advocates. So the "just war" alternative to a plain-meaning understanding of Jesus' call for peace and love of the enemy in fact provides little, if any, real guidance to nations, to the church or to individual Christians. Fraternally, William D. Meyer
From: Larry Glasco - Tuesday, July 21, 2009
War, it's death and destruction are abhorent. The United States, unlike other world powers down through the ages has fought war, not for gain but to preserve freedom and defend the weak. The War between the States to preserve the Union and to free the slaves. WWII, to free the world from the tyranny, 6 million people slaughtered by the German tyrant are two examples. When do we fight evil? After 100,000 innocent people arer murdered or 1 million or 10 million? The reality is the slaves were freed, Germany and Japan and their tryanny were stopped by the sacrifice of the the US and those who fought for freedom. When do we turn the other cheek and when do we protect, fight and defend against evil?
From: Rev. Kenneth E. Briggs Jr. - Tuesday, July 14, 2009
I retired from the USAF after 22 years of service. 16 years of those years were as an Air Force Chaplain. I also had 6 years enlisted of which 13 months were in Southeast Asia in the Viet Nam War. I support this resolution fully. I also suggest you go to www.ipj-ppj.org/prayingforpeace.htm and give consideration to Jim McGinnis' Book titled "Praying for Peace Around the World." It will help your thinking and is a wonderful resource.
From: Bill Armstrong - Monday, July 13, 2009
Wonder if we would even be here if we refused to stand tall? What if North Korea decides to nuke their neighbors? Do you have a resolution to cover that? What if Hitler was not stopped? What if...what if....what it?
From: Ron Fox - Saturday, July 11, 2009
As a veteran of 8 years in the USAF, tours in SEA, I saw enought of "war". The resolution is in no way disrespectful to those who have served and/or given their lives. I f anything it reaffirms what we served for "Peace" and honors those. Isn't it what being a Christian is about ? Do not duck the issue any longer. Bring it to a vote. I vote yes.
From: Craig Watts - Friday, July 10, 2009
A resolution by itself is never enough, nor is it intended to be, This resolution aimed at reaffirming an aspect of Disciples of Christ heritage that has been forgotten in too many places and then to bring it to bear in our ecumenical relations. It is not a condemnation of soldiers. I have no shortage of folks in my own family who have spent time in the military.But to dodge a piece of our own tradition, or deny the implications of Christian unity or to keep silent about some teaching of Jesus in the name of making sure we don't disgrace soldiers is illegitimate. Condemning war is no more a smear against soldiers than condemning the tobacco industry is an affront to farmers. Such defensiveness does not contribute to the struggle to be a more faithful church. Lets keep first things first. As I recall, Jesus said something like that in the sermon on the mount.
From: Sam Fox - Friday, July 10, 2009
Merely denouncing war is not enough. Tying this discussion to Christian unity may be a starting place. But unless and until the "fire in the belly" of the church is to teach and preach the ministry of reconciliation this can easily float about as just so much posturing. There are individuals who are risking it all. "Passing a resolution" just seems so much like missing the point. The call of God is not to create dialogue but to bring about relationships that produce (not merely promote) peace. Mars Hill in Athens is not what God has called the church to accomplish. We need to develop something larger than a "pastoral message to the whole church." The energy required to "maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace" was not mistaken by the Apostle Paul. That call was clearly one requiring that we "make every effort" to accomplish it. Somehow this is larger than passing a resolution. We don't need to pass a resolution. We need to do what we were told. If this is a step in that direction, let's get on with it, but let's make no mistake about it, we need a call to missionary action. Once that is accomplished there might be a basis for inter-national negotiations with some common ground for real communication.
From: Tom Schmidt - Friday, July 10, 2009
As an old worrior I must say I agree with the values of sister Sharon and brother Curtis. I would honor the courage and devotion of the fallen, all those who were trying to preserve freedom and prevent killing. However, I disagree with what seems to me to be a onesided view of history. Has our nation been right in every, or even most, of the instances it has sent our sons and daughters off to kill and die? Haven't we as a nation been derilect in preventing the need to waste lives through war as well as all too hastely going to war? Haven't we acted like empirial Rome? To me that is the ultimate disrespect that will also deny freedom. Loving and respecting others equally as children of God, discussing, and working for mutual welfare are, to me, the ways we honor God's creatures. Please don't shout at me that I disgrace others by saying they were needlessly sent to kill and be killed. Brothers and sisters, look to your own sin. I support the resolution and object to passing it on for further discussion.
From: Byron K. Dunn - Thursday, July 09, 2009
I would move that the Church declare that it renounce use of military force as a premptive option, to be employed only as a last resort.
From: James Gleaves - Thursday, July 09, 2009
Disciples of Christ need to renew our opposition to the carnage of war, and call for people and nations to find peaceful ways to solve conflict. Amen.
From: Michel Chevrier - Friday, July 03, 2009
Rather strange, for anyone who has a modicum of understanding of history: Brother Lipscomb's remark about war was made during the Civil War, which scholars agree was the first "modern" war in history, i.e. civilians targeted (Sherman's March), mechanised armies, etc. The rationale of "To allow for further discussion about the term "war" as it is used in modern contexts," just fails here. The Civil War was in a "modern context," and, if what happened just 150-some years ago is not "relevant," then neither is anything written 2000 years ago in the New Testament, concerning Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
From: Liza - Thursday, July 02, 2009
It looks as though this resolution is to be referred to the Council on Christian Unity for further review and work. At least there won't be a yes or no vote on it as it stands.
From: Curtis Beard - Thursday, July 02, 2009
No Christian likes war or killing. All Christians want and cherish freedom. Freedom comes with a great price and sacrifice. I am opposed to this resolution.
From: SHARON MILLER - Thursday, July 02, 2009
PLEASE DON'T DISGRACE OUR FALLEN WHO GAVE SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THE FREEDOM TO SAY THESE SADLY DISTORTED THOUGHTS OUT LOUD.
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)