War and pacifism
By James D. Berkley, The Layman, January 29, 2009
BERKELEY, Calif. – On Saturday, January 24, the final day of the winter meeting of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), discussion turned to the Iraq war and later, in turn, to pacifism. The Iraq consideration came from an agenda item about the results of last summer’s General Assembly. Pacifism—as opposed to the just war theory—came up because co-chair Gloria Albrecht had been thinking about it lately.
Unrealized lessons of the Assembly vote
Prior to General Assembly last June in San Jose, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy decided it wanted to make a statement about the Iraq war. Actually, it might be more accurate to say that Chris Iosso, the ACSWP staff coordinator, wanted to speak out about the war, and the committee got so worn down from his dogged persistence that it gave approval to his rambling paper: “Costly Lessons of the Iraq War.”
The paper, however, failed to get the same reception at General Assembly. It was, in fact, not approved by the Assembly. Instead, it was “answered” by the approval of a similar but arguably superior overture from the Presbytery of Baltimore. In essence, Chris Iosso’s personally cherished paper was relegated to obscurity.
Undeterred, however, Iosso came into this ACSWP meeting prepared to encourage the committee into further advocating the rather controversial political and military lessons from his paper. He spoke before the ACSWP at some length, lauding the lessons taught in his paper, and then he asked, “Should we find ways to speak more on this?” In other words, despite the ideas being politely rejected by the General Assembly, shouldn’t the ACSWP press them anyway?
“If the assembly chose not to adopt those recommendations, should we not respect that action?” asked John Knapp, in one of the more direct exchanges of the meeting.
“The assembly answered with a shorter piece,” Iosso replied. “I’m not sure they considered ours. Did the assembly have problems with the lessons or the recommendations?”
“They didn’t adopt the resolutions,” Knapp reminded him.
“I’m still mystified why the assembly commended the study but did not adopt the resolutions,” mused Iosso, apparently unable to concede that perhaps his paper was not as valuable to the commissioners as it was in his own estimation.
“I think we are precluded from proceeding with something the assembly considered and chose not to adopt,” Knapp persisted gently. It was a matter of the role of the ACSWP, compared to the authority of the General Assembly, which the ACSWP is chartered to serve.
Co-Chair Ron Kernaghan suggested putting together previous policies related to Iraq to give to the Stated Clerk as he speaks for the denomination. “We can certainly do that,” Iosso conceded. But he wasn’t ready to give in. “We can show respect to the Assembly by making clear that the Assembly did not adopt these recommendations. But at the same time, we want the recommendations studied. They are helpful from a study aspect.” It was clear that Iosso would not let go of promoting further advocacy of his paper’s ideas, even though the committee had offered them as advice and the General Assembly had declined that advice.
Jean Demmler, another ACSWP member, stepped in. “Am I hearing that you would like to revise and resubmit the resolution?” she asked.
“I am for the Baltimore overture [approved by the General Assembly],” Iosso finally conceded, “but I would like the committee to revisit a year from now the lessons the paper raised up.” Iosso apparently saw that his ideas might not live to see another day. So he couldn’t quite fully concede. “Those lessons are valuable still.”
Not everyone was in agreement.
Pushing toward pacifism
In another instance of ACSWP members involving the committee and perhaps the denomination in a subject of a member’s personal interest, Co-chair Gloria Albrecht opened up the topic of nonviolence or Christian pacifism. She mused about ways to “build up community to safeguard people’s lives, but without resort to military forces.” This came on the heels of the talk about the Iraq paper. As she now considers matters, “there is no way to use military force in any kind of ethical way” anymore, because of the massive destructive power of modern weapons. “There are people who argue for a different way for courageous involvement by Christians,” she offered, “a much more socio-economic approach to problems [that is] far outside our normal thinking, since we are traditionally a just-war denomination.”
The Presbyterian Church and Reformed theology have long understood the fallenness of humankind, total depravity and the sometimes wrenching need to use force to restrain evil. Anabaptists and others have traditionally been pacifists, but Presbyterians have not. Albrecht’s ideas would be a major departure from previous moral thinking.
Later, when the committee was discussing the agenda for its May 14-17 meeting in Washington, DC, Chris Iosso asked, “Should we invite someone from the Pentagon or Department of Defense or State Department to talk with us?” It was an innocent question, apparently produced from a desire to be warmly liberal enough to seek a variety of input – in this case, informed input from outside the normal group-think of ACSWP allies. With the new Obama administration, one would think that once again the government would be thought safe to approach for a progressive group like the ACSWP.
Not so. “I would actually be more interested in someone working against the flow,” Albrecht shot back. “People who tend to work for federal agencies have to somehow fit in.” With a ripe opportunity to get some knowledgeable thinking from persons outside the ACSWP loop, Albrecht apparently would have none of it. Having both or many sides of a matter must not be valued as much as hearing only the kinds of voices Albrecht actually values.
On another matter – a coming Ecumenical Consultation on Human Rights—Iosso was providing some background on human rights violations in the Middle East. In a frank concession not often heard from official Presbyterian sources, he noted solemnly that “Hamas has not been a friend of the Christian community in many cases.”