The IRD can’t have anybody “distorting” their claims on what constitutes “Mainstream Christianity”.  The Tea Party is the political equivalent of the Religious Right (any of them don’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 “

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.  “Just war” 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 “just war”,  but it’s not from any Christian tradition.

“But mainstream Christianity has always taught that God ordained government for legitimate military defense and pursuit of justice.”

Ahh…there’s that claim on “the mainstream”.  Seems to me that supplanting an allegiance to the Kingdom of God with allegiance to national ideology is taking it out of the “mainstream”.  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 “previous” chapter but as a whole with Romans  13. 

In contrast to President Obama, Wallis concluded, “Our message on Afghanistan must be: ‘War No More.’” 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 “traditional”,  don’t we take that back to the roots?  The early church was not yet “aware” 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 “traditional view”.  So how about the “traditional view” of slavery?  If I was to succumb to the “as long as frail humanity is sinful” ploy,  I’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,  “humanity is sinful”.  So,  why try?  This is moral relativism at its best (or worst).  Hey,  IRD, Religious Right.  Humanity is sinful.  So let’s see you ADVOCATE for pornography and abortion.  Humanity is sinful, right?  What we gonna do about it?  That’s what your stance on war entails.  What a sad, pitiful response.  Throw in the towel.  Nice.  That’s pathetic.  And as Frank Schaeffer told us about dogmatic adherence to selected literal Bible “commands”,  “it’s barbaric and it’s wrong”.  But whatever allows the “theology” of the “nation” to trump all other theologies,  that’s what we’ll draw out from our inherently twisted view of Scripture,  and tell the world that’s what God says. 

It’s also interesting that this “report” doesn’t even accurately capture the gist of what Wallis and participant questions actually were saying.  In the “Talk Tent” on Saturday (or was it Friday?)  ,  discussion after the presentation by Wallis was also on the “gains” in getting the votes to withdraw from Afghanistan,  but then following the “victories”,  there  is  still yet work tobe done.  Wallis told the group,  the next day my blog said “It’s not  enough”.  But as the IRD and other fundamentalist witch  hunters are prone to do,  they seize on selected quotes and cry “See! I told you”.