A number of my friends have been strongly supportive of the war in Iraq from the first mention of its possibility by Mr. Bush. When I ask why, they've answered, Mr. Bush would not have ordered the war if it weren't necessary. When I ask about the minimal evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), they reply, Mr. Bush must know more than the public knows. One of my friends told me, "God intervened in the last election to bring Mr. Bush to the presidency so that he could direct this war against the evil Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush is God's man pursuing God's war."

I am not persuaded. This kind of unquestioning faith in a political leader looks to me like gullibility. Politicians are not known for their rigorous devotion to truth telling. I have no more reason to trust this president when he talks about Saddam Hussein than I did to trust the previous president when he talked about women. Responsible political faith can come only after we have asked very tough questions and gotten answers that are verified by people with minimal vested interest in the issue at hand.

Maybe this war is moral. (See Janine Goffar's article.) But at the time of this writing (April 2, 2003) the Allied forces have been in Iraq for two weeks. So far they have not found WMD stockpiles. The Iraqis have not used WMDs on the invaders. The Iraqi people have not welcomed the Allies as liberators. There have even been news reports of expatriate Iraqis returning home to help fight the Americans. (These same Iraqis had fled Iraq to escape Saddam Hussein's brutality.) Maybe by the time this issue reaches you, Mr. Bush will have been proved right. Maybe the WMDs will have been found or, worse, used. Maybe we will discover that the surprising Iraqi resistance has only been the fruit of the domestic terrorist practices of Mr. Hussein's Baath party goons. Maybe peace will come and a freer, healthier, happier nation will begin rising from the ashes of the war. But to have great confidence in these predicted outcomes just because the president says so seems to me to reach beyond faith to gullibility.

The question of where the line runs between faith and gullibility arises not just in political matters. It arises in our religious and spiritual life as well. Am I acting as a responsible believer or as a naive ingenue when I automatically trust what is asserted by the church and disregard any ideas of scientists, historians, theologians and artists which raise questions about some of our venerable traditions? The question can also be turned around: Am I being merely gullible when I automatically credit the latest research or the assured results of scholarship any time they contradict the wisdom acquired through the decades of Adventist experience or the centuries of Christian reflection?

Some people are threatened by any call to think critically. They fear that any open questioning will collapse the church and destroy the joy of confident trust in God. This anxiety is understandable, but out of touch with reality. The Adventist Church has always been changing. It is a growing organism; nothing can grow without changing. And there are many Adventists living in joyous faith and happy obedience who have asked hard questions and, on occasion, changed their minds.

Blind, unquestioning faith is often indistinguishable from gullibility. Healthy faith that expresses itself in bold, noble action grows out of honest, thoughtful questioning.

God does not call us to the mindless obedience of soldiers, but to the informed and sacrificial (and sometimes heroic) cooperation of friends. God's ultimate goal for his people is not the unthinking carrying out of orders, but full participation in the decision making at the core of the universe. Preparing for that role does require faith. It precludes gullibility.