The IRD canâ€™t have anybody â€œdistortingâ€ their claims on what constitutes â€œMainstream Christianityâ€. The Tea Party is the political equivalent of the Religious Right (any of them donâ€™t seem to be able to distinguish the aims of the two). In an article on their view of the #WildGooseFest held June 23-26, they again take offense to how claims are made to â€œ
IRD article says War protesters impose an "impossibly strict version of ‘just war.’ Have they even read the actual writings of Augustine? They seem to see only the "Revised for the 20th Century" version. â€œJust warâ€ is trotted out to underwrite the methods and means of modern warfare, even though we no longer employ methods which meet the requirements set forth by Augustine (ie. no non-combatants are to be involved or harmed). So , essentially, they made up their own definition of â€œjust warâ€, but itâ€™s not from any Christian tradition.
â€œBut mainstream Christianity has always taught that God ordained government for legitimate military defense and pursuit of justice.â€
Ahhâ€¦thereâ€™s that claim on â€œthe mainstreamâ€. Seems to me that supplanting an allegiance to the Kingdom of God with allegiance to national ideology is taking it out of the â€œmainstreamâ€. But in terms of numbers, the IRD may have a point. But are they going to argue on the basis of popularity? And they trot in Romans 13 ripped apart from Romans 12, which was not written as a â€œpreviousâ€ chapter but as a whole with Romans 13.
In contrast to President Obama, Wallis concluded, â€œOur message on Afghanistan must be: â€˜War No More.â€™â€ But traditional people of faith understand there will be war so long as frail humanity is sinful.
What utter self-deception. If we want to talk about â€œtraditionalâ€, donâ€™t we take that back to the roots? The early church was not yet â€œawareâ€ of how war is not to be opposed because humanity is sinful and therefore, God has ordained it. Only the tortured logic of nationalistic Christians could come to such a conclusion. And that, unfortunately, is the only sense in which this could possibly be construed as â€œtraditional viewâ€. So how about the â€œtraditional viewâ€ of slavery? If I was to succumb to the â€œas long as frail humanity is sinfulâ€ ploy, Iâ€™d have a few choice words for what I think of all that. But I will instead choose to apply some discipline and restraint and try to be faithful and avoid that. (Hint hint)
Hey, â€œhumanity is sinfulâ€. So, why try? This is moral relativism at its best (or worst). Hey, IRD, Religious Right. Humanity is sinful. So letâ€™s see you ADVOCATE for pornography and abortion. Humanity is sinful, right? What we gonna do about it? Thatâ€™s what your stance on war entails. What a sad, pitiful response. Throw in the towel. Nice. Thatâ€™s pathetic. And as Frank Schaeffer told us about dogmatic adherence to selected literal Bible â€œcommandsâ€, â€œitâ€™s barbaric and itâ€™s wrongâ€. But whatever allows the â€œtheologyâ€ of the â€œnationâ€ to trump all other theologies, thatâ€™s what weâ€™ll draw out from our inherently twisted view of Scripture, and tell the world thatâ€™s what God says.
Itâ€™s also interesting that this â€œreportâ€ doesnâ€™t even accurately capture the gist of what Wallis and participant questions actually were saying. In the â€œTalk Tentâ€ on Saturday (or was it Friday?) , discussion after the presentation by Wallis was also on the â€œgainsâ€ in getting the votes to withdraw from Afghanistan, but then following the â€œvictoriesâ€, there is still yet work tobe done. Wallis told the group, the next day my blog said â€œItâ€™s not enoughâ€. But as the IRD and other fundamentalist witch hunters are prone to do, they seize on selected quotes and cry â€œSee! I told youâ€.