Christianity
and War
by
Laurence
M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance
DIGG THIS
This talk
was delivered on June 8, 2008, at the Future
of Freedom Foundation’s conference on "Restoring
the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties."
I would like
to speak to you today about Christianity and War. I don’t suppose
there is anything I write and speak about with more fervor than
the biblical, economic, and political fallacies of religious people.
This is especially true regarding the general subject of Christianity
and war. If there is any group of people that should be opposed
to war, torture, militarism, the warfare state, state worship, suppression
of civil liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government
propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and
especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians
who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship
the Prince of Peace. It is indeed strange that Christian people
should be so accepting of war. War is the greatest suppressor of
civil liberties. War is the greatest destroyer of religion, morality,
and decency. War is the greatest creator of fertile ground for genocides
and atrocities. War is the greatest destroyer of families and young
lives. War is the greatest creator of famine, disease, and homelessness.
War is the health of the state.
But Christianity
is in a sad state. In the Church can be found some of the greatest
supporters of the state, its leaders, its military, and its wars.
Christians who are otherwise good, godly, disciples of Christ often
turn into babbling idiots when it comes to the subjects of war,
the military, and killing for the state. There is an unholy desire
on the part of a great many Christians to legitimize killing in
war. There persists the idea among too many Christians that mass
killing in war is acceptable, but the killing of one’s neighbor
violates the sixth commandment’s prohibition against killing. Christians
who wouldn’t think of using the Lord’s name in vain blaspheme God
when they make ridiculous statements like "God is pro-war."
Christians who try never to lie do so with boldness when they claim
they are pro-life, but refuse to extend their pro-life sentiments
to foreigners already out of the womb. Christians who abhor idols
are guilty of idolatry when they say that we should follow the latest
dictates of the state because we should always "obey the powers
that be." Christians who venerate the Bible handle the word
of God deceitfully when they quote Scripture to justify U.S. government
wars. Christians who claim to have the mind of Christ show that
they have lost their mind when they want the full force of government
to protect a stem cell, but have no conscience about U.S. soldiers
killing for the government.
There is an
unseemly alliance that exists between certain sectors of Christianity
and the military. Even Christians who are otherwise sound in the
faith, who are not fooled by Bush’s pseudo-Christianity and faith-based
socialism, who believe that the less government we have the better,
who don’t support the war in Iraq, and who oppose an aggressive
U.S. foreign policy get indignant when you question the institution
of the military. Some churches would have no trouble doubling as
military recruiting centers. There are Christian colleges that even
offer Army ROTC. Most churches fawn over current and former members
of the military, not just on Veterans Day, but on other holidays
like Memorial Day, Armed Forces Day, and the Fourth of July, and
also on special "military appreciation" days that they
designate. Well, like those in foreign countries on the receiving
end of a U.S. military intervention, I don’t appreciate most of
what the military does today, as I will explain later.
Much of the
blame for Christian support for war must be laid at the feet of
the pastors, preachers, and priests who have failed to discern the
truth themselves so they can educate their congregations. It is
tragic that many so-called Christian "leaders" moonlight
as apologists for Bush, the Republican Party, and Bush’s Republican-supported
war. In fact, some of them could double as Republican Party operatives
without changing their sermons. Too many pastors are cheerleaders
for war, bloodshed, death, and destruction; since, after all, Iraqis
are all just a bunch of dumb ragheads, Muslim heathens, or incorrigible
terrorists. We hear more from the pulpit today justifying military
intervention in the Middle East than we do about the need for missionaries
to go there. It is appalling that instead of the next military adventure
of the U.S. government being denounced from every pulpit in the
land, it will be preachers who can be counted on to defend it –
and more so if it is another Republican war. To compound all of
this, many of the church and denominational leaders who don’t follow
the Republican Party line and don’t support the war in Iraq are
strangely silent. Not a word about the immorality of the Iraq War.
Not a word about U.S. imperialism. Not a word about the lies of
the U.S. government. Not a word about the pseudo-Christianity of
the president. Not a word about Christians naïvely supporting
the latest U.S. government pronouncement. Not a word about the CIA
and the military being no place for a Christian young person. Not
even a mild word of warning about the evils of the U.S. government.
I don’t buy the excuse that these leaders are merely preaching and
teaching the Bible and choosing not to dabble in politics. They
are not silent about the evils of rock music, trashy daytime television,
abortion, and pornography, even though the Scripture doesn’t mention
these things, yet they are silent about the evils of war. Perhaps
their churches contain too many current and former members of the
military and they don’t want to rock the boat. Perhaps they are
veterans themselves and feel embarrassed to now criticize their
former employer.
If there is
any group within Christianity that should be the most consistent,
the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most scriptural in
its opposition to war and the warfare state, it is conservative
Christians who look to the Bible as their sole authority. Yet, never
at any time in history have so many of these Christians held such
unholy opinions. The adoration they have toward President Bush is
unholy. The association they have with the Republican Party is unholy.
The admiration they have for the military is unholy. The thirst
they have for war is unholy. The callous attitude they have toward
killing foreigners is unholy. The idolatry they manifest toward
the state is unholy.
If you doubt
the truth of what I am saying about the sad state of Christianity,
then look no further than the support that a theocratic warmonger
like Mike Huckabee received in primary elections earlier this year
held all over the South in the so-called Bible Belt. A church in
my hometown of Pensacola, Florida, even had Huckabee in to preach
on a Sunday evening during primary season. And this time the primaries
down South weren’t the usual case of Christians holding their noses
and voting for what they perceived to be the lesser of two or more
evils, for there was actually a principled conservative Christian
on the ballot – Ron Paul. Much of the Christian antagonism toward
Dr. Paul was on account of his opposition to the war in Iraq and
the larger war on terror. Yet, Christians who chose Huckabee over
Paul chose the greater evil that they hoped to avoid. They themselves
are evil, not because they rejected Ron Paul, but because they love
war, the military, and the warfare state. Huckabee not only supported
the sending of more troops to their death in Iraq, he actually maintained
that we should not withdraw from Iraq because "we are winning."
If we are winning in Iraq when four thousand American soldiers are
dead, thousands of physically and/or mentally disabled soldiers
need a lifetime of care, a trillion dollars has already been spent,
the morale and readiness of the military is at historic lows, the
Guard and Reserve forces are decimated, military hardware and equipment
are worn out, the reputation of America in the eyes of the world
is at rock bottom, and new terrorists are being created faster than
we can kill them, I hate to see what kind of condition we would
be in if we started losing.
And then there
is John McCain, whose foreign policy is based on a Beach Boys song.
Although he has been harshly criticized by many Christians for not
being conservative enough, he is rarely if ever condemned for being
the most radical warmonger of all the presidential candidates. Christians
may disagree with some of his proposals, but they generally consider
him to be a decorated war hero instead of a dangerous mad bomber.
I have already heard Christians talking about holding their noses
in the November election and voting for McCain so we don’t get one
of those evil Democrats in the White House, as if McCain were any
less evil than any Democrat who has ever held or run for the office.
I have made
some shocking statements about religious people, perhaps even some
provocative and incendiary statements. In fact, people that don’t
know anything about me might be inclined to believe that my remarks
thus far have been an attack on Christianity. To the contrary, I
am a Bible-believing Christian, as conservative as they come. Probably
more conservative than many nominal Christians would feel comfortable
with. True, I have spoken or written negative things about every
religion, sect, and Christian denomination – including my own –
but the difference between me and Christian apologists for Bush,
the Republican Party, the military, war, and the state is that I
worship the God of the Bible, not Mars, the god of war. Although
I am not an ordained minister, I have preached in churches and other
venues. I have earned degrees in theology. I have taught children
in Sunday school and adults in Bible college. I will put my conservative
Christian credentials up against anyone. I think I know Christianity
and Christians as well as anyone. So, please understand that it
is not Christianity I am criticizing; it is Christians who, by their
persistent support for war, the warfare state, and the military,
are giving Christianity a bad name.
The result
of Christian support for war reminds me of a story in the Old Testament
about two sons of the patriarch Jacob. In order to avenge the rape
of their sister by some foreigners, the sons of Jacob told their
leader that if his people consented to be circumcised, then both
groups of people could intermarry and the rapist could have their
sister to wife. However, after all the foreigners were circumcised,
when they were sore, two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, came and
slew all the men who were incapacitated and spoiled their city.
When their father Jacob heard about this, he told his sons: "Ye
have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the
land."
Christian warmongers
have made Christians to stink among the non-Christian inhabitants
of the United States. After five years of this senseless war in
Iraq, some of the war’s greatest defenders continue to be Christians.
A poll conducted last year by Christianity Today magazine
asked the question: "Do evangelicals need a time of repentance
for the Iraq war?" A plurality of respondents answered in the
negative, and agreed with the proposition that the war in Iraq was
necessary and justified. Sure, overall Christian support for the
war has declined. Unfortunately, however, it is generally not out
of a principled opposition to war and the warfare state, but only
because the war didn’t turn out as planned, the war is taking too
long, the war has been mismanaged, the war is costing too much,
or the war has resulted in too many dead and wounded American troops.
The morality of going to war in the first place, as well as the
number of dead and wounded Iraqis, is of absolutely no concern to
most Christian Americans. Yet, every dead American solider is a
hero. What a beautiful word is that word "hero"; the more
hideous the death, the more beautiful the name it is necessary to
find for it.
Christians
have bought into a variety of American nationalism that has been
called the myth of American exceptionalism. This is the idea that
the government of the United States is morally and politically superior
to all other governments; that America is a city on a hill – the
redeemer nation, the Messiah nation, Rome on the Potomac, the "hope
of all mankind," as President Bush termed it; that American
values are the only true values; that the United States is the indispensable
nation responsible for the peace and prosperity of the world; that
the motives of the United States are always benevolent and paternalistic;
that to accept American values is to be on the side of God, but
to resist them is to oppose God; that other governments must conform
to the policies of the U.S. government; that other nations are potential
enemies that threaten U.S. safety and security; and that the United
States is morally justified in imposing sanctions or launching military
attacks against any of our enemies that refuse to conform to our
dictates.
This is why
U.S. foreign policy is aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling.
This is why U.S. foreign policy results in discord, strife, hatred,
and terrorism toward the United States. This is why U.S. foreign
policy excuses the mass murder of civilians in the Philippines,
Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Iraq as for
the greater good. This is why the fruits of U.S. foreign policy
are the destabilization and overthrow of governments, the assassination
of leaders, the destruction of industry and infrastructure, the
backing of military coups, death squads, and drug traffickers, imperialism
under the guise of humanitarianism, support for corrupt and tyrannical
governments, brutal sanctions and embargoes, and the United States
bribing and bullying itself around the world as the world’s policeman,
fireman, social worker, and busybody. And because Americans are
preoccupied with reconciling religious faith with national pride,
they care little about the consequences of American foreign policy,
preferring instead to view the world in Manichean terms of good
(us) and evil (them).
People who
are non-Christian or non-religious and oppose the actions of the
warfare state should be concerned about the Christian attitude toward
war. An overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as
Christians. The same can be said of the members of the U.S. military.
The percentage of congressman who identify their religion as Christianity
is higher than that of the general population. If Christians at
all levels of society were to withdraw their support for the war
in Iraq, the war on terror, and the military, the war in Iraq would
end tomorrow, the war on terror would be suspended, and the military
would no longer receive a steady supply of cannon fodder from churches
and Christian colleges. What a shame that non-Christians, including
atheists, agnostics, infidels, pagans, and the irreligious, who
oppose the genocide that the United States has unleashed in Iraq,
have a moral code higher than that of many Christians. Non-Christian
Americans should know that Christian enthusiasm for war and the
warfare state is a perversion of Christianity, an affront to the
Saviour whom Christians worship as the Prince of Peace, a violation
of Scripture, contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament,
and an unfortunate demonstration of the profound ignorance many
Christians have of history and their own Bible. God only knows how
many non-Christians have been driven from Christianity because of
Christian indifference toward or outright support of war.
The early Christians
were not warmongers like so many Christians today. They did not
idolize the Caesars like some Christians idolize President Bush.
They did not make apologies for the Roman Empire like many Christians
do for the U.S. Empire. They did not venerate the institution of
the military like most Christians do today. They did not participate
in the state’s wars like too many Christians do today. If there
was anything at all advocated by the early Christians it was peace.
After all, they had some New Testament admonitions to go by:
- Blessed
are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9)
- Live peaceably
with all men (Romans 12:18)
- Follow peace
with all men (Hebrews 12:14)
Aggression,
violence, and bloodshed are contrary to the very nature of Christianity.
True, the Bible on several occasions likens a Christian to a soldier.
As soldiers, Christians are admonished to "put on the whole
armor of God." The Apostle Paul, who himself said: "I
have fought a good fight," told a young minister to "war
a good warfare." But the Christian soldier in the Bible fights
against sin, the world, the flesh, and the devil. He wears "the
breastplate of righteousness" and "the helmet of salvation."
The weapons of the Christian are not carnal: his shield is "the
shield of faith" and his sword is "the word of God."
The New Testament admonishes Christians to not avenge themselves,
to do good to all men, and to not render evil for evil. There is
nothing in the New Testament from which to draw the conclusion that
killing is somehow sanctified if it is done in the name of the state.
The Church
Father Justin Martyr described the peaceful nature of the early
Christians:
And we who
had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness,
have each one – all the world over – changed the instruments of
war, the swords into ploughs and the spears into farming instruments,
and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, and
the hope which is from the Father Himself through the Crucified
One.
We who hated
and slew one another, and because of differences in customs would
not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe,
now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and
pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate us unjustly,
in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of
Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same reward from the
God who is Master of all.
Unlike many
Christians today who proudly serve in Caesar’s army, the early Christians
were critical of the Roman Empire and military service. Instead
of being willing to die for the emperor and his empire, Christians
declared "Jesus Is Lord" in direct opposition to Roman
imperial claims. The Church Father Lactantius explained that the
Romans believed
that there
is no other way to immortality than by leading armies, devastating
foreign countries, destroying cities, overthrowing towns, and
either slaughtering or enslaving free peoples. Truly, the more
men they have afflicted, despoiled, and slain, the more noble
and renowned do they think themselves; and, captured by the appearance
of empty glory, they give the name of excellence to their crimes.
. . .
If any one
has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and wicked,
nor do they think it right that he should be admitted to this
earthly dwelling of the gods. But he who has slaughtered endless
thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, and infected
rivers with it, is admitted not only to a temple, but even to
heaven.
Unfortunately,
the nineteenth-century Quaker Jonathan Dymond similarly observed
of Christians: "They who are shocked at a single murder on
the highway, hear with indifference of the slaughter of a thousand
on the field. They whom the idea of a single corpse would thrill
with terror, contemplate that of heaps of human carcasses mangled
by human hands, with frigid indifference." The famed church
historian Adolf von Harnack described the features of military life
that would have presented great difficulty to Christians:
The shedding
of blood on the battlefield, the use of torture in the law-courts,
the passing of death-sentences by officers and the execution of
them by common soldiers, the unconditional military oath, the
all-pervading worship of the Emperor, the sacrifices in which
all were expected in some way to participate, the average behaviour
of soldiers in peace-time, and other idolatrous and offensive
customs – all these would constitute in combination an exceedingly
powerful deterrent against any Christian joining the army on his
own initiative.
The aforementioned
Lactantius describes Christians as "those who are ignorant
of wars, who preserve concord with all, who are friends even to
their enemies, who love all men as brothers, who know how to curb
anger and soften with quiet moderation every madness of the mind."
And then came
just war theory. This was the attempt by Augustine to reconcile
Christian participation in warfare with the morality of New Testament
Christianity by, among other things, distinguishing between soldiers’
outwardly violent actions while waging war and their inwardly spiritual
disposition. In its essence, just war theory concerns the use of
force: when force should be used and what kind of
force is acceptable. The timing of force relates to a country’s
justification for the initiation of war or military action; the
nature of force relates to how military activity is conducted once
a country commits to use force. The principle of the just war is
actually many principles, all of which must be met for a war to
be considered just. I agree with Christian philosopher Robert Brimlow,
who views just war theory as untenable because it is difficult to
know with sufficient confidence whether all of its conditions have
been met, because some of its tenets are impossible to realize,
because the criteria of just war theory are too flexible, because
it contradicts itself in that it sanctions the killing of innocents,
which it at the same time prohibits, and because it used to justify
rather than to prevent war. Indeed, just war theory can be used
effectively by all sides to justify all wars. I would add that just
war theory is not even based on Scripture. It is, however, rooted
in blind obedience to the state. It is the state that decides to
go to war, not the people, most of whom want nothing to do with
war; that is, until the state sufficiently propagandizes its citizens.
The state always claims that it is acting defensively, has the right
intention, has the proper authority, is undertaking war as a last
resort, has a high probability of success, and that a war will achieve
good that is proportionally greater than the damage to life, limb,
and property that it will cause. Just war theory merely allowed
Christians to make peace with war.
Then, of course,
came the Crusades, followed by the continual wars among European
Christians. The ultimate picture of the folly of war is the bloodbath
perpetrated by the Christian nations in World War I. I have heard
a lot lately about how most terrorists are Muslims, about how Islam
is a violent religion, and about how Muslims are willing to kill
in the name of their religion. That may all be true, but Christians
who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones
at Muslims. Yes, I am familiar with the tenets of the Muslim religion.
And when I mentioned that I had said negative things about every
religion I certainly meant to include Islam. But it was Christians
who expelled the Jews from Spain in the fifteenth century, not Muslims.
It was Christians who exploited and killed Africans by the millions
in the Congo Free State in the late nineteenth century. It was Christians
– Christian Americans – who slaughtered thousands of Filipinos in
the so-called Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the twentieth
century after we "liberated" them from Spain. And then,
from 1914 to 1918, in battle after senseless battle, Christian soldiers
in World War I shot, bombed, torpedoed, burned, gassed, bayoneted,
and starved each other and civilians until twenty million of them
were wounded and another twenty million lay dead.
And what did
the Christians at home in the United States do and say before and
during World War I? Their conduct was shameful. Challenged with
the problem of arousing the patriotic spirit of the nation, government
leaders must convince the populace of the absolute necessity of
war, the utter wickedness of the enemy, and the supreme justness
of the country’s cause. To these ends the churches became willing
servants of the state. They contributed to wartime hysteria and
propaganda. Christianity became an adjunct to nationalism. Loyalty
to one’s country became the highest expression of the Christ-like
life. Love of country exceeded love of mankind. God and country
became synonymous. To give one’s life for his country and its flag
was to give it for God and his Kingdom. As Christ died to make men
holy, so U.S. soldiers died to make men free. There was no difference
between the pronouncements of patriotic organizations, government
propaganda bureaus, and the edicts of Christian leaders. Religious
organizations and nationalistic groups vied with each other in their
flowery patriotic declarations. America’s participation in the war
was viewed as a missionary enterprise.
It is a blot
on Christianity that many of the religious dissenters from the drive
for war were unorthodox Christians – socialists, Unitarians, Universalists,
Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Several members of this latter
sect were sentenced to prison for circulating a book by their late
leader with this particularly objectionable passage:
Nowhere in
the New Testament is patriotism (a narrowly minded hatred of other
peoples) encouraged. Everywhere and always murder in its every
form is forbidden. And yet under the guise of patriotism civil
governments of the earth demand of peace-loving men the sacrifice
of themselves and their loved ones and the butchery of their fellows,
and hail it as a duty demanded by the laws of heaven.
What a shame
that this statement was not on the lips of every so-called orthodox
Christian.
Orthodox clergymen
in the pulpit and their followers in the pew both succumbed to war
psychology and societal pressure just as most other citizens. One
Baptist pastor said that he looked "upon the enlistment of
an American solider" as he did "on the departure of a
missionary for Burma." A Presbyterian minister likewise remarked:
"Every dollar and every service given to Uncle Sam for his
army is a gift to missions." The dean of Oberlin College, who
was also a Congregational minister, maintained that "the Christian
soldier in friendship wounds the enemy. In friendship he kills the
enemy." A Methodist preacher from Pittsburgh declared that
he "would have gone over the top with other Americans."
"I would have driven my bayonet into the throat or the eye
or the stomach of the Huns without the slightest hesitation,"
he said, "and my conscience would not have bothered me in the
least." An Episcopal minister wrote in the Atlantic Monthly
that "the complete representative of the American Church in
France is the United States Army overseas." Leaders in the
Lutheran and Catholic churches had no trouble expressing their patriotism
by a steadfast allegiance to the government.
One of the
most notable Christian servants of the state during World War I
was Ralph McKim, the rector of the Church of the Epiphany in Washington
D.C. McKim made claims for Germany that were never ascribed to Hitler:
"Germany seeks to control the whole world. Her ambition is
to dominate mankind. Her aim is to bring all peoples and nations
under the Hohenzollerns." To McKim, the conflict in Europe
was a "crusade" and a "holy war." Because he
believed that civilization was at stake, "and humanity – and
Christianity itself," McKim maintained: "It is God who
has summoned us to this war. It is His war we are fighting."
Soldiers at the front were "marching to Calvary" to meet
"the armies of Antichrist."
Other Christian
ministers during World War I advocated restraints on anti-war speech
and writing, the suppression of German-language newspapers, the
purchase of war bonds, spying on American citizens, the death penalty
for those who obstructed recruiting, harsh treatment of conscientious
objectors, absolute loyalty to the government, hatred of the German
people, torture of the German Kaiser, a one hundred-year boycott
of German goods, and the mass sterilization of soldiers in Germany.
Para-church
organizations were enlisted by the state as well. The YMCA was recruited
to check morals, promote morale, and make men better fighters physically.
Its secretaries exhibited the Bible as the greatest of all war books,
and presented Jesus as a warrior thrusting his bayonet through a
Hun in battle as example to others. Even the American Peace Society,
whose members consisted largely of Christians, came to support the
war. Religious journals donated advertising space for the sale of
war bonds. Near the war’s end, Christian Work magazine ran
a full-page ad that read at the top of the page: "Kill the
Hun, Kill his Hope." In the middle of the page was a picture
of a bayonet and a $100 liberty bond. Underneath this was the reminder:
"Bayonet and Bond – both Kill! One Kills the Hun, the Other
Kills his Hope. Buy U.S. Government Bonds."
We hear much
of the same now regarding the Iraq War, and without the massive
government propaganda campaign that was undertaken during World
War I. I guess Christians have gotten dumber. When Bush ordered
the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 with the announcement that
our cause was just, Christians lined up in droves to support their
president. They enlisted in the military. They put "W"
stickers and yellow ribbons on their cars. They implored us in church
to pray for the troops. They made heroes out of every dead American
soldier. They began reciting their patriotic sloganeering, their
God-and-country rhetoric, and their "obey the powers that be"
mantra. They dusted off their books on just war theory. They denounced
Christian opponents of the war as liberals, pacifists, traitors,
and Quakers, usually preceded by the adjectives unpatriotic
and anti-American.
Why? Why have
so many religious people gotten it so wrong? As I have explained
in many of my articles on Christianity and war over the years, there
are many reasons: thinking that the war in Iraq was in retaliation
for the 9/11 attacks, believing that Saddam Hussein was another
Hitler, supposing that Iraq was a threat to the United States, seeing
the war in Iraq as a modern-day crusade against Islam, assuming
that the United States needed to protect Israel from Iraq, viewing
Bush as a messiah figure, equating the Republican Party with the
party of God, blindly following the conservative movement, deeming
the state to be a divine institution instead of a lying, stealing,
and killing machine, failing to separate the divine sanction of
war against the enemies of God in the Old Testament from the New
Testament ethic that taught otherwise, having a profound ignorance
of history and primitive Christianity, reading too much into the
mention of soldiers in the New Testament, adopting the mindset that
brute force is barbarism when individuals use it, but honorable
when nations are guilty of it, possessing a warped "God and
Country" complex, holding a "my country right or wrong"
attitude, and as I mentioned previously, accepting without reservation
the myth of American exceptionalism.
But if I had
to single out one thing that has caused Christians to be so accepting
of war and the warfare state it would have to be the military. Americans
love the military, and American Christians are no exception. It
doesn’t seem to matter the reason for each war or intrusion into
the affairs of another country. It doesn’t seem to matter how long
U.S. troops remain after the initial intervention. It doesn’t seem
to matter how many foreign civilians are killed or injured. It doesn’t
seem to matter how many billions of dollars are spent by the military.
It doesn’t even seem to matter what the troops are actually doing
– Americans generally believe in supporting the troops no matter
what. Social activist Lee Griffith remarks in his book The
War on Terrorism and the Terror of God:
Currently,
public support for military actions is virtually instinctive,
especially so if troops have already been placed in harm’s way.
It is claimed
that, to question the endeavor, to express less than enthusiastic
support is to show callous disregard for the lives of the young
women and men who face enemy bullets on our behalf. As if by magic,
the charge of disregard for life is leveled against those who
oppose placing troops on the battlefield while the potentates
who placed them there are held immune.
Americans are
repulsed by the serial killer who, to satisfy the basest of desires,
dismembers his victims; but revere the bomber pilot in the stratosphere
who, flying above the clouds, never hears the screams of his victims
or sees the flesh torn from their bones. Killing women and children
at a distance of five feet is viewed as an atrocity, but at more
than five thousand feet it is a heroic act.
Christians
of all branches and denominations have a love affair with the military.
This alliance includes Catholic just-war theorists, evangelicals
in and out of the military, Red-State Christian fascists, Reich-wing
Christian nationalists, progressive Christians who oppose the war
in Iraq, theocon Values Voters, Christians who are not part of the
Religious Right, and even conservative Christians who oppose an
aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. The superstitious reverence
that many Christians have for the military in some cases borders
on a fetish. Criticism of the military is strictly verboten. To
question the military in any way – its size, its budget, its efficiency,
its bureaucracy, its contractors, its weaponry, its mission, its
effectiveness, its foreign interventions – is to question America
itself. One can condemn the size of government, but never the size
of the military. One can criticize federal spending, but never military
spending. One can denounce government bureaucrats, but never military
brass. One can deprecate the welfare state, but never the warfare
state. One can expose government abuses, but never military abuses.
One can label domestic policy as socialistic, but never foreign
policy as imperialistic.
I am often
accused of being anti-military, of not appreciating the sacrifices
that have been made so that I can have the freedom to speak English,
vote, write articles critical of the military, and express my negative
opinions about U.S. foreign policy. But if the military were actually
engaged in defending the United States, securing the borders, guarding
the shores, patrolling the coasts, and protecting the skies then
I would be as pro-military as the chairman of the joint chiefs.
What is the
purpose of the military? I think it is beyond dispute that the purpose
of any country having a military is defense of the country against
attack or invasion, not to "rid the world of evil," as
Bush proclaimed from the pulpit of the National Cathedral a few
days after the 9/11 attacks.
The U.S. military
should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not
defending other countries, and certainly not attacking them. It
is U.S. borders that should be secured. It is U.S. shores that should
be guarded. It is U.S. coasts that should be patrolled. It is U.S.
skies where no-fly zones should be enforced.
But because
U.S. foreign policy is aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling;
because it has a history of hegemony, nation building, regime change,
and jingoism; because it is the story of interventionism, imperialism,
and empire; because it results in discord, strife, hatred, and terrorism
toward the United States: the U.S. military – the enforcer of U.S.
foreign policy – is a force for evil in the world. Because America’s
military heritage is not one of how our troops have repelled
invaders, kept us safe from attack, or defended our freedoms, it
is not honorable to serve in the military. This is a bitter pill
to swallow, especially for soldiers who fought for a lie and the
families of soldiers who died for a lie. America’s military heritage
is unfortunately one of bombs and bullets, death and destruction,
intervention and invasion, and occupation and oppression. The purpose
of the military has been perverted beyond all recognition. The military
spreads democracy by bombs, bayonets, and bullets. The military
garrisons the planet with troops and bases. The military is responsible
for the network of brothels around the world to service U.S. troops
who have no business being away from home. Military personnel serve
simultaneously as policemen, firemen, scientists, social workers,
and bullies with the world as their precinct, forest, laboratory,
client, and playground.
What do providing
disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers,
enforcing UN resolutions, and spreading goodwill have to do with
defending the country against attack? How do launching preemptive
strikes, changing regimes, enforcing no-fly zones, stationing troops
in other countries, and garrisoning the planet with bases have anything
to do with defending the country against invasion? Here is the new
role envisioned for the army by Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
"Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public
services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance.
All these so-called nontraditional capabilities have moved into
the mainstream of military thinking, planning, and strategy – where
they must stay." Combat veterans, regardless of how they feel
about the war in Iraq and U.S. foreign policy, should be outraged
at this new vision for the Army. Is the Army explaining its new
vision to young people who walk into Army recruiting centers? And
with the tremendous financial incentives being offered to enlist
in the military today, do young people even care what the vision
of the military is or are they blinded by the dollar signs in their
eyes?
But regardless
of how the purpose of the military has been perverted beyond all
recognition, the troops are still responsible for their actions.
After all, it is the troops that are doing the actual fighting in
Iraq right now – not Bush, not Cheney, not Gates, not Rice. As much
as I have nothing but contempt for the architects of the war, the
president who instigated the war, the neocons who welcomed the war,
the Congressmen who funded the war, and the conservatives who supported
the war, it is U.S. soldiers who are dropping the bombs, firing
the mortars, throwing the grenades, launching the missiles, and
shooting the bullets. It is U.S. soldiers who have paved the way
for the rampant sectarian violence. It is U.S. soldiers who have
unleashed brutality, murder, genocide, death, and destruction in
Iraq. I was told by one of my critics that he agreed with me on
the point of not fighting illegal and unjust wars, but that doing
so was not the fault of the soldiers. Well then, whose fault is
it? No one is doing the fighting except the soldiers. It doesn’t
matter who told them to bomb, maim, and kill or what the reason
is that they were told to do these things. If the troops stop fighting,
the war will grind to a halt.
I don’t support
the troops. I didn’t support them in the last war, I don’t support
them in this war, and I won’t support them in the next war. It is
the troops that are ultimately responsible for prosecuting this
senseless and immoral war. Yet, U.S. forces are generally not held
responsible for any of their actions by their superiors, the government,
or the general public unless they do something particularly evil
that becomes an embarrassment. Most people say the troops are not
responsible because they’re just following orders. No soldier is
responsible for the death and destruction he inflicts as long as
it is state-sanctioned death and destruction. Many evangelical Christians
agree, and join in this chorus of statolatry with their "obey
the powers that be" mantra. Even many of those who maintain
that Bush and Cheney are war criminals are hesitant to condemn the
individual soldier. I am not.
First of all,
the last time I looked in my Bible, I got the strong impression
that it was only God who should be obeyed 100 percent of the time
without question. Second, what would the attitude toward the soldier
be if he were ordered to attack in some way American citizens under
the guise of maintaining order? Is that an order we want U.S. soldiers
to obey? Third, why would we want U.S. soldiers to follow orders
to bomb, maim, kill and otherwise attack foreigners around the world
that have never lifted a finger against the United States? Fourth,
soldiers in other countries are not accorded this luxury. Unlike
the soldiers of any other country, U.S. soldiers are always viewed
by Americans as liberators and peacekeepers, never invaders and
occupiers. We would we get extremely upset at foreign soldiers if
they killed Americans even if they were just following orders. No
supporter of the war in Iraq who uses the "obeying orders"
defense would allow a German officer at the Nuremberg Trials to
get away with saying that he was just obeying Hitler’s orders. And
fifth, if the U.S. government told someone to kill his mother, any
American would be outraged if he under any circumstances went and
did it. But then if the government tells someone to put on a uniform
and go kill some Iraqi’s mother, the typical American puts a yellow
ribbon on his car and says that we should support the troops. But
why should the response be any different? Why should morality be
put off just because a uniform is put on? Being told
to clean or paint a piece of equipment is one thing; being told
to bomb or shoot a person is another.
But, it is
objected, even if some commands are questionable, U.S. military
effectiveness would be greatly diminished if the troops didn’t obey
orders. Let’s hope so. How many Vietnamese and Laotians and Cambodians
would be alive today if the U.S. military had been rendered impotent?
We have heard a lot lately about how the United States may need
to confront Iran militarily. First it was that the Iranian president
was the reincarnation of Hitler, then it was Iran’s ambition to
build a nuclear bomb, and now it is Iran’s arming of Iraqi insurgents.
These are all bogus threats, of course, but when has that ever prevented
the United States from going to war? Listen, every act of American
military intervention in some other country was made possible because
the troops blindly followed the orders of their superiors. If they
had refused to do anything that was not related to actually defending
the country, then there would not have been any overseas deployments,
preemptive strikes, land mines buried, bombs dropped, missiles launched,
torture under the guise of interrogation, and no meddling in other
countries. The result of this would have been not only less anti-American
sentiment, but fewer terrorists, fewer dollars wasted, fewer dead
foreigners, and fewer dead American soldiers.
Now, if the
purpose of the U.S. military has been perverted beyond all recognition;
if the military spends more time securing the borders, guarding
the shores, patrolling the coasts, and protecting the skies of other
countries than it does in defense of the United States; if the military
is engaged in sending its soldiers thousands of miles away to kill
people and destroy their property after "liberating" them
from their ruler; if U.S. foreign policy results in our military
being the greatest force for evil in the world; then why in God’s
name would a Christian join the military and help the state carry
out its evil deeds? Why would a pastor implore his congregation
to pray for the troops? Why would a church display a yellow ribbon
that says "we support our troops"?
There were
181,000 people who joined the military last year. Certainly, the
majority of them would designate their religion as Christianity.
Many Christians will not allow their children to set foot in a public
school, but then encourage them, or at least not discourage them,
to join the U.S. military and not only face government propaganda
and immorality on a much greater scale, but participate in bringing
death and destruction to the latest enemy, not of the American people,
but of the U.S. government. There is universal agreement among Christians
that no Christian could in good conscience work as a pimp, a prostitute,
an abortionist, a drug dealer, or an exotic dancer. Adherents of
other religions and atheists would also generally select more wholesome
occupations. For a Christian to sell himself to the highest bidder
as a contract killer would be considered a very immoral thing to
do, but if the same Christian serves as a killer for hire for the
U.S. government he is held in high esteem. I know I have been rather
blunt, but the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy was even more direct:
"Armies will first diminish, and then disappear, only when
public opinion brands with contempt those who, whether from fear,
or for advantage, sell their liberty and enter the ranks of those
murderers, called soldiers." Because the war in Iraq is immoral
and unjust, and because there is no draft, Christians who join the
military are willing accomplices to murder. Since when is murder
sanctified if it is carried out by state order, in a state uniform,
and with a state-issued weapon?
Christians
not in the military are some of the greatest supporters of the military.
Many Christians have exchanged biblical Christianity for imperial
Christianity. Now, I realize that few Christians subscribe to the
deviant Christianity espoused by conservative columnist Ann Coulter,
who maintained after the 9/11 attacks that "we should invade
their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
But some of the same Christians who never hesitate to criticize
the Catholic Church still view the war in Iraq as a modern-day crusade
against Muslims. I’ve got some bad news for them: The Lord never
sanctioned any crusade of Christians against any religion. The God
of the Bible never called, commanded, or encouraged any Christian
to kill, make apologies for the killing of, or excuse the killing
of any adherent to a false religion. Dispensationalists who are
quick to point out the distinctions between Israel and the Church
often invoke the Jewish wars of the Old Testament against the heathen
as a justification for the actions of the U.S. military. Although
God sponsored these wars, and used the Jewish nation to conduct
them, it does not follow that God sponsors American wars or that
America is God’s chosen nation. The last time I checked, George
Bush was not God, America was not the nation of Israel, and the
U.S. Army was not the Lord’s army. It is not just military chaplains
asking God to bless troops on their missions of death and destruction
who are taking God’s name in vain. Anyone using God’s holy name
to justify the state’s wars and military interventions is taking
his name in vain. Indeed, as the aforementioned Lee Griffith has
said: "The claim of divine sanction for violence is among the
crudest forms of blasphemy."
This love affair
that Christians have with the military is an illicit affair. The
unholy alliance between Christianity and the military must be broken.
Christians should renounce the militarism of society. They should
stop regarding the state’s acts of aggression as benevolent. They
should stop calling evil good and good evil. They should stop presuming
divine support for U.S. military interventions. They should vigorously
dissent the next time some politician says there is some great evil
in the world that must be stamped out by the U.S. military. Because
just war theory merely allows Christians to make peace with war,
they should reject it just as they would any theory of just piracy
or just terrorism or just murder. Above all, they should stay out
of the military.
But what should
a Christian soldier do? Resign, be a conscientious objector, or
at the least follow John the Baptist’s rules for soldiers, as given
in the Gospel of Luke: "Do violence to no man, neither accuse
any falsely; and be content with your wages." There is only
one path to take when a Christian in the military is faced with
an order to kill, bomb, or destroy someone or something halfway
around the world that he has never met or seen, and is no real threat
to him, his family, or his country: "We ought to obey God rather
than men" (Acts 5:29).
Christian colleges
should discontinue all ROTC programs, ban military recruiters from
all their campuses, and discourage their students from enlisting
in the military. Likewise, Christian pastors and youth ministers
should do everything in their power to keep their young people out
of the military.
Churches should
treat members of the military no different than they treat employees
of Wal-Mart or McDonalds. They should stop this nonsense of asking
God to bless the troops. Should we pray that God blesses the troops
while they drop their bombs, throw their grenades, launch their
missiles, fire their mortars, and shoot their bullets? Is beseeching
God to protect the troops as they shoot, bomb, maim, mine, destroy,
"interrogate," and kill to carry out an evil foreign policy
consistent with the Christianity in the New Testament? Yes, we should
pray for the troops. We should pray that the troops come home. We
should pray that no more of their blood is shed on foreign soil
in some senseless war. But we should also pray that they stop bringing
death and destruction to foreigners. And while we’re at it, we should
pray that young, impressionable students are not ensnared by military
recruiters. We should likewise pray that churches stop supplying
cannon fodder to the military.
The
problem with the U.S. military is, of course, U.S. foreign policy.
U.S. foreign policy is not only aggressive, reckless, belligerent,
and meddling, it is also extremely arrogant. The United States would
never tolerate another country engaging in an American-style foreign
policy. Now, I think I loathe President Bush as much as any man
in this room, and perhaps even more so because, as a Bible-believing
Christian, I oppose his faith-based socialism, his misuse of Scripture
and religion, and his doctrinal deviations from orthodox Christianity,
but what if another country said that the U.S. government was corrupt
and oppressive and needed a regime change and then came over here
and overthrew our government? I would be outraged, as would every
American. The United States has troops in about 150 countries. Would
it be okay if each of these countries sent troops to the United
States? If not, then why not? Would it be okay if each of the countries
the United States has a military base in decided to build a base
in the United States? Why not? Why the double standard? It is the
height of arrogance to insist that the United States alone has the
right to garrison the planet with bases, station troops wherever
it wants, police the world, and intervene in the affairs of other
countries.
It is high
time for Christians who still defend the state, its leaders, its
military, and its wars to wake up and open their eyes and recognize
some cold, hard facts:
- The United
States has become a rogue state, a pariah nation, an evil empire.
- The United
States’ military is the greatest force for evil in the world.
- The United
States is the arms dealer to the world.
- The United
States is not the world’s policeman.
- The United
States cannot redeem the world through violence.
- The United
States is not the God-anointed protector of Israel that enjoys
a special relationship with God.
- The United
States government is the greatest threat to American life, liberty,
and property – not the leaders or the military or the people of
Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, or Venezuela.
Our republic
is crumbling. It is imperative that we return to the noninterventionist
foreign policy of the Founders. Christians, of all people, should
be leading the way.
June
12, 2008
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book is a new and greatly
expanded edition of Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit
his website.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Laurence
M. Vance Archives
|