Calls it a "diatribe" and writes to "pontificate" in response.

We received this note on 2-24-05.
The author wrote the next day reminding us that he hadn't seen his note yet.
That's because we had no time to post anything next yesterday.
But here it is, with apologies for tardiness! 
Posted 2-26-05.

Peter Hodgson responds.

Notwithstanding Peter Hodgson's diatribe, purporting to give theological rationalization against military action in Iraq, he falls far short. Voluminous rhetoric does not necessarily equal the truth (Jesus said, "Follow me." Two words).

Choosing a specific scripture (sometimes out of context and always without considering the entire Word) to justify a position is not theologically sound. Fortunately, ALL of the Word is the truth. It does NOT contracdict itself. ALL of It is helpful to us. Try as we might, we are incapable of fully understanding God's Word, because we (Mr. Hodgson and myself included) do not know God's entire Will.

Like Mr. Hogdson, I too can pontificate. While brief, mine is no less valid (and I believe more so) than his arduous effort. And, I have no agenda.

1. The fact that the US is involved militarily in Iraq is not scripturally unsound. The fact that lives are being lost there is unfortunate, but not scripturally unsound.

2. Jesus said follow me. Patience in many situations is a virtue. Jesus took action when facing certain injustices. He was NOT patient in these instances. He became angry and overturned tables and cursed fig trees.

3. Jesus instructed us to render unto Caesar worldly things and unto God heavenly things. State-sponsored war is a wordly thing. Paul instructs us to obey government authorities, unless so doing contracdicts the Word.

4. The Word does not prohibit killing enemy terrorists as part of a state-sponsored military action and even unintentionally (and with remorse) killing innocent citizens. Such killing is NOT biblical "murder." The Greek word "love" used in the NT and the fact that Jesus admonished us to love our brothers have nothing to do with killing (not murdering) in Iraq as part of an army. Loving our enemies does not preclude a soldier from killing them in military action sponsored by the government authorities. So doing does not mean that we don't "love" them in the sense that Jesus used the word.

5. The Word DOES require us to assist, outside of military engagement, an unarmed dieing enemy terrorist on the road to Samaria. That is NT "love." That is not the same as killing him when he actively is trying to kill us.

6. To suggest that 1 through 5 above are not true in order to further a personal agenda may be to distort the Word's intent. Since the Word was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to deny or distort its meaning may be to deny the Holy Spirit. Could any such purposeful distortion be blasphamy--the only unforgiveable sin? I pray that Mr. Hodgson is well-meaning and merely misguided. I also pray that he is unfamiliar with the intent of the scriptures addressing 1-5 above.

My apologies for so many words--but Hodgson's 2-part rambling required debunking.

Paul R. White

First Presbyterian Church of Bakerstown, PA

The debate grows out of Hodgson's two-part exercise in doing Christian theology in an age of terror.  Part I offers "A Theological Critique of the War on Terror."  And Part II explores "Theological Virtues in an Age of Terror: Truth, Courage, Justice, Love, Hope."

Hodgson writes:

I agree that danger is always present in arguing from scripture. The problem is that we cannot cite scripture as a whole. All we can do is to interpret specific passages in light of intuitions about the meaning of the whole. My intuition is that the Word of God brings a fundamental judgment to bear upon human vanity, illusion, aggression, and self-justification. I do not know how it is possible to twist the Gospel into a justification of killing and hatred, but many Christians manage to do so.

I am not an absolute pacifist, and my argument is not that war is never necessary. But when it is necessary, it is a necessary evil, fraught with unintended consequences. My view is that the war in Iraq was not a necessary war and that the struggle against terrorism has not been advanced by it. But now that the war has happened, our obligation is to work for the best possible outcome for the Iraqi people.

Peter Hodgson

Do you have comments to share?
Just send a note!