UM Bishops Need to Offer Solutions, Not Complaints
I just received in my inbox a "statement of conscience" signed by several United Methodist bishops that was recently published in Zion's Herald. The bishops protest continued U.S. involvement in Iraq by repenting for not doing enough to stop the war in the first place:
I'm no fan of the Iraq War. I think that the administration manipulated evidence to make a case for war, while dismissing legitimate questions and concerns from church leaders, foreign policy experts, and retired military officers. I also feel that the effects of the war on Iraqi civilians need to be taken more seriously.
But I don't understand this move by the bishops. If they want to confess not doing enough to stop the war, great; but why do it publicly? and why now? Publishing this "statement of conscience" in Zion's Herald strikes me as self-righteous and divisive: Many United Methodists who have been against the war all along will cheer the bishops' statement; those who have supported the war will only get upset at what their episcopal leaders appear to be doing on behalf of the entire denomination.
(I should add that this "statement of conscience" is not an official statement of the Council of Bishops or of The United Methodist Church, though one might get that impression.)
If the bishops really want to raise concerns about the war, they also need to offer solutions. Plenty of people are critical of the war; too few people are putting forth ideas about what to do now. The UM bishops who signed this statement need to meet with retired high-ranking military officials and with experts who really understand the Middle East and American foreign policy. They need to develop a viable strategy for ending the Iraq war and occupation, and they need to present the plan to the administration before going public with it. (The administration probably won't be receptive, but the President is a United Methodist, so it's worth a try.)
Complaining has its place, but after three years complaints just aren't productive anymore. We need fresh ideas and solutions.
We confess our preoccupation with institutional enhancement and limited agendas while American men and women are sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, while thousands of Iraqi people needlessly suffer and die, while poverty increases and preventable diseases go untreated. . . .
I'm no fan of the Iraq War. I think that the administration manipulated evidence to make a case for war, while dismissing legitimate questions and concerns from church leaders, foreign policy experts, and retired military officers. I also feel that the effects of the war on Iraqi civilians need to be taken more seriously.
But I don't understand this move by the bishops. If they want to confess not doing enough to stop the war, great; but why do it publicly? and why now? Publishing this "statement of conscience" in Zion's Herald strikes me as self-righteous and divisive: Many United Methodists who have been against the war all along will cheer the bishops' statement; those who have supported the war will only get upset at what their episcopal leaders appear to be doing on behalf of the entire denomination.
(I should add that this "statement of conscience" is not an official statement of the Council of Bishops or of The United Methodist Church, though one might get that impression.)
If the bishops really want to raise concerns about the war, they also need to offer solutions. Plenty of people are critical of the war; too few people are putting forth ideas about what to do now. The UM bishops who signed this statement need to meet with retired high-ranking military officials and with experts who really understand the Middle East and American foreign policy. They need to develop a viable strategy for ending the Iraq war and occupation, and they need to present the plan to the administration before going public with it. (The administration probably won't be receptive, but the President is a United Methodist, so it's worth a try.)
Complaining has its place, but after three years complaints just aren't productive anymore. We need fresh ideas and solutions.
posted by Tinley | 3:23 AM
1 Comments:
Joel has a good point. Kissinger's 'decent interval' cost 20,000 people their lives. And for what good? We lost anyway -- all so that Nixon wouldn't have to say that he was the first president to lose a war.
Post a Comment
<< Home