{"id":929,"date":"2009-12-10T19:01:38","date_gmt":"2009-12-10T19:01:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize--the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html"},"modified":"2009-12-10T19:01:38","modified_gmt":"2009-12-10T19:01:38","slug":"the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html","title":{"rendered":"The War President’s Peace Prize– The Influence of the Niebuhr’s"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"obam.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

I was giving lectures at Lincoln Christian College in Illinois. I knew of its associations with Lincoln. But what I did not know until I was there is that there was a connection with the Niebuhrs as pastors. Perhaps you know of them– Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr (whom I heard lecture when I was at Harvard). The former is of concern in this post for his two most famous books Moral Man and Immoral Society<\/i>  and the equally important The Nature and Destiny of Man.  <\/p>\n

<\/i>These books are important today, because President Obama has said that particularly the former has been influential in forming his views on war and peace, and how and whether to combat evil with force, indeed so influential that they seem to have outweighed the influence of Martin Luther King’s pacificism, even though the President cites King as the person who has most influence his views on violence.  <\/p>\n

When you learn that both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have praised President Obama’s speech in Norway this week,  Gingrich even calling it historic, you know something is up, and below, you will find the text of the President’s speech.  <\/p>\n

There are several things to be said about the speech, which I will do after you read it (below).  But before that let me say that President Obama knows and recognizes that he has not yet earned this prize.  He says his accomplishments are slight, and many others merited far more than he does. He has accepted it as something he would like to live into, and the prize money of course he is giving entirely to charity.  So there should be no more carping about his being awarded the prize— that after all was not his call nor did he solicit such an honor. <\/p>\n

 What we instead should be focusing on is the substance of the speech itself, which is indeed very substantial and gives us a clue about our President’s views on war and peace, and the rationale for the former.  It shows that he was wrestling with the paradox of being the Commander in chief who has his troops in two wars, indeed has just sent more troops into Afghanistan, and yet is accepting this award. Here is the speech itself.       <\/p>\n

——————-<\/p>\n

THE PRESIDENT:  Your Majesties, Your
\nRoyal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,
\ncitizens of America, and citizens of the world:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and
\ngreat humility.  It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations —
\nthat for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners
\nof fate.  Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of
\njustice. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And yet I would be remiss if I did not
\nacknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has
\ngenerated.  (Laughter.)  In part, this is because I am at the
\nbeginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage.  Compared to
\nsome of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and
\nKing; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight.  And then
\nthere are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in
\nthe pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve
\nsuffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion
\ninspire even the most hardened cynics.  I cannot argue with those who find
\nthese men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help —
\nto be far more deserving of this honor than I.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But perhaps the most profound issue
\nsurrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief
\nof the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.  One of these wars
\nis winding down.  The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one
\nin which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort
\nto defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for
\nthe deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant
\nland.  Some will kill, and some will be killed.  And so I come here
\nwith an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult
\nquestions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to
\nreplace one with the other. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Now these questions are not new.  War,
\nin one form or another, appeared with the first man.  At the dawn of
\nhistory, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or
\ndisease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and
\nsettled their differences.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And over time, as codes of law sought to
\ncontrol violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen
\nseek to regulate the destructive power of war.  The concept of a
\n“just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when
\ncertain conditions were met:  if it is waged as a last resort or in
\nself-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible,
\ncivilians are spared from violence.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, we know that for most of history,
\nthis concept of “just war” was rarely observed.  The capacity of
\nhuman beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as
\ndid our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a
\ndifferent God.  Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations —
\ntotal wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became
\nblurred.  In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this
\ncontinent.  And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the
\ndefeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which
\nthe total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who
\nperished.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

In the wake of such destruction, and with the
\nadvent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that
\nthe world needed institutions to prevent another world war.  And so, a
\nquarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations
\n— an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize — America led the
\nworld in constructing an architecture to keep the peace:  a Marshall Plan
\nand a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to
\nprotect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. 
\nYes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed.  But there
\nhas been no Third World War.  The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds
\ndismantling a wall.  Commerce has stitched much of the world
\ntogether.  Billions have been lifted from poverty.  The ideals of
\nliberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly
\nadvanced.  We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations
\npast, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And yet, a decade into a new century, this
\nold architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats.  The world
\nmay no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers,
\nbut proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe.  Terrorism has
\nlong been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized
\nrage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, wars between nations have
\nincreasingly given way to wars within nations.  The resurgence of ethnic
\nor sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and
\nfailed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in
\nunending chaos.  In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than
\nsoldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil
\nsocieties torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I do not bring with me today a definitive
\nsolution to the problems of war.  What I do know is that meeting these
\nchallenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those
\nmen and women who acted so boldly decades ago.  And it will require us to
\nthink in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just
\npeace.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

We must begin by acknowledging the hard
\ntruth:  We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. 
\nThere will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will
\nfind the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I make this statement mindful of what Martin
\nLuther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago:  “Violence
\nnever brings permanent peace.  It solves no social problem:  it
\nmerely creates new and more complicated ones.”  As someone who stands
\nhere as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to
\nthe moral force of non-violence.  I know there’s nothing weak — nothing
\npassive — nothing na\u00efve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But as a head of state sworn to protect and
\ndefend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.  I face the
\nworld as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American
\npeople.  For make no mistake:  Evil does exist in the world.  A
\nnon-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.  Negotiations
\ncannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that
\nforce may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a
\nrecognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I raise this point, I begin with this point
\nbecause in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today,
\nno matter what the cause.  And at times, this is joined by a reflexive
\nsuspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But the world must remember that it was not
\nsimply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that
\nbrought stability to a post-World War II world.  Whatever mistakes we have
\nmade, the plain fact is this:  The United States of America has helped
\nunderwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our
\ncitizens and the strength of our arms.  The service and sacrifice of our
\nmen and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to
\nKorea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.  We
\nhave borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will.  We have
\ndone so out of enlightened self-interest — because <\/span>we seek a better future for our children and
\ngrandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’
\nchildren and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role
\nto play in preserving the peace.  And yet this truth must coexist with
\nanother — <\/span>that no matter how
\njustified, war promises human tragedy.  The soldier’s courage and
\nsacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to
\ncomrades in arms.  But war itself is never glorious, and we must never
\ntrumpet it as such. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

So part of our challenge is reconciling these
\ntwo seemingly inreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war
\nat some level is an expression of human folly.  Concretely, we must<\/span> direct our effort to the task that
\nPresident Kennedy <\/span>called for
\nlong ago.  “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical,
\nmore attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on
\na gradual evolution in human institutions.”  A gradual evolution of
\nhuman institutions.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What might this evolution look like? 
\nWhat might these practical steps be?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

To begin with, I believe that all nations —
\nstrong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of
\nforce.  I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act
\nunilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.  Nevertheless, I am
\nconvinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens
\nthose who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The world rallied around America after the
\n9\/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of
\nthe horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of
\nself-defense.  Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam
\nHussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all
\nabout the cost of aggression. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, America — in fact, no nation —
\ncan insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them
\nourselves.  For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut
\nthe legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And this becomes particularly important when
\nthe purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of
\none nation against an aggressor.  More and more, we all confront difficult
\nquestions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own
\ngovernment, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire
\nregion. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I believe that force can be justified on
\nhumanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have
\nbeen scarred by war.  Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to
\nmore costly intervention later.  That’s why all responsible nations must
\nembrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the
\npeace.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

America’s commitment to global security will
\nnever waver.  But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and
\nmissions more complex, America cannot act alone.  America alone cannot
\nsecure the peace.  This is true in Afghanistan.  This is true in
\nfailed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and
\nhuman suffering.  And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable
\nregions for years to come. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries,
\nand other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and
\ncourage they’ve shown in Afghanistan.  But in many countries, there is a
\ndisconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the
\nbroader public.  I understand why war is not popular, but I also know
\nthis:  The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve
\nit.  Peace requires responsibility.  Peace entails sacrifice. 
\nThat’s why NATO continues to be indispensable.  That’s why we must
\nstrengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few
\ncountries.  That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping
\nand training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali
\n— we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers — but as wagers of peace.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Let me make one final point about the use of
\nforce.  Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must
\nalso think clearly about how we fight it.  The Nobel Committee recognized
\nthis truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder
\nof the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and
\nstrategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct.  And
\neven as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the
\nUnited States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of
\nwar.  That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.  That
\nis a source of our strength.  That is why I prohibited torture.  That
\nis why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.  And that is why I
\nhave reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. 
\nWe lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to
\ndefend.  (Applause.)  And we honor — we honor those ideals by
\nupholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I have spoken at some length to the question that
\nmust weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war.  But let
\nme now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways
\nthat we can build a just and lasting peace.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

First, in dealing with those nations that
\nbreak rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence
\nthat are tough enough to actually change behavior — for if we want a lasting
\npeace, then the words of the international community must mean something. 
\nThose regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.  Sanctions
\nmust exact a real price.  Intransigence must be met with increased
\npressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as
\none. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

One urgent example is the effort to
\nprevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. 
\nIn the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose
\nbargain is clear:  All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those
\nwithout nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will
\nwork towards disarmament.  I am committed to upholding this treaty. 
\nIt is a centerpiece of my foreign policy.  And I’m working with President
\nMedvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.<\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to
\ninsist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. 
\nThose who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those
\nlaws are flouted.  Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the
\ndanger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia.  Those who seek
\npeace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The same principle applies to those who
\nviolate international laws by brutalizing their own people.  When there is
\ngenocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma — there must
\nbe consequences.  Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be
\ndiplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail.  And
\nthe closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice
\nbetween armed intervention and complicity in oppression.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

This brings me to a second point — the
\nnature of the peace that we seek.  For peace is not merely the absence of
\nvisible conflict.  Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and
\ndignity of every individual can truly be lasting.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It was this insight that drove drafters of
\nthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War.  In
\nthe wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected,
\npeace is a hollow promise. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And yet too often, these words are
\nignored.  For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is
\nexcused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles,
\nforeign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development.  And within
\nAmerica, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as
\nrealists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the
\nnarrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around
\nthe world.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I reject these choices.  I believe that
\npeace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or
\nworship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without
\nfear.  Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and
\nreligious identity can lead to violence.  We also know that the opposite
\nis true.  Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. 
\nAmerica has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are
\ngovernments that protect the rights of their citizens.  No matter how
\ncallously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served
\nby the denial of human aspirations.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

So even as we respect the unique culture and
\ntraditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those
\naspirations that are universal.  We will bear witness to the quiet dignity
\nof reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast
\ntheir ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have
\nmarched silently through the streets of Iran.  It is telling that the
\nleaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than
\nthe power of any other nation.  And it is the responsibility of all free
\npeople and free nations to make clear that these movements — these movements
\nof hope and history — they have us on their side.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Let me also say this:  The promotion of
\nhuman rights cannot be about exhortation alone.  At times, it must be
\ncoupled with painstaking diplomacy.  I know that engagement with
\nrepressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation.  But I also
\nknow that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can
\ncarry forward only a crippling status quo.  No repressive regime can move
\ndown a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s
\nhorrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely
\nhelped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from
\npoverty and connected to open societies.  Pope John Paul’s engagement with
\nPoland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders
\nlike Lech Walesa.  Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of
\nperestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered
\ndissidents throughout Eastern Europe.  There’s no simple formula
\nhere.  But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement,
\npressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over
\ntime.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Third, a just peace includes not only civil
\nand political rights — it must encompass economic security and
\nopportunity.  For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom
\nfrom want.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is undoubtedly true that development
\nrarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not
\nexist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or
\nthe medicine and shelter they need to survive.  It does not exist where
\nchildren can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a
\nfamily.  The absence of hope can rot a society from within. <\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And that’s why helping farmers feed their own
\npeople — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not
\nmere charity.  It’s also why the world must come together to confront
\nclimate change.  There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing,
\nwe will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which
\nwill fuel more conflict for decades.  For this reason, it is not merely
\nscientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action
\n— it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common
\nsecurity hangs in the balance. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Agreements among nations.  Strong
\ninstitutions.  Support for human rights.  Investments in
\ndevelopment.  All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the
\nevolution that President Kennedy spoke about.  And yet, I do not believe
\nthat we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete
\nthis work without something more — and that’s the continued expansion of our
\nmoral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all
\nshare. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

As the world grows smaller, you might think
\nit would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to
\nunderstand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope
\nfor the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and
\nfulfillment for ourselves and our families.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of
\nglobalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no
\nsurprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular
\nidentities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their
\nreligion.  In some places, this fear has led to conflict.  At times,
\nit even feels like we’re moving backwards.  We see it in the Middle East,
\nas the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.  We see it in
\nnations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And most dangerously, we see it in
\nthe way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who
\nhave distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my
\ncountry from Afghanistan.  These extremists are not the first to kill in
\nthe name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded.  But
\nthey remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war.  For if you truly
\nbelieve that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for
\nrestraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red
\nCross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith.  Such a warped view of
\nreligion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s
\nincompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at
\nthe heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have
\nthem do unto us.<\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Adhering to this law of love has always been
\nthe core struggle of human nature.  For we are fallible.  We make
\nmistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes
\nevil.  Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to
\nright the wrongs before us.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But we do not have to think that human nature
\nis perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be
\nperfected.  We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach
\nfor those ideals that will make it a better place.  The non-violence
\npracticed by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible
\nin every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their fundamental
\nfaith in human progress — that must always be the North Star that guides us on
\nour journey.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it
\nas silly or na\u00efve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues
\nof war and peace — then we lose what’s best about humanity.  We lose our
\nsense of possibility.  We lose our moral compass.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Like generations have before us, we must
\nreject that future.  As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago,
\n“I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of
\nhistory.  I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present
\ncondition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal
\n‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Let us reach for the world that ought to be
\n— that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. 
\n(Applause.)<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the
\nworld as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the
\npeace.  Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the
\nbrutality of her government, but has the courage to march on.  Somewhere
\ntoday, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her
\nchild, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school —
\nbecause she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s
\ndreams.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Let us live by their example.  We can
\nacknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for
\njustice.  We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive
\nfor dignity.  Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and
\nstill strive for peace.  We can do that — for that is the story of human
\nprogress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge,
\nthat must be our work here on Earth.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)<\/span><\/p>\n

———————————-<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Two things stand out about this speech for me.  Firstly, what President Obama is actually talking about is not a ‘just war’ but when a war is justifiable because the alternatives are morally worse.  This is precisely the kind of tough critical moral thinking that is required in the age in which we live.  He acknowledges as much when he distinguishes between what he calls a just war… and the concept of Jihad or Holy war, a war that justifies any kind of behavior in the name of God.   Here is how he puts it—- <\/p>\n

“But
\nthey remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war.  For if you truly
\nbelieve that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for
\nrestraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red
\nCross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith.  Such a warped view of
\nreligion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s
\nincompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at
\nthe heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have
\nthem do unto us.”<\/p>\n

I quite agree with him about this, but the converse is also true. No so-called just war can be considered or actually be a holy war.  As he says earlier in the speech, war should never be glorified, especially when at best it is the lesser of several evils, not the greater of several goods.  What can and should be honored is the sacrifices made in war by soldiers or civilians for the sake of saving others lives.  This should always be honored, without glorifying war.  I am mindful of what Robert E. Lee once said— “it is a good thing that war is so terrible, or else we might love it too much.”  <\/p>\n

Indeed, we should not love it at all, especially if we serve the Prince of Peace, for as President Obama admits, in all recent wars in which counting has been done in any meaningful manner—- more civilians were killed than soldiers.  <\/i>And it is completely without merit to trivialize civilian casualties as ‘collateral damage’.  <\/p>\n

No human being created in God’s image and of sacred worth should ever be reduced to a mere number or called ‘collateral damage’.  These are the kind of reductionistic approaches to other peoples lives that allow warlords to justify all sorts of unjust behavior in the name of some apparently or supposedly good cause.  <\/p>\n

And I quite agree with President Obama that only a warped view of Biblical religion could lead to a belief in a doctrine of holy war as carried out by fallible sinful human beings. Fallen human beings are incapable of carrying out a holy war, incapable of making the necessary moral distinctions so that right is always done in any given situation, or at least so that there are more rescued victims of injustices than newly created victims in the course of a war. <\/p>\n

But I must confess to being doubtful even when we talk about a justifiable struggle that it ever becomes a just war.  For what the President has admitted in this speech is that war is not merely hell, it is one of the ultimate expressions of human sin on earth, one of the greatest expressions of a violation of love of neighbor and even love of enemy imaginable. <\/p>\n

Even if a convincing case could be made for a war of necessity, say WWII, it still involved so much killing of non-combatants, so much taking of innocent life, that as a Christian I have to insist that the most appropriate and necessary response to the conclusion of a war is not a victory parade, but a service of repentance for sin on a grand and grotesque scale.  The sacrifices of the soldiers should be recognized, their safe return should be prayed for and thanked God for, but not without recognizing that we have asked them to go and do something that inevitably involves commiting sin on a grand scale!  And such actions do indeed require repentance.  <\/p>\n

There are no clear cut winners in a war— its just that some lose less than others, some lose less permanently than others.  As one of my favorite poets once said “any man’s death diminishes me, for I am a part of mankind. Therefore do not seek to know for whom the bell, the death knell tolls— it tolls for thee.”<\/p>\n

And as for what Jesus thinks about this matter…. I leave you with a recent bumpersticker that lets us know……<\/p>\n

\"Thumbnail<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

  <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I was giving lectures at Lincoln Christian College in Illinois. I knew of its associations with Lincoln. But what I did not know until I was there is that there was a connection with the Niebuhrs as pastors. Perhaps you know of them– Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr (whom I heard lecture when I was…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-929","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nThe War President's Peace Prize- The Influence of the Niebuhr's - The Bible and Culture<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The War President's Peace Prize- The Influence of the Niebuhr's - The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I was giving lectures at Lincoln Christian College in Illinois. I knew of its associations with Lincoln. But what I did not know until I was there is that there was a connection with the Niebuhrs as pastors. Perhaps you know of them– Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr (whom I heard lecture when I was…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-10T19:01:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/12\/obam-thumb-450x313-10011.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ben Witherington\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The War President's Peace Prize- The Influence of the Niebuhr's - The Bible and Culture","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The War President's Peace Prize- The Influence of the Niebuhr's - The Bible and Culture","og_description":"I was giving lectures at Lincoln Christian College in Illinois. I knew of its associations with Lincoln. But what I did not know until I was there is that there was a connection with the Niebuhrs as pastors. Perhaps you know of them– Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr (whom I heard lecture when I was…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html","og_site_name":"The Bible and Culture","article_published_time":"2009-12-10T19:01:38+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/12\/obam-thumb-450x313-10011.jpg"}],"author":"Ben Witherington","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html","name":"The War President's Peace Prize- The Influence of the Niebuhr's - The Bible and Culture","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/12\/obam-thumb-450x313-10011.jpg","datePublished":"2009-12-10T19:01:38+00:00","dateModified":"2009-12-10T19:01:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/12\/obam-thumb-450x313-10011.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/12\/obam-thumb-450x313-10011.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/12\/the-war-presidents-peace-prize-the-influence-of-the-niebuhrs.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The War President’s Peace Prize– The Influence of the Niebuhr’s"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/","name":"The Bible and Culture","description":"All Things Biblical and Christian","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426","name":"Ben Witherington","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","caption":"Ben Witherington"},"description":"Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies. Witherington has also taught at Ashland Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt University, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell. A popular lecturer, Witherington has presented seminars for churches, colleges and biblical meetings not only in the United States but also in England, Estonia, Russia, Europe, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia. He has also led tours to Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Witherington has written over thirty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Beliefnet website. Along with many interviews on radio networks across the country, Witherington has been seen on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Discovery Channel, A&E, and the PAX Network.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/author\/bwitherington"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/929","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=929"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/929\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}