2 of 3

Christians debating policy often stall when their biblical principles seem to conflict, as in the case of promoting liberty and securing peace. How do we move forward from these standoffs?

There are lots of biblical principles, and all of us have dispositions toward one or the other. A lot of our theology is cafeteria style. But I think most Christians and most people who are non-Christians would agree that we want to achieve freedom, human flourishing, and peace. So I don't think there's a lot of debate about the goal or the aim. The question is the means to the end. And that is always a complicated question, and it's been with us since the beginning of man. It will be with us until the end. The only way you answer those questions is through practice. You see what works, you learn from history, and these things are judged.

Is it possible to attain worldwide liberty without using violent means?

I'd begin with a couple of caveats. As the President said in his second inaugural address, the objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. It's a difficult task. He said that America's influence is not unlimited. But fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we use it confidently in freedom's cause. Can you get universal liberty without violence? I don't know. I suspect it would be difficult, because there are certain regimes that are deeply committed to oppression and hate liberty. But that doesn't mean that war is the only way to get rid of them. As a policymaker you want to try and exhaust every possibility short of war, and that's everything from pressure to sanctions to supporting opposition groups. You should try and get there without force, I know that. You should try and get there without wars, I know that. But I also know that the history of the 20th century shows that some wars have been for good causes and have helped liberate lots of people and save millions and millions of lives. So war is an awful reality, but sometimes it's a necessary one. If you decide to go to war, it should be as a last resort and is the most morally serious question and decision a President or members of the administration can make.

Is it harder for the nation to support the principle behind a war when there has been no direct attack?

I'm not sure it's that difficult for a nation to grasp the principle behind wars. The nature of our country is that we have pretty robust debates that usually precede wars. That's not always the case. If you're attacked, as we were in World War II by Japan, that pretty much answers itself. But with most military actions, there's been a debate within the country. Are the debates always what we'd hoped they'd be? No. Are they sometimes too simplistic and not morally serious enough? Sure. But that's the nature of debate in a big country. But your general point is true. Some wars are more difficult than others. It's easier to go to war if you've been attacked. It's easier to go to war if your survival is at stake. The most difficult wars are the wars that you believe are necessary to promote peace and human flourishing and liberation. Those are judgment calls, and they involve prudential judgments and prudential decisions. Sometimes people get them right and sometimes people get them wrong. The judgment of history depends on how the wars go.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

October 2007, Vol. 51, No. 10