Presidential Power Vs. God's Power

Readings for Epiphany 6:
2 Kings 5:1-15; Psalm 42; I Corinthians 9:24-27; Mark 1:40-45
February 16, 1003

The Rev. Mary Blessing

St. Jude the Apostle Episcopal Church, Cupertino, CA

Naaman's wife's slave girl, an Israelite caught as prisoner of war, tells Naaman's wife about a prophet of Israel. A prophet so filled with the presence of God, he could surely heal Naaman's disease. (It is significant that a slave girl, the lowest of the low, announces the presence of this Israelite prophet.) Naaman receives permission from the King of Syria, who worships other gods, to go to Israel in search of a prophet who receives his healing power from Yahweh, The God of Israel.

Naaman goes to Israel armed with a letter of reference, oodles of silver, gold and clothing--a gesture of peace--from the King of Syria to the King of Israel. The letter asks that Naaman "be healed of his leprosy" in Israel. At first, the King of Israel "tears his garment", he is shocked; he's in despair. This is tantamount to a challenge of war by the King of Syria. The King of Israel does not have the faith to believe it is possible to heal Naaman. After all, he says, "I am not God. I do not have the power to give life." (2 Kings 5:7) He believes war will break out with Syria because of his failure to cure this Syrian warrior.

But Elisha the Prophet gets word of Naaman's request, and tells the King of Israel to let him meet Naaman that "he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel." (2 Kings 5:8) Elisha has faith in the One God of Israel. Elisha's instructions to Naaman are so simple Naaman at first dismisses Elisha as a quack-how could dipping 7 times in the Jordan River be any better for cleansing his skin than many baths in the rivers of Syria? Again, it is a servant who persuades Naaman to try this simple remedy. A slave girl, a servant and a prophet show Kings and warriors their faith in the power of the God of Israel. Naaman is healed. Naaman, the Syrian warrior, is overcome with joy, worships the One God of Israel, and becomes a convert to the religion of Israel. It is nothing new that Kings, warriors, and presidents of the United States, seek the power of God to bring them strength in affairs of politics.

Recently, our President, George W. Bush, has been complimented and criticized for seeking the strength of God to sustain him through a difficult decision making process regarding war with Iraq. On February 9, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Bush "finds strength in his deep religious faith", but some are worried that his "sense of divine calling" may blur his ability to think objectively about the purpose of war with Iraq. I am pleased our President spends time in prayer. But does he also listen to the advice of human voices cautioning him to slow down and allow diplomatic relations on a global scale to work through peaceful negotiation without war in Iraq? Is he listening to representatives to the United Nations, who are also praying for guidance? Is he listening to the voices that are asking, "Is this a necessary war?"

It is no secret that I am a pacifist. I will always believe there is a peaceful solution to any conflict. And if you are not a pacifist, you may dismiss what I say. That's ok. But there are people far more educated than I on this matter of politics with Iraq, who are not necessarily pacifists, who have concluded that war with Iraq is an unnecessary war. I refer you to an article in Foreign Policy, by Steven Walt, Academic Dean at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. (December, 2002) Steven Walt is faculty chair of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. (He also happens to be the brother of parishioner, Sue Bryson.) With his colleague John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, Steven Walt says there are multiple reasons why war with Saddam Hussein is unnecessary, even if it is a swift war that ends successfully:

1. "Historic record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively"
2. Saddam is not a serial aggressor-in 30 years of rule, he has only started 2 wars against neighbors, Egypt and Israel have each started numerous wars. Saddams first war, against Iran in 1980, was with calculated concern against the threat of the change in Iran's leadership under the extremist Islamic leader, the Ayattolah Khomeini. The second war, against Kuwait in 1990, began with diplomatic efforts, trying to get Kuwait to comply with oil manufacturing quotas. Kuwait refused. Saddam approached the United States prior to attacking Kuwait to see how we would react, the former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam "[We] have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."; and the U.S. State Department told Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." (Foreign Policy article) Whether or not the U.S. intended, it was as if we gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait.
3. Saddam's use of chemical weapons is deplorable, but only against victims who hold no power. Iraq will not use chemical weapons against the U.S. because our ability to retaliate is too great. Similarly, Saddam Hussein has no incentive to give Osama bin Laden chemical or nuclear weapons, because bin Laden is a religious extremist who hates secular Islamics like Hussein. Saddam would not risk having these weapons turned against him by a fanatic, if he had such weapons.

Walt and Mearsheimer conclude that "logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work" against Iraq, even if Iraq obtained nuclear arsenal, because the U.S. and its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq.

The problem is, what if the actions of our President cause us to lose support of the regional allies who would be of service in this containment? Is the God President Bush listens to in his prayer telling him to alienate the U.S. from our allies? Is God "telling" Bush to undermine the work of the United Nations? Is Bush willing to pay any attention to the religious leaders of his very own denomination (the Methodists), as well as his former Episcopal leaders, the Roman Catholic Church, and many other Christian bodies who are saying, stop. Do not start war without the support of the United Nations. We cannot do it alone. Perhaps we should not do it at all.

Another President offered tremendous insight into the dilemma of starting a war that he wished had never happened. On November 19, 1863, in the middle of the U.S. Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln spoke briefly at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery. Lincoln was deeply pained at the loss of over 6,500 American lives in this one battle at Gettysburg. We were killing ourselves, because all efforts to use diplomacy were thwarted. Lincoln never wanted this war, and many believe it was an unnecessary war. Some believe that if we had not turned on ourselves this way, we would have eventually been able to settle the matter of slavery and southern cession through negotiation and legislation.

Lincoln's words at Gettysburg are prophetic in their warning: if the war continued to severe our United States, our very existence as a "nation, under God" was at stake. The great American experiment, of a free nation, whose government was created "of the people, by the people, and for the people" was about to become extinct.

I'd like to remind you of that famous speech now, as we remember our Presidents:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate-we cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow-this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863

Democracy is an ideal government, one which I wish were possible for all nations. But I question whether we will succeed by using brute force to convert nations to democracy. Insistence upon going to war against the will of the United Nations could so damage the good work this body has done for 57 years, keeping our world from experiencing the ravages of another, devastating World War. Undermining this good work in the name of democracy will seem so hypocritical, countries who are now sympathetic to our cause may turn against us. As George W. Bush himself said in his recent State of the Union Address: "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." (January 28, 2003)

Can we have patience for the day when God's miracles will work, perhaps through the faith of a young child, maybe a prisoner or a slave? Maybe an unlikely one will lead Kings and rulers to a change of heart, to a place of faith that gives them the willingness to give their power to the One God of us all.

AMEN

Updated 2/20/03

Top of Page