Leadership has ‘led PCUSA over brink of irrelevancy’ Volume 35, Number 1 Posted February 8, 2002 Col. Charlie King wrote this letter to President Bush in rebuttal to a letter to the president by Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick. King is a member of First Presbyterian Church of Fayetteville, N.C. He is also an active duty Army officer, with 25 years of service, most of which has been in command or staff positions in Special Forces. His current assignment is as commander, 1st Special Warfare Training Group, Fort Bragg, N.C. He is responsible for training and qualifying all Army Special Operations soldiers. Dear Mr. President: I am neither minister nor elder. I am a layman, and an Army officer. I am also at a loss over the pastoral letter of the 13th of December, sent to you by Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk of my denomination. The letter neither speaks the truth nor takes a stand. It is written by a leadership increasingly divorced from the laymen they are ordained to lead. This is the same leadership which has led the PCUSA over the brink of irrelevancy. Jeremiah wrote about them, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” (Jer 23:1). Eleven years ago, I deployed to a war in Saudi Arabia, and I was confident of the support of my congregation, my elders and my minister. The national leadership, however, equivocated and wrung their hands, but I had already come to expect nothing less. The grudging support you received in this pastoral letter is no less surprising. What is different, however, is that the situation today is much clearer than was the one of 11 years ago. The equivocation of those who propose to speak on behalf of Presbyterians cannot be borne in silence. Kirkpatrick begins by telling you our theological tradition supports “limited use of force.” Even as a layman, I know that this is simply not true. The tradition of just war, to which I presume he is referring, supports the purposeful and proportional use of force. Our tradition says that not only may the state use force, but that it has an obligation to use force, albeit as a last resort, to ensure the security and livelihoods of its citizens. Bearing arms in pursuit of justice is not, as our leadership would have it, something to be barely tolerated by those with an appropriately evolved sense of justice, while carried out by those whose morals and ethics are suspect. Rather it is an honorable calling fulfilled by many conscientious Christians. He goes on to say in his first point to you that lasting peace and security can only be found “in negotiation, and in the assurance of justice for all parties.” Now, I had thought that the only lasting peace is on the other side. This is a fallen world and there will be no lasting peace until we are all judged. In any event, as a practical matter, how does he think negotiations are realized? There is a relationship between diplomatic negotiations and military force that is recognized in the Christian worldview, beginning with the return of Jacob to his brother Esau. Through conflict, which can be violent or non-violent, we impose our will on others. It is an honorable thing to do if the purpose is justified. The negotiations he speaks of seal that imposition. Just how was the United Nations (which Kirkpatrick cites as our “best hope”) brought into existence, if not in the wake of World War II and in light of our undisputed strength? In his second point, Kirkpatrick obliquely accuses you of disregard for civilian casualties and environmental damage, suggesting, not so subtly, that this is sufficient cause to condemn military action. He ignores another aspect of the just war tradition, which is that all reasonable steps are to be taken to avoid death and destruction of non-combatants and their property, while reserving the same for combatants. This tradition recognizes the fallibility of all human endeavor and does not insist that there be no non-combatant casualties, merely that they not be deliberate and that all reasonable steps be taken to avoid them. Indeed, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, (a distinction not made by terrorists incidentally), is a uniquely Christian idea, for which our traditions can take some credit. The calculus that you must make when deciding what those reasonable steps are is one that is difficult to make, and you deserve our prayers and support in this, not our glib self-righteous preaching. Thirdly, our stated clerk cautions you from taking action that would lead to a “cycle of violence that none of us desire.” As a professional soldier and a Christian, I am painfully aware that mankind exists amidst a cycle of violence, and has done so since our first parents were expelled from Eden. Indeed the purpose of the just use of force by legitimate authorities is to protect our society from the violence that reigns on this earth precisely because it is fallen. The cliché about the “cycle of violence” travels well because it suggests such an attractive alternative – that of permanent peace. Such an alternative is neither possible nor promised on this earth, and its vision is but another Tower of Babel, promulgated by those who would falsely preach the perfectibility of man through his own efforts. In his fourth point, he criticizes our military for conducting food drops, as some of those drops may land in areas infested by landmines. Furthermore, he points out to you that unless the international aid organizations can begin operating in Afghanistan soon, there will be tremendous suffering. He does not see the relationship between a swift and powerful prosecution of the war and the restoration of humanitarian aid. Indeed, one of the ironies of the contemporary squeamishness about the legitimate use of violence is that it can actually prolong the suffering. For instance, in hindsight, it is arguable that the UN’s attempt to keep the peace in Bosnia by being nice only prolonged that region’s suffering. Closer to home, Sherman’s campaign through Georgia in the winter of 1864, while the stuff that fuels revisionist Confederate history, arguably brought the war and its suffering closer to an end. And lastly, you are implored by my denominational leadership to sign up for their particular political agenda. Kirkpatrick just can’t help throwing in the darling causes of the day – justice for the Palestinians, cessation of sanctions against Iraq and support for human rights, economic development and religious tolerance in the Middle East. Putting aside the hypocrisy inherent in the selective application of principles here, the capper comes when he says that ameliorating these “tensions” will reduce the threat of terrorist action. I have no idea how you can be expected to take my denomination seriously when we can’t even keep straight the difference between our theology and our politics. In closing, let me say that I find nothing inconsistent with praying for the worldly destruction of our enemies and the salvation of their souls. I also pray for a great reformation and reclamation of the traditions that we have inherited, despite our own unworthiness and moral poverty. One of those traditions is that of just war, while another is that of support for our governing authorities. Increasingly, I struggle with fulfillment of the latter tradition with regard to my own Presbyterian leadership.

Theology that Matters index Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links