by Rick Nutt
What is the legacy of the Vietnam War for Presbyterians? Did we learn any lessons that help us address present international conflicts and prepare to respond to future conflicts?
August 7 marked 50 years since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the beginning of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Presbyterians found themselves caught up in the debate over the war and experienced the deep turmoil that beset the nation as a whole.
Like most people in the United States, Presbyterians generally supported the nation’s war effort in the beginning. It was widely accepted that the war was the result of North Vietnamese communist aggression; therefore, the nation had an obligation to defend freedom in South Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia. However, it was not long before the division of public opinion showed itself in the churches and resulted in General Assembly statements seeking to balance that division.
The 1966 UPCUSA assembly held that the United States intervened to protect the South Vietnamese from a “merciless and murderous” ideology, but in the process had created, with South Vietnam, a terror of their own with no justice or reform for the people of the South in the offing.
In 1967 the General Assembly approved “A Declaration of Conscience,” which aimed to avoid either a “hawkish” or “doveish” orientation. That outcome was virtually guaranteed, given that Robert McAfee Brown (professor of religion at Stanford and famed opponent of the war) and Edward L. R. Elson (pastor of National Presbyterian Church and well-known supporter of the war) co-chaired the committee that proposed the statement. The statement provided a theological exploration of the issues posed by the war, but ultimately it could say no more than de-escalation of the war involved risk, and it was a risk worth taking.
After the Tet Offensive of January 1968, people increasingly became dissatisfied with the war and General Assemblies reflected that shift. The 1969 UPCUSA assembly adopted “War, Peace and Conscience,” a broad treatment of the war and Christian responsibility. Although it did not directly make use of the categories of just war theory (defensive wars only, war as a last resort, proportional use of force to the intended goal, etc.), the study did affirm the right of conscience for the Christian citizen and acknowledged that a person might “reject, ignore or oppose the authority of the state” under certain conditions. In 1970, the assembly rejected a clear denunciation of the invasion of Cambodia and the war in general in favor of a softer criticism of the war. The next year, the commissioners declared that “the United States, having failed to pursue a just cause by just means of warfare,” should withdraw from Vietnam.
In 1971, the PCUS General Assembly considered a statement titled “The War in Indochina,” which began, “We are now convinced that the continuation of this war cannot be morally justified. The killing must be stopped.” The commissioners rejected its call for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of U.S. troops, instead asserting that the killing must stop and commending the Nixon administration’s efforts to end the war.
The most interesting fact is that neither denomination made very explicit use of just war theory in its deliberations regarding the war. Supporters of the nation’s involvement in Vietnam tended to argue the moral obligation to oppose communism and protect the liberty of a small, developing nation from aggression. Opponents tended to argue that the horror of the methods of the war and the killing of countless thousands of civilians were obviously immoral and had to stop.
In effect, both sides made a kind of visceral argument that drew little, except indirectly, on formal just war theory. There were individual Presbyterians who invoked just war principles, of course: Robert Bilheimer at the National Council of Churches, Charles West at Princeton Theological Seminary, and James Smylie at Union Seminary in Virginia, for example.
The major denominational exception to that rule came in the 1969 PCUS debate over selective, or just war, conscientious objection. Conscientious objectors (COs) were required by law to claim pacifism, or objection to all war, in order to receive exemption from combatant service. Most Presbyterians, if they had a theory of war at all, held that some wars were necessary — World War II, for instance. Just war theorists, if they wanted to claim CO status for Vietnam, had to claim opposition to all war, refuse induction and risk imprisonment, or accept service in a war they opposed.
The 1969 PCUS assembly was powerfully moved when Paul Taylor, a layman and Medal of Honor recipient, rose to speak in favor of selective objection in the midst of a heated debate. He said that his only son had died in Vietnam, although he opposed the war. His choices were: “(1) Be a liar and be a CO; (2) Be a coward and run; (3) Join, and take your chances. … He wanted to serve his country. … Give a man a chance to be an honest patriot and a Christian.” Partly on the strength of his appeal, the assembly voted its approval of just war objection — as did the UPCUSA the same year in “War, Peace and Conscience.”
What is the legacy of the Vietnam War for Presbyterianism? I argue that, because of the divisiveness of the war and the failure to deal with it theologically, one key result has been the politicization
of religion. Presbyterians have consistently committed themselves to social and political causes since the colonial era. However, in the wake of the Vietnam War, Presbyterians (both traditionalist and progressive) developed special interest groups and organized to ensure that the denomination’s assemblies and agencies would endorse their cause. The kinds of divisions that marked the war years perpetuate themselves.
Not all people separate themselves into one camp or another. Indeed, perhaps a majority of people find themselves somewhere in the middle of these debates and identify with neither camp completely. However, the agenda in Presbyterianism has been determined, to a large extent, by these political concerns. The Vietnam War is an important factor in that reality.
Did Presbyterians learn anything from the Vietnam era? Have Presbyterians taken seriously the importance of discussing in any systematic way the theology of the believer’s relationship to the state and to war? Do we provide our young people the tools to determine whether they will embrace pacifism or the just war theory? I see little reason to think so.
It is true that there was some discussion of the Iraq and Afghan wars. However, like the Vietnam War, the basis of the moral opposition to those conflicts seemed to be the widespread killing of civilians and the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure – without any relationship to theology or the just war theory.
Such moral revulsion at the death of innocent people is an important stance and can inform believers, but it’s not a biblically and theologically informed understanding of warfare. Perhaps many have lapsed into a kind of de facto pacifism, opposing any war of the United States because it necessarily involves such use of power that noncombatants will die in unacceptable numbers. However, that still does not provide ethical guidance for Christians in what it means to be a citizen.
When I ask students in my classes what they would do if the U.S. became involved in a war and they received a draft notice, they invariably give one of two answers: (a) I would go because it is my duty to serve when the nation calls, or (b) I would go to Canada if I didn’t believe in the war. When we explore those responses in discussion, they are rarely prepared to consider the morality of war in any philosophical or theological way. It seems that our churches still do not devote much time or energy to the question of war and Christian citizenship. Given the regularity of our nation’s involvement in international conflicts, shouldn’t we ensure that those conversations take place?
RICK NUTT is professor of religion at Muskingum University and author of “An Historical Study of United States Religious Responses to the Vietnam War: A Matter of National Morality.”