Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!nlt From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: What does it mean to be a Christian? Message-ID: <5818@duke.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-May-85 21:34:34 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.5818 Posted: Sun May 5 21:34:34 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 08:26:08 EDT Organization: Duke University Lines: 109 Xref: watmath net.religion:6832 net.religion.christian:699 [*] Mark Terribile writes the following in response to my article on Christian groups which oppose war in general and American involvement in the war in Nicaragua in particular: > I don't consider myself apathetic; I do like to think of myself as a > Christian. I am disturbed deeply by this article, and by the attitude of > my church as well. Let us take this as given, then: Mark and I are both Christians, sincerely seeking to apply our faith to a difficult world situation. The discussion which follows, then, will not question anyone's commitment to Christ; we will address, rather, how to interpret and apply our faith. Mark makes these points (if I understand him correctly): 1. It is possible for a government in a nation to so mistreat its citizens that conditions in that nation are worse than they would be in time of war. (Example: modern Vietnam.) 2. The threatened use of weapons (including chemical and nuclear weaponry) can be such an effective deterrent that that threat can keep the peace or make existing war more humane. (Example: Britain vs. Germany, WWII.) 3. Warfare is sometimes necessary to preserve freedom. 4. Warfare to prevent the enslavement of self or others is consistent with, and perhaps even required by, Christianity. 5. The situation in Central America is complex. 6. Since the Sandinistas have broken promises (to the U.S.) in the past, they cannot be trusted in diplomacy. 7. We are not called as Christians to become helpless. Nor are we justified in refusing to help others. I agree easily with #1 and #5. On #2: The threatened use of weapons can indeed be an effective deterrent. The danger, particularly with nuclear weapons, is that sometimes threats become actions. Only a few hundred years of hindsight will tell us whether the attempt to keep the peace using a nuclear deterrent resulted in lasting world peace or the complete destruction of human civilization. On #3 and #4: In a real world, I probably have to grant this. In WWII (isn't it convenient to have a "just war" to refer to!) I probably would have supported the war against Hitler and his allies. I grant the point reluctantly, however, because I see it as a serious compromise of moral convictions. A necessary compromise, perhaps, but still a "compromise" in the negative sense. On #6: Of course we should not accept without question the promises of the Sandinistas. It still seems to me that verification, and thus diplomatic negotiation, is possible. (It can be observed, can it not, whether fair elections are held, whether treatment of Indians improves, etc.? Such observed actions can be taken into account in negotiation; blind trust is not required.) On #7: Of course we are not helpless, and of course we are to help others. (Refusal to engage in violence does not imply helplessness, by the way.) But I would add the caution that not all actions which help someone are morally justifiable; some defensive actions are worse than the actions being defended against. Now, some comments of my own: Let us agree that we want the citizens of Nicaragua to receive better treatment from their government than they are now receiving. Further, I will allow, for the time being, that in some extreme situations, morally questionable means (including warfare) may be used to accomplish important morally "good" ends, provided there is no morally "good" means by which those ends may be accomplished. The question is: Is the situation in Nicaragua one of these "extreme situations"? I think we have to establish at least the following: 1) The "evil" to be overcome is worse than the war which will be waged to overcome it. 2) There is good reason to believe that the war will indeed correct the evil in question. 3) There is no morally preferable means by which to overcome this evil. (This includes 3a: There is no adequate reason to believe the evil will correct itself.) There are probably other points to be considered, but these will get us started. In the Nicaraguan situation, in my judgement: #1 is difficult to assess, since it is partially a judgement of what the Sandinistas will become in the next ten years or so, and since it requires an evaluation of what Nicaragua would be like if there were no civil war. Neither are directly observable. #2 has not been established to my satisfaction. I foresee a parallel with Vietnam: a war escalated by American and Soviet aid which neither we nor the Soviets dare try to win, lest we begin a nuclear war. #3 deserves at least a good chance before the point is conceded. A belief that the evil will correct itself is probably (drum roll, please) wishful thinking; but given that neutral Latin American states have shown a willingness to supervise negotiations, diplomacy deserves another try. Carefully applied economic pressure might also help. We have not, in my judgement, reached the "last resort" in which war is our only remaining option. Thus the statement in my original article: "It disturbs me that our government would...attempt a military solution before all other means of conflict resolution have been tried and shown to be futile." The above, then, is why I as a Christian am unable to support American military action (including funding of the civil war) in Nicaragua, in the present circumstances. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt (Opinions here are my own; they are not necessarily the views of Duke University, Jesse Helms, or anybody else in North Carolina.)