« June 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

The Episcopal Church is trapped in a quagmire because of the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop. Liberals and conservatives are locked in a struggle that could lead to schism. Neither side will yield, each believing they stand on unassailable principle. Yet both are responsible for the crisis. The roots of the problem lie in the very different philosophical assumptions which support their theological positions. An examination of these assumptions suggests a way out.

What Conservatives Get and Liberals Don’t

Conservatives are quite right in holding that Scripture everywhere repudiates homosexuality. The prima facie reading of Scripture is clearly opposed to homosexual behavior. Those who oppose Robinson's ordination say that the Episcopal Church has become schismatic because it has departed from its biblical base. The liberal argument from justice does not refute this position because the ordination of anyone to a church office is a matter of neither biblical nor secular justice. The office of bishop is rooted in Scripture, so the selection of bishops, like everything else within the Christian faith, must be done in accord with biblical standards.

Because Robinson's ordination seems so blatantly contradictory to biblical norms, conservatives are able, quite plausibly, to accuse the liberals of disregarding Scripture. To this accusation, liberals respond only that "we are not fundamentalists" but they seem unable to articulate any biblically grounded theological basis for their position. This inability points to a profound deficiency in the way they and many American Christians do theology. This is a long-standing problem. It has deep historical roots and it goes far beyond the present issue. The election of Robinson was for many the straw that broke the camel's back, but the discontent runs deep and is of far longer duration. For a very long time conservative Christians (not just Anglicans) have been aware of an erosion of faith, not only within the culture, but within the Church itself.

For conservatives within our Church, the attitudes and behavior of the Robinson supporters bespeak a set of attitudes and habits of thinking that have, over time, undermined religious faith. Conservatives have long seen this tendency within liberalism and they react against it in order, as they see it, to protect what remains of the Christian faith. They see the election as a political act.

Conservatives or "traditionalists" accuse progressives, quite rightly, of not taking Scripture seriously and of being unwilling to engage in theological thinking. For liberals, sociology and politics seem most often to trump the search for religious truth. The liberal hermeneutic seems always to begin from a set of criteria external to Scripture or the Church. Granted that both Scripture and the Church must be subjected to political, historical and sociological critiques, but liberals seem to come at the task from a vantage point of "outsiders" to the faith.

This can be readily seen by looking at the starting points taken by the various participants in the Robinson debate. While conservatives begin with Scripture (however rigid and deficient their interpretive framework), liberals almost always begin somewhere else. They may begin with something as elevated as justice or morality, but careful examination of their argument reveals that God is usually superfluous to its main thrust. Scripture may be used, but usually in a proof-text fashion, with biblical considerations being extraneous and subordinate to another premise.

Liberals often view truth as subordinate to power. The biblical narrative and the canon of Scripture seem for them not so much divinely revealed truth as the outcome of ancient power struggles. Thus they seem to make judgments apart from the internal religious dynamic inherent within both the biblical text and the Church as living interpreter of the text.

The liberal argument as it is commonly expounded seems derived primarily from psychology, politics and ethics or from the general cultural drift toward a more benevolent view of homosexuality. You can see this in almost any discussion among the progressives on the homosexual issue you hear affirmations that we repudiate "gay bashing," "homophobia" and "we demand justice for all." But you almost never hear Scripture or theology invoked. There seems to be no recognition of the biblical/theological dimensions of the problem. The liberal agenda seems to be drawn by the surrounding culture rather than from the Gospel as a primary source. This, in the minds of conservatives is a consistent and logical outcome of the liberal seduction by contemporary culture. They believe the "liberal church" will disappear into the culture

Examples abound. I am familiar with one parish in which the rector asked the people to call the bishop's office to lobby his vote for the election of Gene Robinson. He talked about how Robinson was a good priest and should be bishop. There was no discussion whatever of the theological questions. This request was made at announcement time during the principal service. Sadly, this is simply one instance of the way "progressives" see the problem. For many of them it is simply a matter of political decisions to be made within the framework of canon law

Any argument in favor of ordaining Gene Robinson to the episcopate that does not deal seriously with Scripture is fatally flawed. Any attempt by liberals to discuss with conservatives the Robinson issue without addressing philosophical assumptions is also doomed.

What Liberals Get and Conservatives Don’t

The Church has always embedded its message within the culture where it finds itself. It develops theology and practices which are fully attuned to the surrounding milieu. This has been necessary since Pentecost and will continue to be so until the end of the age.

Conservatives seem almost incapable of doing much more than revisiting the past, restating theological positions, quite valid in themselves and appropriate to the time and place of their formulation, but which do not really address current issues. Their theology seems to be more a reiteration of past theological formulations than a real engagement with the present. Biblical reflection must incorporate all the data of culture, philosophy, science, politics and economics if it is to lead to a theology adequate to the era. Conservatives seldom do this. Those in the conservative camp within our Church now include some real Protestant fundamentalists and a scattering of Pentecostals who seem to be rooted nowhere.

Conservatives, seeing the erosion of faith implicit in modern thought, retreat into a kind of pre-modern cocoon, circling the wagons tightly, with a narrow angle of vision, fortified only by the residue of a once vibrant and engaged theology. Truth to tell, they fall into the same cultural trap as do liberals—to whom they become mirror opposites. Where the liberal biblical agenda seems determined almost entirely by whatever the "criticism du jour" may be or whatever sociological fad is current, conservatives, on the other hand, seem to acknowledge few legitimate historical or sociological developments to incorporate into their rapidly stagnating theology. Their positions are coherent and consistent, but unfortunately, by reverting to untenable pre-modern assumptions, conservatives have also lost touch with the dynamic of "mission theology" which uses everything within the culture to proclaim the Gospel.

Roots of the Problem

Roots of the current crisis lie in a confluence of theological responses to the modern world itself. In the 17th Century, a theory of knowledge arose that has been eroding the foundations of faith ever since. According to this epistemology, God cannot be known in an intellectually respectable way in a truly modern world. If there can be no knowledge of God, there can be no discourse about God. Religion is thus completely irrelevant to real life. Many theologians and church people, quite rightly wanting to make the faith relevant to their times, unwittingly bought into a foundational premise that is thoroughly destructive of religion.

The new epistemology held that no real knowledge is possible beyond nature. According to this theory, the only acceptable questions that can be asked are those about the natural processes within the cosmos. In this view the only valid tools of knowledge are those developed to explore nature. Agnosticism and even atheism were implicit in this epistemology from the beginning.

Religious people were able to hold on to faith in spite of this onslaught, but they paid a price. God was relegated, first to the sidelines, then to irrelevance, and finally to non-existence. This premise grew stronger with the passage of time, resulting in a relentless secularism and growing atheism, even in a country like ours which pays so much lip service to religion.

Post-enlightenment liberalism holds that the modern worldview, which excludes transcendence, is superior to those of the biblical period and all other subsequent eras. Newton's statement in the Principia Mathematica: "I will not use God as an hypothesis," was elevated to the status of a necessary philosophical principle under-girding all reality. What Newton intended as a necessary foundation to the newly emerging scientific method became a statement about the existence of the universe itself.

This new philosophical assumption provided the intellectual substructure for physical science, the social sciences, politics and economics from the 18th century to the 20th century. It is the root source of much of contemporary philosophy and it has become the very operating principle of modern life. Religious conservatives see the trap implicit within this epistemology but liberals do not. This is the real theological fault line between liberals and conservatives. Countless people have abandoned the faith because of the clash.

The Church and many religious people quite properly rejected the new assumptions. Unfortunately much of the opposition took hideous forms. The Galileo case and the reaction to Darwin's findings are examples. So too are the events surrounding the French and Marxist revolutions and their aftermath. Both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are a reaction to a world without God. Transcendence was, and still is, the central question. Liberals have been seduced by modern epistemology, but conservatives, dwelling in a pre-modern era, cannot fully grasp the force of transcendence rediscovered within contemporary thought.

There is also a theological seduction within the liberal camp. There is a continuum among the liberals ranging from the classic historic faith and the best of the Anglican tradition all the way down to a Spong-like miasma. A few on the fringe have become de facto Unitarians, denying both the Trinity and the Incarnation. Some seem to be monists. The liberal intent, which begins well, is able to fall into this kind of mess on its fringes precisely because it accepts uncritically the philosophical assumptions of the modern era and applies them to theology.

Given this situation, Christian theology must be about two very different tasks simultaneously. The first is to probe the roots of modern philosophy, punching intellectually credible holes in its quite erroneous assumption regarding transcendence. The second is to incorporate the data of contemporary life-whatever its source-into the life and thought of the Church-this is theology: ever ancient, ever new.

A New Epistemology Required

A sharp break with the Enlightenment took place in the early 20th century. Relativity and quantum physics caused a "paradigm shift" in theory of knowledge. Some now label this divide "modern" and "post-modern." I believe post-modern thought is far more open to transcendence and to traditional Christian theology than was the Enlightenment.

We now understand that: You cannot in principle know both the position and velocity of any particle. You can determine one but not the other. You select the result you want and test for it-your outcome will be determined by the parameters you set. Knowledge thus becomes a matter of selective interaction between the knower and the known. Time is relative to the observer's standpoint. Everything is interdependent and interrelated. Though new discoveries abound, the laws of physics seem to apply everywhere. Reality is more in process than in static state. Knowledge is largely a matter of finding the most adequate explanation for current data. Knowledge is a matter of approximation and probability. Knowledge is historically conditioned and time-limited. There must be a constant check of one theory against another. Adequacy and verifiability are determinants of truth. The universe is full of surprises.

While these theories apply most appropriately to the hard sciences, they have influenced the way our contemporaries think about the world. Of course none of this is really new. Heraclitus and Parmenides began a debate that has never ended. Plato and Aristotle engaged in it. Theology has always used the tools at hand (e.g. Augustine-Plato; Aquinas-Aristotle).

The dangers in post-modern epistemology: Assuming that all truth itself—rather than our ability to know the truth—is relative; falling into the trap of scientific empiricism—assuming that the laboratory method of verification is all there is to cognition; failing to incorporate adequately the wider human questions into our scope of inquiry. Denying legitimacy and intellectual credibility to religious experience is another trap: really a residue of the previous era.

Advantages of the new epistemology. Because selectivity plays such a role in how we go about seeking the truth, we can now see that nothing about the enlightenment model is actually inevitable or necessary. Atheism from Feuerbach to Sartre in Europe and in America with the prototypical John Dewey was largely a matter of selecting out the notion of God for a variety of reasons, none of which were necessitated by the facts at hand. Both atheism and the enlightenment erosion of transcendence entailed a freely chosen and totally unnecessary postulate, i.e., the existence of God as a threat to human development. Present day exponents add nothing really new and are now are riding an obsolete if not dead epistemological horse.

Post-modern epistemology is demanded by relativity and quantum physics because reality simply is not what it appears to be. As we get glimpses into the incomprehensible mystery which lies at the horizons of physics and astronomy, the question of God re-emerges in a new way. Transcendence was in principle dismissed by modern thought in favor of a closed system. Religion was considered a rear guard action. Post-modern thought is in principle open to transcendence as the most adequate explanation of available facts.

The modern worldview relegated divine functions only to a "god of the gaps" role. But now we find that by conceding to the universe the autonomy and the randomness required by biological evolution-and even more by cosmology and particle physics-we discover dependencies within autonomy and patterns within randomness. The cosmos has been "demythologized." We now recognize that, though vast, the universe is finite and measurable. It has a point of origin—and it is truly knowable by at least one species that evolves from within it.

Some, seeing this remarkable convergence, have posited anthropic principles within the cosmos. Others recognize that in fact these tendencies are actually theotic. Thus the ancient and classic questions of ultimate origin and meaning return with a force and power impossible in either the pre-modern or the modern eras. The religious question is once again central. Contemporary thought is more open to "ciphers of the transcendent" scattered throughout the cosmos than was philosophy in the recent past. The God discovered-and revealed-within the vast space-time continuum is unmistakably transcendent.

Post-modern thought is less arrogant. The requirement that we continually check and verify both fact and theory leads away from a tyrannical imposition of ideas. If the hard sciences are capable of ascertaining only partial truth at any given time, then a fortiori any particular finding in the social sciences is applicable only part of the time and under certain conditions. Social agendas carried on through politics are likewise limited and pragmatic exercises capable of only partial success. Contrast this with the ideological and political juggernauts with which American liberals and conservatives, still steeped in modernity, constantly assault us. The new approach also has a deeper respect for intuition as the basis upon which thought ultimately rests.

The post-modern attempt to "deconstruct" ideas, texts and concepts, while it can be carried to absurd extremes, nonetheless has the value of showing the great flaw in the modern epistemological premise. It turns out that a great deal of what was assumed to be purely objective unbiased measurement and analysis was really not so at all. The experience of the observer is not purely subjective, but is an integral part of the fabric of reality.

While "meta-narratives" and abstract universals can be deconstructed-including the meta-narrative of modern epistemology-smaller narratives and some kinds of human experience cannot be. Religious experience can no longer be dismissed out of hand, nor can the experience of the Church. The biblical narrative is "incarnational"-time and place specific-reaching all people, not as overarching propositional statement, but as relational, experiential truth, grounded in history and intellectually defensible. Unlike, propositional theology, the biblical narrative and the way we apprehend and live it cannot be deconstructed.

In another consonance with postmodern epistemology, classical theology always understood that the biblical text had many categories and forms and was susceptible to interpretations ranging from the allegorical to the literal with every shade in between. Consequently traditional theology knew that both its conceptual formulations and their articulations were only poor approximations of divine reality. Richard Hooker said it well: "He is above and we upon earth, therefore it behoveth our wordes to be warie and fewe."

Classical theologians employed religious language, but they knew that they were only using analogies when speaking of God. Classical theology's intellectual humility regarding its own formulations was best expressed in the "negative way" of Thomas Aquinas. This theology had its counterpart in the way the spiritual life was understood through such ideas as a "cloud of unknowing," and a "dark night of the soul." So the new epistemology is congenial as an intellectual ground for Christian faith and can provide a foundation for the spiritual life as well. This task requires also a renewal of analogical religious language and a theology that incorporates it.

A Larger Theology of Creation

Theology and philosophy are engaged with a new worldview that is amazingly open to a very large God. Reflection upon contemporary cosmology suggests subtle hints that the universe is moving not into the chaos of final entropy but toward a genuine eschaton for all creation—which now "groans and suffers." It is moving toward the One by whom all things were created and in whom all things hold together. The "vast expanse of interstellar space" and all that lies within it requires a larger God than modern theology and philosophy were able to perceive. Our era requires fresh theological formulations across a wide spectrum.

A major theological stumbling block for conservatives can be stated in a quip made by Albert Einstein when he was confronted with the undeniable implications of quantum physics. He said: "God does not play dice." Einstein was wrong: God does play dice-on a cosmic scale. The "game" is vast. Just as Einstein's relativity theory with its order and predictability is unassailably true, so too is quantum physics with its thoroughgoing randomness and probability The "quantum flux" is inherent in all reality. Theologians, scientists and philosophers are coming to a new understanding of how it is that God creates. A breathtaking view of creation is beginning to emerge, providing the basis for a true theological breakthrough.

The cosmos is both ordered in ways that we can truly grasp and express mathematically and at the same time it is also profoundly chaotic and random. The universe is simultaneously both ordered according discernible laws and random to its core. In a universe of immense and fundamental flux, the vast complexity can be expressed paradoxically in starkly simple (though not easy) "elegant equations." What at first appears contradictory and opposite is most often discovered to be in fact integrated. This seems to be the case not only in particle physics and astronomy, but it appears to be a fundamental principle of existence.

Cosmological and biological evolution seemed at first to have overthrown the classic teleological argument for the existence of God, also known as the argument from design. (This old argument has nothing to do with what is currently known as "intelligent design" in the current controversy between evolution and creationist thinking-in fact the contemporary notion of intelligent design is fallacious both scientifically and philosophically.) Authentic theological engagement with evolution simply expands the range of data considered to include the entire scope of contemporary cosmology with evolutionary biology as a subset. This constitutes a full embrace of all the randomness required to explain evolution. We can do this because chance on this cosmic scale is only the reciprocal of the order now so clearly manifested in the universe. The old argument was also known as "order and design." I would call its contemporary version "disorder and design." We now see that God’s ongoing creative act includes both.

Creation is now viewed not just as a single act in the past but as ongoing. An evolutionary universe is always moving on into the future with all its contingencies. This fits much better with the Genesis story which pictures God imposing order on a chaotic universe. It also is more congenial to eschatology and to the kenotic Christ of Phil 2: 5-11.

We find the evolution of species that become extinct (e.g., the recently discovered "hobbits" of Indonesia) as well as those toward which evolution seems to tend (ourselves). What appears at first anomalous is a part of a total fabric of reality. On a higher level, we find both human freedom and biological determinism. Good and evil coexist. Randomness is coextensive with order in ways that indicate a genuine and discernible teleology (as shown by the so-called anthropic principles of the universe). It is now clear that within the ordered randomness of being, there are immense variations within organic species. Neither the vast ages of time required for evolution, nor its random course devalues human dignity. This is the way God creates. God looked at Creation and pronounced that it was good. Therefore all creation is good including random variations that occur within it. Contemporary science and the epistemology required for it demonstrates anew that: "the heavens show forth the glory of God."

First Reason for a New Understanding of Homosexuality: Moral Theology

Within this larger frame of reference, we can now make case that would allow for the decisions of General Convention within a biblical context. For example, though homosexual behavior was known throughout history, the notion of homosexual orientation was not understood until very recently. For this reason, biblical statements about homosexuality must now be read in light of new discoveries.

The underlying assumption, not only of Scripture, but the common understanding of homosexuality for millennia, is that homosexual acts are freely chosen acts of people who are by inexorably and by nature heterosexual in orientation. If this assumption is inaccurate, then a new question arises which must be thoroughly explored and incorporated into traditional theology.

The notion of sexual orientation as a predisposition existing prior to sexual activity was not understood until the 20th Century. It is certainly true that the basic sexual orientation the vast majority of individuals in all mammalian species is heterosexual. This is necessary for the propagation of species and it is clearly the normative purpose of sexuality. But it is now clear that there is a fairly small, but random distribution of homosexual, bisexual and anomalous sexual configurations in many species of mammals. This is a genuinely new discovery. Though the phenomena may have been known in prior ages, the data seem never to have been incorporated into a coherent body of knowledge prior to our own era.

This discovery presents theology with a new question. Granting that homosexual acts between heterosexual people are sinful as Scripture clearly states, we must then deal theologically with the discovery that homosexual orientation is, as we now know, randomly found throughout mammalian species, including humankind. Sexual activity is a normal part of life for all but a few people-and Scripture assumes this. Sexual desire and passion are simply part of life. Concupiscence, though it applies to desire of all kind, has often been narrowed to sexual matters. In this context, marriage has been called in classical theology a "remedy for concupiscence."

Marriage exists as an option for heterosexual people, but there is no such option for homosexuals. Are they then morally bound by a norm of celibacy that most heterosexuals cannot observe? Is this the intent of Scripture or of classic theology? I think not.

Using accepted principles of moral theology, we can now posit that the virtual impossibility of refraining from sexual activity would make allowance for homosexual activity between people with a genuine homosexual orientation. This does not deny the truth of biblical statements, but simply asks a new question of Scripture and theology in the light of recent discoveries.

One way to formulate the question: If most heterosexuals cannot live a celibate life, marriage being the biblical and acceptable remedy for the human sex drive, then what if humanity discovers at a date later than the writing of the biblical documents, that most homosexual activity derives from a prior sexual orientation, unknown in biblical times? Is it then possible to consider this newly discovered situation in the light of Scripture? I believe it is possible to do this and to arrive at the conclusion that the homosexual activity of people with homosexual orientation is done without sin-though same sex relationships are not marriage in the biblical sense. This does not diminish or change Scripture, but it interprets Scripture in light of new findings.

Other examples: Jesus prohibited divorce except for uncleanness. St. Paul allowed second marriages after divorce for a specific reason. The Church has expanded the reasons for allowing second marriages. The New Testament is not amenable to making war, yet we do it. The "just war tradition" arose to deal with the question of when Christians may engage in combat even though the New Testament and the earliest Christian traditions prohibit the violent taking of life. All this is legitimate development of doctrine resulting from the biblical faith confronting new situations throughout history. These precedents may be a guide in the present situation.

At any rate, it is now clear that homosexual orientation exists in individuals prior to sexual activity. This is now a fact beyond question. Homosexuality is increasingly understood to be a biological phenomenon antecedent to human choice-and hence antecedent to sinful decision. This must be accounted for in an expanded theology of creation.

Second Reason for a New Understanding of Homosexuality: Larger Theology of Creation

When we read the creation account in Genesis, it is clear that God created male and female. God intends that the human race be propagated by sexual intercourse between men and women. Nothing could be clearer. There seems to be no room in the biblical account for homosexual orientation as something intended by God. But there is also no immediately apparent way to reconcile the findings of Galileo or Darwin with the Genesis accounts, yet-except for American fundamentalists-we have been able to do so. Even when one adopts the position that there is no disjuncture between the Genesis accounts and the theory of evolution, there still seems to be no room to allow for homosexual orientation within God's intent. Conservatives hold that homosexuality "constitutes an objective disorder in the structure of human existence."

I believe this conservative position regarding homosexuality has been supplanted by the expanded theology of creation described above. Homosexuality, along with a wide variety of what appear to be sexual anomalies existing in many species, seems simply a random variation-an element of profusion in creation. It seems that the ordered randomness of God's creation applies to sexuality as well. This in no way disturbs or diverges from the basic tendency and purpose of sexuality, nor from the pattern and order of the universe. It is simply another example of the integration of apparently disparate realities within the cosmos.

Given this new frame of reference, it may be shown that the Old Testament and Pauline injunctions against homosexuality may be taken as both accurate and true given the assumptions at the time of their writing. Heterosexuality is clearly the necessary and prevailing pattern upon which depends the continuation of biological species. In this perspective, Christian theology can readily assimilate new data without detriment to the Genesis story or to any other Scripture.

God's creative act through cosmic and biological evolution is, like everything else God does, mysterious and almost—but not quite-beyond comprehension. While we await final answers in the transformed cosmos of the eschaton, theology must attempt to understand and to integrate everything discovered at every step along the way until "we shall know even as we are known."

In this way a theological path is now open to a resolution of the conflict within our church. Liberals now have a theological point of reference from which to explain their stand on homosexuality and the Robinson election. Conservatives have an expanded theology, biblically based and perfectly orthodox that would allow them at the very least to tolerate these new developments as being within the ambit of what is allowable to the Church.

I believe the principles of "probabalism" in traditional moral theology allow for this position. Conservatives, though not happy with it, should be able to live with a legitimate probable opinion, while waiting to see whether it will be "received" by the Church as all theology must be. This is simply another instance of the ancient principle "faith seeks understanding," and its reciprocal "understanding in turn seeks faith."

The Sinfulness and Scandal of the Robinson Controversy

People on both sides are willing to further divide the Church over the Robinson issue. They do this on the basis of "principle." They are misguided in this. Jesus demanded that his followers be one even as he and the Father are one. Paul demanded the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is related to its essential constitution. Church unity is a consequence of the unity of God within the Trinity. It flows immediately from the fact that we are all baptized together "into Christ Jesus." It is a gift of the Spirit who accomplishes in us what was done first in Jesus Christ, crucified, dead and risen. Church unity is essential if we are to proclaim the Gospel effectively. Disunity and strife present major impediments to the divine mandate to preach the Gospel and to live out its implications in love and service to others.

When I was in the missions in Japan, it was clear that the great obstacle to proclaiming the Gospel there was the divisions among Christians. This is now true in the U.S. as well. A major reason for the evolution of unbelief in western societies was the scandal given by centuries of religious wars. Today's rancor in our Church now approaches scandal. Now in the ascendancy, the liberal wing seems intent on imposing its will through political power, even inviting those who disagree to leave. Though platitudes about the importance of loving dialogue abound, there is little evidence of anything beyond cynical power plays. The question then becomes: if the Church differs so little from other institutions in society, why belong to it?

The election of anyone to the office of bishop is a secondary and relatively insignificant matter. Not long ago we debated whether bishops are of the esse or only the bene esse of the Church. Unity among the disciples is far more important than election to any office in the Church. At the core of the Gospel message is the unity of the Body of Christ. He is the head, we are the members. Diversity in the Church coincides with and is consequent upon its unity.

Orthodoxy vs. the Prophetic Voice?

Liberals seem to believe they represent the "prophetic" voice in our time because of their stand on homosexual issues. The word "prophetic" has been applied to those who endorse Robinson. But this devalues that biblical/theological term. What we have here is probably a necessary intra-church adjustment of whom we ordain. This is an adjustment which goes in the same direction as the contemporary cultural movement, not counter to it. It will hopefully enhance the lives of people and will deepen our knowledge of Scripture and expand tradition. But it is not prophetic.

The prophet stands against the culture in the name of God and calls it to task. Prophecy takes real risks. It does not operate in comfortable circumstances. Authentic prophets are usually in jail, on the margins of society-or dead. They speak the truth to power, and power wants to get rid of them in a hurry. Real prophets are few. The liberals in our diocese are not among them.

Conservatives have taken to calling themselves "orthodox," with the implication that liberals are not. But wait. We are now aware that knowing and doing are not as separate as we once thought. We know things in many more ways than we previously understood. So we must now recognize that orthodoxy and orthopraxis are inseparable and interrelated.

Traditionalists, assume to themselves alone the mantle of orthodoxy. This is arrogant and self-righteous. It is also untrue, for their orthopraxis, and hence their orthodoxy is no better than that of liberals. We have here neither prophetic voices nor orthodox guides, but an absence of charity. Very recent developments in the diocese of San Diego, involving the departure of several parishes, involved lying to the bishop, deceit, and apparently also some financial chicanery.

No Sense of Common Mission?

The disruption caused by the Episcopal Church within the wider Anglican Communion may have roots antecedent to the ordination of Gene Robinson. A recent article in The Anglican Theological Review suggests that there is a "missiological background" to the crisis. According to this author, the Episcopal Church has not been sufficiently engaged in "meaningful participation in the ongoing lives of other provinces." As a result ECUSA has not really understood other Anglican churches as it should have. The author believes that long before Lambeth 1998, conversations focused on “recognizing diversity” became an "anemic surrogate for incarnate forms of engagement with the wider Communion."

Having already lost interest in the life of the wider Communion, General Convention 2003 was just another example of patronizing American ecclesial imperialism. The author also notes that had there been more effort toward biblically based examinations with a shared Eucharistic life together, things may have been different. "The issue is now seen as a sterile contest between the authority of Scripture on the one hand and human rights on the other, which seems much like a re-labeling of a prior debate going on within American society."

I have no way of knowing whether this view is correct. But when applied to our diocese where there is no trans-parochial shared Bible study/reflection/prayer and there is no common mission, it is certainly relevant here. Each parish is a bastion unto itself. People make commitments to the diocese of time, money and support for diocesan programs, but there is no inter-parochial exchange at a deep level.

There is also a lot of mean-spirited factionalism, mutual suspicion, backbiting and gossip. This may impede the work of some people on both sides who have tried to initiate real dialogue. In a society becoming ever more coarse, bellicose and selfish, we can no longer be devoured by intra-church strife. The world needs us and the Gospel demands that we be about our mission.

Using the New Epistemology in Our Diocese: A Modest Proposal

Let's use the new epistemology and find out who is orthodox and who is not, who is really prophetic and who is not. Second Corinthians suggests a way.

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Cor 3: 17-18)

We can discern the truth of this neither through reason nor by our own power. Only grace enables us to see it—grace operating at that profound level which precedes thought, wherein we are grasped by God through simple apprehension. Because the entire person is enveloped by God, the transformation takes place in all dimensions of life, not just the cognitive.

This transformation includes our relationships within the Church. We each become aware, not only of our own reflected glory, but of the reflections of the same glory in our fellow Christians. This gathering of those who reflect the Lord's glory includes all who confess "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism"-all of whom are sinners, all both orthodox and deficient in orthodoxy.

Being transformed into his likeness means acquiring "that mind which was also in Christ Jesus…who thought it not robbery to be equal to God, but took upon himself the form of a slave…and humbled himself becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross." (Phil 2: 5-11). This requires an active conformity to Christ, not just a passive acceptance of propositions.

So, I propose that we take direct action in our diocese to resolve this controversy by an actual test of orthodoxy, orthopraxis and the exercise of the prophetic voice of the Church. Let us begin with pulpit exchanges between different parishes of liberal and conservative clergy, preaching only on the Sunday readings. Because sermons are a traditional theological locus, the orthodoxy of the preacher will soon be judged by the congregation through the process of "reception of doctrine" by which the Church understands its faith.

Let us begin to meet together for prayer and Bible study in small groups, not in separate parishes, but as people of the diocese in random groupings from parishes of different persuasions. In this way we can test out our orthodoxy as ordinary members of the laos in this small section of the Church. Then let us begin to test together whether we actually do exercise a prophetic role by working together on some of the major social injustices in our area. Homelessness and poverty with their myriad manifestations come immediately to mind as arenas in which to work.

Let us do this regardless of what the National Church or the Anglican Communion or various groups within it do. I suspect these larger bodies have no more idea what should be done than we do. Because the Gospel always requires immediate action, let's begin to do these things right now. We can always tell the larger bodies what we are doing. If they wish to join us, they are free to do so. But let’s not wait for them. We are called to love and serve others and to proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Let's get on about that business and let's do it now.

I believe this is exactly what our bishop is calling us to do in spite of recent events. It's time to get on about the real mission of the Church, given to us by the risen Lord.

Endnotes

See the magisterial work on this question: At the Origins of Modern Atheism. Michael J. Buckley, S.J. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1987

See Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America. James Turner. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London, 1985.

See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn, 1962. A “must read” book in philosophy of science.

Lawes1.2.2; Folger Lib. Ed. 1.59.12-20 cit in ATR, vol 87, #2, p 255

Thomas Aquinas S.T. 1.103.7; 3.2

See especially: Stephen M. Barr. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 2000. John F. Haught. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Westview Press, 2000. Arthur Peacocke. Paths From Science Towards God. Oneworld Publications, Oxford and New York, 2001, also Theology for a Scientific Age. SCM Press, Ltd. London, 1996. John Polkinghorne. Science and Theology an Introduction. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998, also The God of Hope and the End of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2002. See also Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe:….

Benedict XVI statement: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/international/europe/04pope.html

The Anglican Theological Review, Spring 2004, vol 86, no 2. Willis Jenkins, “Episcopalians, Homosexuality and World Mission,” pp 293-316.

See especially selections from http://www.ntwrightpage.com

THE JUST WAR TRADITION AND WAR IN THE MIDEAST by William P. Mahedy

The Fundamental Christian Position

1. Problems, questions and issues

May a Christian ever resort to violence? What does scripture have to say about this question? What does the history of the Church and theological reflection say? What are the real world problems?

2. Biblical sources

a. Old Testament

The OT is replete with violence and commands by God to do acts of violence. Josh 6:17, Joshua 10:40 (annihilation of Jericho) killing malefactors at God's command (1 Sam 15:1-3) (Ex 32:27)

On the other hand the OT shows God as intervening without Israel's armies or fighting in Israel's behalf: the people are told not to fight. The entire Exodus story is one such case--this is the paradigm experience in the OT. Other examples: (1 Sam 5-6) (2Kings 18:13-19:36) Even Joshua won by divine intervention (Josh 24:12)

Problems from the OT: how to reconcile the Christian understanding of God with the violence of the God revealed in the OT; if God, the creator of all life commands or allows violence, can we ever assume to act in God's name?
American "civil religion" raises this question quite clearly.

The OT views peace as the product of the Messianic age: SHALOM is the major theme of the Messianic era.(Is 2:4; Micah 4:3)(Is 9:5-7) (Is 11:6-9)

b. The New Testament

The New Testament is clearly non-violent in its teaching. The life and example of Jesus is primary. Jesus specifically refused to do violence, told his followers to put up the sword when he was captured, died on the cross forgiving his enemies. (crucifixion narratives of all 4 gospels)

In the face of conflicting Messianic strategies among the Jews--some of which entailed violence--Jesus specifically chose a non-violent one and did so in the face of an occupation force which repressed the people.

Jesus' central teaching: (Mt 5:38-48) statement to Pilate about the nature of the Kingdom (Jn 18:36)But Jesus is not verbally or psychologically passive. (Mt 23:13-33) scribes & pharisees "brood of vipers." (Jn 18:19-24) he reproves the one who struck him.
Controverted NT passages

"render unto Caesar" (Mk 12:17; Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26) and its connection with the requirement to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)

The meaning of Romans chapters 12 and 13: the complex passage on leaving vengeance to God, but being subject to rulers who are not "bearing the sword in vain;" repaying no one evil for evil, etc.

Cleansing of the Temple (Jn 2:13-19 and corresponding passages in other gospels) did Jesus use or advocate violence? what was his purpose? what kind of violence does that authorize us to use?

"wars and rumors of wars" (Mt2 24:6; Mk 13:7;Lk 21:9) does this mean that we simply accept war?

Soldiers in the NT (Mt 8:10 and Acts 10) as justification for killing which is the soldier's raison d'etre.

"buy a sword" (Lk 22:35-38) why does Jesus instruct his disciples to buy a sword when he later says that whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword? what is the purpose of the sword in this passage?

3. The Early Church life and teaching

Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Cl;ement of Alexandria, Cyrpian, Minucius Felix, Lactantius--Christian writers of the second and third centuries--all condemned Christian participation in war. The pagan author Celsus complained that Christianity was a threat to the empire because Christians refused to serve in the army.

There were Christian soldiers in the Roman army. Officers were supposed to sacrifice to the gods, enlisted men were not. Some Christian complaints to military stemmed from need to sacrifice to gods, but most seems to have come from teaching of Jesus against violence. Most Christians would not serve. Council of Nicea reproves soldiers who return to combat. Opposition was not so much to service in the army but to combat roles. Roman army acted as occupation force throughout much of the empire, though they brutally suppressed rebellion.

The Fundamental Christian Position

Mt 5:38-48. This coupled with Jesus' example of forgiving enemies on the cross and the entire thrust of NT faith enshrines the position of the Christian pacifist as normative. It derives directly from Scripture and was the position of the early Church. Soldiers served in the Roman army, but combat operations were not approved. Any position which differs from this must "show cause" for its existence. The pacifist position is related the Messianic age and the Hebrew notion of Shalom--Peace.

Shalom. The Hebrew word is very rich. It means Peace in the ultimate sense. This is the peace that passes understanding. It is the peace of God who is the author of peace. It is more than the absence of conflict. It has to do with wholeness and health, security and prosperity, comfort and joy, righteousness and justice, political and economic and spiritual well-being, all in their fullest sense. It is a right relationship involving self, fellow creatures, the creation and God. It is the vision of things promised and hoped for. It is eschatological in nature. According to Isaiah, shalom is the vision of the "latter days" when people will beat swords into ploughshares and that nation will not lift up sword against nation. It is a messianic vision.

Hebrew and hence authentic Christian thought cannot separate the latter days of the messianic age from the present day. It is the purpose of the religious community to work always toward the fulfillment of God's Shalom. The Christian must live in the world this way, but the Christian must also be a citizen of the world. Citizenship in the Roman empire by members of the early church was always dangerous.

4. The Just War Tradition

After 313 situation begins to change. The Church is freed from persecution and becomes religion of the empire. Rome declines and the "barbarian invasions" begin. The Germanic and Frankish tribes were very hostile and warlike, e.g. Attila the Hun or Alaric's statement before the gates of Rome:"I terrify you, Rome, with my bare hands, take a spear and hide yourself.")--and he did!

Augustine of Hippo (d.430) and other Christian thinkers develop the "just war tradition."

The "just war tradition" growing out of the problems of the early middle ages is also arguably legitimate. In it war can only be the "lesser of two evils" never a good. It attempts to bring about Peace in a different sense, expressed by the Latin word: PAX

Pax, peace in penultimate sense. It is the peace of the ordered political community that makes corporate existence a possibility. It is the absence of conflict, or its minimization. It has to do with proximate justice, compromise, half a loaf, negotiation, prudence, balance of power. It denotes more an impermanent state of affairs, than a permanent relationship. It is based on mutual agreement or contract, perhaps fragile, and is usually backed up by force. It symbolizes a temporary and at least adequate balance between order and liberty in the human community. 1

The just war tradition allows us to function in a very weak and sinful world by adopting the lesser of two evils when both choices are evil. Just war principles reflect this:

The pacifist tradition is "in possession" of the high ground as a Christian moral theory, given the clear New Testament teaching. However....given the changed conditions...?

Problem: Is it ever legitimate for a Christian to use lethal violence against another human being and still be faithful to the gospel of Jesus. The just war theory answers a reluctant "yes," but only under certain conditions. The reluctance comes from the realization that the New Testament endorses only non-violence. The question: how does a Christian live in a world of changed social conditions wherein violence seems sometimes to be the lesser of two evils--it is never considered a good.

The Christian moral presumption is always against war. War can only be tolerated as the lesser of two evils--it is never a good.

IUS AD BELLUM "Right to go to war." Obligations of the nation in making the decision to go to war. Whether the war is just or not.

a. war is truly a last resort. after all other means like negotiations are exhausted. war is the only possible way to restore justice.

b. just cause. war can be used only to defend against an unjust aggressor who threatens innocent life and the existence of the common good of a society.

c. right intention. only to restore justice, not for vengeance or angry reprisal.

d. war called by legitimate authority. only when society's legitimate authorities call for war. never an act of a mob

e. reasonable hope of success. if no chance of success, combat only brings about meaningless and useless slaughter of those who engage in it. must be a reasonable probability that the society will not be destroyed in the process.

f. non-combatant immunity. no military action may be aimed directly at that portion of the enemy's population which does not constitute a threat. non-combatant life must be preserved wherever possible.

g. proportionality. there must be some proportion between the violence and slaughter caused by the war and the purpose for which it is fought. the horrible evils of war may not exceed the reason for the war in the first place.

IUS IN BELLO "Right conduct in war." Obligations of the combat soldier. The moral aspect of combat operations.

a. non-combatant immunity. the tactics of war, combat operations must preserve non-combatant life as much as possible.

b. proportionality. the combat operational tactics must preserve some proportion between the violence and the goals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Michael Walzer. Just and Unjust Wars 1977;
Ron Sider, Richard Taylor. Nuclear Holocaust & Christian Hope. 1982
Allan M. Parrant unpublished paper 1983
James Turner Johnson. Morality and Contemporary Warfare 1999
Chris Hedges. War is a Force That Gives us Meaning. 2002
William P. Mahedy. Out of the Night:... 1986,1994,2004

For an update on just war tradition see: Mark Douglas. "Changing the Rules: Just War Theory in the Twenty-First Century." Theology Today. Jan 2003

ADDENDUM TO THE JUST WAR TRADITION

IUS POST BELLUM "Right conduct after war."

(Ideas from Michael J. Schuck, Associate Professor of theology, Loyola University, Chicago in The Christian Century Oct 26, 1994)

1. Principle of Repentance. Victors conduct themselves humbly after a war. Victors should show remorse for the price of war paid, not only by comrades, but by the vanquished. No nationalistic, ethnocentric celebrations of victory which disregard the profound pain of those on both sides. Distinction between celebrating the return of sons and daughters from war and celebrating the defeat of one's enemies. Distinction marginal: J.C. Murray: "in morality margins often make all the difference."

2. Principle of Honorable Surrender. Victors construct terms and method of surrender in a way that protects the fundamental human rights of the vanquished. No punitive terms like Versailles Treaty of 1919. Ideal: Joshua Chamberlain and the salute of defeated Confederate troops at Appomattox, April 9, 1865. This avoids degradation and desperation, desire for revenge on part of victors, allows vanquished to resume their lives.

3. Principle of Restoration. Victors should return to the battlefield to remove the instruments of war and assist in the repair of the social infrastructure (and also the physical infrastructure). Proscribed would be the neglect of the vanquished and disregard for the fact that for many innocent victims the war continues after the battles. (UN estimate that 105 million land mines remain in 62 countries.)

These principles expand the moral sensibilities of people who believe that war, while evil, is sometimes necessary for the protection of human life. Existing just war theory discredits war if principles not adhered to. Post bellum principles would do the same. Abuse of post bellum principles would call into question the victor's actual motives.

In addition to Schuck's principles I would add:

4. Principle of moral, spiritual and psychological healing of veterans and victims on both sides.

HOW HISTORICAL CHANGE HAS IMPACTED THE JUST WAR TRADITION
(suggested by the Mark Douglas article)

1. Technological changes: air war, the use of missiles, satellites, carpet bombing, ability to destroy civilian infrastructure. The death of non-combatants is much more widespread because of current weaponry. Question: Can these non-combatant deaths still be considered "collateral damage" or must they be factored in as intrinsic to the intention of those waging the war?

2. Political changes. Democracies and the role of the people in determining whether to wage war. (Responsibility for ius ad bellum is now more diffuse.) In this situation who has the authority to wage war? The executive, the legislature? The people?

Many present wars are actually not between states but "intrastate" types of insurgencies, revolutions and civil wars. (The colonial uprising in Boston in 1775 and the attack on Ft. Sumpter in 1861 are more distant examples)

Current moral questions arising from changed political conditions:

The Iraq war has apparently slipped into a civil war between Shiite and Sunni, with Kurds on the edges. The Lebanese government can clearly not control Hezbollah, which has widespread support among the people of South Lebanon. Hamas was democratically elected in Palestine. Who has legitimacy to start an insurgency and what are the conditions of injustice that bring about such a war? Can a nation-state legitimately wage war on an elusive group within another nation-state, especially one which cannot be controlled by its own government?

3. Economic Changes. The world now has a global economy with economic interdependence. Such measures as sanctions, embargoes, bloackades which used to be considered as steps to be taken before resorting to war, have now become equivalent to acts of war. Usually, the people who suffer most from these are the most vulnerable members of a society. An example: the sanctions on Iraq prior to the invasion of 2003 had been responsible for countless deaths.

THE ROLE OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY, REGIONAL CONSORTIA OF NATIONS, THE UN, NATO, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

The just war tradition seems to be moving in the direction of requiring the a plurality of legitimate and morally responsible governments exercise constraint upon rogue regimes like that in Iraq, ultimately disarming and changing them through continued pressure. The UN seems to be the agency through which this will occur. Military intervention may, in extremis, be justifiable.

Because political and economic systems are now more fluid and inter-connected, there has been a moral shift away from the nation state as the final arbiter in many areas of life. Economic power within a nation can no longer be controlled internally. The movement and aspiration of peoples is no longer contained within national boundaries. Just war thinking has begun to recognize this inter-connectedness with the result that there is now a greater emphasis on seeking the consent of other nations. The ius ad bellum criterion of last resort is more clearly met when a body of nations and a wider spectrum of people decide that war is justified than when a single state makes the decision to go to war. The Nuremburg war crimes trials exemplified the belief that the opinion of other nations was crucial. The UN, NATO and the Geneva Conventions all embody this belief--and all were instituted at the behest of the United States. Both the ius ad bellum decision to wage war and ius in bello judgements regarding the conduct of the war must now take into consideration this wider body of judgement.

RELIGION AND WAR, INCLUDING AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION

Clearly, religion continues to play a significan role in waging war. It is an open question whether it is truly religion at stake or political agendas which use religious idealogy as a cover. The misuse of religion, especially when separated from moral principles can screen out the kind of thinking required for real ethical analysis. Religion misused in this way can create a moral blind spot. This is expecially true in waging war. The just war tradition has not been rendered obsolete, but some religious undercurrents cause many people to believe that it does not apply to "our side."

American civil religion. We have invested our political system, our way of life with religious characteristics. We have given to them a sacred dimension through which we intepret our historical experience. Americn life is usually seen in terms of the New Jerusalem, city on the hill perceptions of our myth of origin. We believe we are still God's new creation (Novus ordo saeclorum on the dollar bill). We decided that transcendent goals lay at the heart of our own political processes. At the same time we contructed a model of God based on our own polity. Our political categories: law, justice, democracy became more than analogues. They took on the characteristics of ultimate reality. Of course, the corollary to this is our mythology of war. We do not fight wars, we fight crusades.

This has been a problem throughout American history, but it is now more virulent and dangerous than in the past. Those now in the ascendancy in the American government who began the war in Iraq clearly believe they are fighting a war of total good versus total evil. This represents an ancient philosophical dualism, but in the U.S., it takes the particular form of American civil religion. Given this context, just war analysis, though never more needed, becomes almost impossible to conduct because of the visceral opposition to real critical thinking.

JUST WAR, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND LEBANON IN AUGUST 2006

The just war tradition has never held the combat soldier responsible for the justice of the war, i.e. for any decision connected with the ius ad bellum, but only for his or her personal actions during the war, the ius in bello. The moral presumption has always been that citizens of any nation are justified in following their political leaders when they call for military action. Ordinary citizens who become military combatants are presumed not responsible for whether the war is just or not. This is a time-honored principle.

Examples: after World War II, the leaders of both Germany and Japan were held morally and legally accountable for what was clearly an unjust war, but no combat troops those who actually conducted the war of either nation were put on trial. This reflects international law and just war principles. But Vietnam veterans, on the other handx, were wrongly blamed for the entirety of the Vietnam war.

Afghanistan.

The United States, with justification, invaded Iraq to capture Osama bin Laden, disband Al Quaeda and their Taliban supporters and to prevent further 9/11 type aggression. This was in accordance with the ius ad bellum. Subsequent events in Afghanistan raise further questions, which will not be addressed here.

Iraq.

The argument for war on humanitarian grounds, i.e., that Saddam Hussein had oppressed, brutalized and terrorized his own citizens for decades has some plausibility. This was the justification for military operations in the the former Yugoslavia. In such cases, the proportionality between the violence inflicted and the end to be achieved must be weighed. Humanitarian intervention in places like China or Russia could never be contemplated because no humanitarian goal would outweigh the level of violence, death and destruction.

This argument was not made as a justification for the invastion of Iraq. The arguments that were made: weapons of mass destruction, the capacity to produce nuclear weapons were false. The aim which has come to be used as a justification, i.e., exporting western style democracy, fostering more benevolent governments in the area have also proven to be false.

The violence unleashed in Iraq, which was publicly predicted ahead of time by many astute observes, has certainly exceeded anything Saddam Hussein could have inflcted on his own people

This was also the case in Vietnam. The Communist regime was clearly ruthless and brutal, terrorizing its own citizens. But the massive violence inflicted on that country by the American military and the NVA/VC response to U.S. operations exceeded the bounds of any morally legitimate goal.

In the case of Iraq, the moral issue is further complicated by the fact that the U.S. was aware of Hussein's ruthless regime when it supplied him with weapons to use in his war against Iran in the 1980s.

It seems that at this point, the level of violence visited upon Iraq, the suffering of the innocent and upon the Iraqi people, the waste of American lives and the suffering of American military and their families is out of all proportion to any goal that could reasonably have been attained. The problem is that we are now in Iraq, so where do we go from here? The ius post bellum requires that we cannot abandon Iraq without assisting in its reconstruction.

Lebanon.

The bombing of innocent Israeli citizens by the Hezbollah is clearly immoral, but the Israelis have already inflicted more violence upon Lebanon than Hezbollah could possibly inflict upon israel. The fault lies on both sides, but the government of Lebanon cannot control Hezbollah. The United States insisted that Syria evacluate Lebanon. The U.S. also tolerated the Israeli incursions to capture Lebanese prisoners. The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was a strike against a military target. The Israeli response has been to target the entire population of Lebanon, including the Christians, who can in no way be accused of being Shiite supporters. The Israeli response has already rendered their incrusions immoral according to just war norms. The U.S., because it has the capacity to influence the situation.

Moral Responsibiliy.

Moral responsibility for military action in Iraq according to the ius ad bellum lies with the political leadership of a nation. In a democracy this leadership devolves ultimately on the people. The Bush administration and Congress bear the primary responsibility, but American citizens are ultimately the morally responsible parties. Passive acceptance of an unjust war amounts to complicity in it. Those who understand what war is (veterans) have an obligation to speak out. Those with power and influence (business and political leaders) and those who articulate and interpret events (the media) have a greater degree of responsibility than ordinary citizens, as do religious leaders.

Responsibility of Military Personnel.

Military personnel, citizens themselves, who are genuinely convinced of the immorality of war have the option of filing for conscientious objector status, but ordinary soldiers cannot be held to this kind of moral insight or action. Just war tradition has always held that citizens may without moral blame enter military service and participate in a war that their national leaders tell them is just and necessary. Military personnel, once on active duty are bound to follow lawful orders. An unlawful order, which the soldier is morally bound to disobey, refers only to those actions connected to combat operations, the ius in bello provisions of just war. Military personnel are never responsible for anything connected with ius ad bellum.

For this reason we must not hold active duty personnel responsible for the war in Iraq excepting those of flag rank who exercise political power (e.g. the Joint Chiefs). Therefore we should support the troops in the Gulf in every way possible. Military chaplains, even those who oppose the war, may legitimately serve the troops because these men and women have a right to have their religious leaders with them in combat.