I think it’s more important to put Christ back into our war planning than into our Christmas cards.

--Rev. Bob Edgar, former Democratic congressman, General Secretary, National Council of Churches

I've been thinking that statement over, and for the life of me, I'm just not sure what Reverend Edgar means. Does he think the flap over Christmas cards is less important than the war? Or does he want to change the focus of the war from a secular-ish Western war against Islamic terrorism into a sort of Christian Holy War? Certainly, he would not be alone, because plenty of people think the war should be not freedom versus its enemies (or even the West versus Islamofascism), but Christianity versus Islam. I think the latter would be a strategic disaster, but I just don't know whether that's what he means.

But wait a second! I just found a post at a Methodist blog which emphatically states that Reverend Edgar is an outspoken anti-war activist, and that he should resign his leadership position with the National Council of Churches. (Edgar's antiwar views are confirmed at the NCC website.)

Which means that he is probably not advocating a Christian Holy War against Islam. Most likely, by putting Christ "back into our war planning" he means to say that Jesus Christ is against war, or that at least he's against the War in Iraq. Does that mean Jesus wouild have supported leaving Saddam Hussein in power as a way of practicing "turn the other cheek"?

How can Rev. Edgar be so sure what's in the mind of Jesus Christ? Furthermore, what does he mean by "put back"?

Did Jesus used to be involved with United States war planning?

Or does he mean that Christian doctrine should be taken into account when the United States goes to war?

I'm not all that great of a war blogger, so I can't say for sure. I do know that this country has seen plenty of religious soldiers fighting in plenty of wars. Does Rev. Edgar want us to return to this past? Or is he implying that Christianity is purely a pacifist doctrine? If he is, he ought to read this look at American Christian pacifism, for he might be very surprised:

The true roots of pacifist theology lie in individual salvation - the objection to war is not so much that war is evil but that it is evil to kill anyone who doesn't deserve it. People should refrain from killing other people to save their own souls, not to save others or to make society better. True religious pacifists deem any killing or use of force by themselves as a mortal threat to their own souls because they might be mistaken about the moral consequences of such acts. Use of force is wrong in its own right as well as being the start of a slippery slope which might lead to killing.

So religious pacifists won't use any force at all, let alone kill, to save their own souls. The early history of the Brethren in America included one ghastly Indian massacre in which most of a German village in Pennsylvannia was hacked down while lined up and praying, en mass, "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) over and over. The survivors high-tailed it east to the protection of the "English" militia.

With such people in charge of mainstream churches, I'd have little interest in joining one. The fire-and-brimstone alternatives have even less appeal to someone like me.

I mean, it's bad enough to be forcing people into a phony choice (socialism versus fundamentalism) in politics.

Do they have to do the same thing with religion?