Disrupting The Consensus

As I write, there is a momentum toward war in the land. It hovers over us like a cloud, full of fear and imminent tragedy. The war fever originates from the White House, remains fundamentally unchallenged by the Congress, and is fueled each day by the media.

From the beginning of the crisis in the Gulf, the government and the media claimed a virtual consensus of public support for U.S. actions. It soon became clear that the alleged national consensus was being used to lead us to war.

Indeed, during the first weeks of the crisis, articles appeared in the press about the silence of the churches and the peace movement and even reported statements of support for the actions of the Bush administration by certain leaders normally critical of U.S. foreign policy. Meetings of church representatives called to discuss and formulate responses to the Gulf crisis were ending in division and confusion, while the U.S. continued its massive military buildup without any real moral or political challenge.

Realpolitik, constituency nervousness, and an admittedly complicated political situation combined to induce a paralysis from the very people and places the nation has grown to depend upon to speak and act with clarity and courage in such a time of crisis. In particular the church had seemingly lost its voice, after having found it in recent years by speaking out on the nuclear arms race, U.S.-backed violence in Central America, and support for sanctions against South Africa. The few voices of dissent raised at the outset of the Gulf conflict were covered over by the media portrayal of national consensus.

When I returned home from a speaking tour of Australia in early September, it appeared to me that the most important first step was to disrupt that consensus. I spoke with a number of friends around the country about the need for action.

In early September we sent copies of the Sojourners editorial "What Price Oil?" (see October 1990 issue) to a number of church leaders and organizations with a letter inviting a strong collective response to the growing threat of war. That invitation and subsequent personal conversations led to an October 11 press conference that we sponsored here in Washington, where several church leaders spoke out clearly and forthrightly against the option of U.S. military action to resolve the dangerous and volatile crisis.

Ed Browning, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States (of which President Bush is a member), led off by saying, "I beg that we not fall into the trap of war as a means of solving the problem. I call upon the United States government to honor the U.N. process, believing that the U.N. and the Arab states themselves, working in concert, offer the best hope for a bloodless solution to the conflict. I oppose any unilateral military action by the United States or any long-term U.S. military presence in the Gulf region."

Bishop Tom Gumbleton, of the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit and the president of Pax Christi USA, said, "We cannot condone actions by our government that we judge to be in opposition to church teaching on social justice and peace....To protect our oil interests and our lifestyle by threatening innocent lives with a bloodbath cannot be justified." United Methodist Bishop Dale White read a statement by denominational officials from many churches and religious orders calling for a peaceful settlement to the Gulf conflict. With insight and expertise on the Middle East, Bishop White demonstrated why an American military attack on Arab soil could have disastrous consequences, both short and long term.

Rev. Joan Campbell spoke for the World Council of Churches, calling for "negotiations that will defuse the crisis and lead to ... the withdrawal of all foreign forces." Dr. Patricia Rumer, the executive director of Church Women United, made a compelling statement about the impact of war on women and children and urged the nation to heed the voices of the forgotten and neglected victims of military solutions. Dr. James Forbes, senior pastor of New York's Riverside Church, demonstrated his characteristic eloquence in challenging the military rush to war: "They are like snow plowers who rejoice at a forecast for snow.

I concluded by saying, "In theological terms the oil that is at the center of this crisis and has emerged as the symbol for what President Bush calls 'our way of life' has become a modern idol for the nation. And now the idol of oil demands human sacrifice--the lives of young soldiers and countless civilians....If our government goes to war in the Middle East, it should not look to the churches to legitimate its violence."

All of us strongly condemned the brutal aggression of Saddam Hussein and called for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, but at the same time we urged a reliance on the international economic embargo, diplomatic pressure, political initiatives, and multilateral action as alternatives to U.S. military escalation. Everyone spoke with strength and conviction. To our surprise the press became deeply engaged in a discussion on the ethics and morality of war.

HEADING BACK TO THE MAGAZINE office from Capitol Hill on the subway, I described to Joe Nangle and Joyce Hollyday how peaceful I felt. Some of us from the churches had finally spoken out clearly, and I was content no matter what the result. We had done the right thing. We would leave the harvest to God.

The next day our news conference got a front-page story in The New York Times plus articles in The Washington Post and other newspapers around the country. Follow-up coverage and interviews on several television stations. National Public Radio, CNN's Larry King Live, The Times (of London) newspaper, and the British Broadcasting Corporation carried the message of the church leaders even further.

Other dissenting voices began to make their impact. By October, the media were reporting that public support for war in the Middle East was beginning to erode.

Especially powerful was another press conference called on Capitol Hill the day before ours by several family members of American servicemen and women sent to the Gulf. They appealed directly to the president, saying, "The Persian Gulf crisis is not just a constitutional, a military, or an economic crisis. It is a family crisis. All across the country families are facing the possible death of a loved one in a military offensive they do not support." Demonstrations have now begun across the country, and more Americans are raising questions about our policies and plans in the Gulf.

The consensus has been disrupted. The movement toward war has been challenged. Alternative courses of action are being raised up. The early uncertain sounds made by the churches have taken on a more prophetic note. At such a time as this, we are thankful for those who have shown the courage to speak. May their number increase and, in time, perhaps prevent a horrible catastrophe.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.