Can Christians Learn from the War in Iraq?

A number of commentators have been asking what lessons we might learn from the war in Iraq. With American troops having been so recently withdrawn from that nation, this is certainly an appropriate question. I feel compelled to ask a somewhat more narrowly focused question: “What can Christians learn from the war in Iraq?” I want to offer several thoughts on what I believe are lessons desperately needed.

As I name these lessons, I’ll refer to a "Larry King Live" interview with a number of Christian leaders just prior to the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. What we find here goes a long way toward illustrating why the white evangelical church – and not alone – was so shamefully and persistently supportive of the war in Iraq. The deplorable use of scripture, the great ignorance of the just war tradition and the naive, blind faith in the Bush administration expressed by most of the participants in this program are emblematic of the utter failure of a great majority of evangelical leaders to lead in a genuinely Christian manner. The sorts of things said in this interview were repeated in countless pulpits and religious talk shows.

The lessons I believe can be drawn from the war in Iraq include the following six items:

First, Christians need to be aware of the fact that times of war are prime times for the abuse of the Bible. “How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy,” Friedrich Nietzche famously said.  Bad biblical reasons are particularly abundant during times of war. Most of them are well worn and have long been discredited and disavowed by respectable scholars. But that doesn’t stop preachers and religious talk show hosts from endlessly regurgitating them.  John Macarthur, minister of Grace Community Church, a mega-church in Sun Valley, California and radio talk show host, appealed to the wars of the Old Testament for support. Never mind that those wars have little resemblance to wars fought by secular states, often don’t meet “just war” standards and that Big Military was condemned in scripture as evidence that the nation didn’t trust God ( Psalms 20:7, Isaiah 31:1). His reasoning went downhill from there.

KING:  “But John MacArthur, what is the Christian position? Is there a Christian position on this war -- the pending war.”

MACARTHUR: Yes, Larry. The singular Christian is Jesus. So the question needs to be asked, what was Jesus' view? And I think explicitly in scripture you have a number of things. In the gospel of Luke, Chapter 14 and Verse 31, he said, When a king goes to war, he is careful to count the cost knowing he has 10,000 soldiers and he's going to go against 20,000 so that he doesn't get in a battle he might lose. Jesus uses that illustration to compare a person, counting the cost to become a Christian, therefore elevates war and makes a noble illustration. 

Anyone with a basic understanding of principles of interpretation know that a parable has but one point and supporting war has nothing to do with this particular parable. The parable addresses the need to be prepared to be a disciple in the face of inevitable challenges. That Jesus employed a king going to war as a character in a parable no more sanctions war than it sanctions monarchy. Does the fact that Jesus used an unjust judge as a figure in a parable mean that he was putting in a good word for unjust judges?  (Luke 18:1-8). Nonsense! Macarthur also appealed to Luke 22:36 to justify war: “He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Again, scholars understand this to be a figurative statement about the rigors of discipleship, not a literal call to arms. But in times of war hawkish Christian leaders become desperate for proof texts and readily disregard sensible interpretations. Yet Macarthur spoke for many misguided Christian leaders by saying, “He [Jesus] endorsed the fact of protection and just war.” The truth is that nothing about Jesus endorses war in the least.

Second, Christian leaders need to actually understand something about Christian views on war and peace before they open their mouths in public. Too often Christian preachers and pundits sanction war automatically with a nod toward the “just war” tradition. But it quickly becomes apparent that few of them have even the most basic grasp of the tradition. It is not enough to vaguely reference the concept of “just war” without showing how a specific war stands or falls before it. In the above mentioned interview, Larry King sought to get his guests to talk about their basis for supporting the war, speaking first to well-known author of devotional books, Max Lacado.

KING: So you would see going to war in Iraq as, under your concept, justifiable?

LUCADO: I would see that this is a decision that really can only be made by those in authority and we have to trust their decision and rely on their character and pray earnestly for them that God would lead them in the right direction.

The religious leaders on the show agreed that for a war to be just it must be a last resort. Another guest later added.

MACARTHUR: War is a last resort…My thinking is, who knows when it's the last resort, better than those in authority. According to Romans 13, the government and those in authority are really ministers appointed by heaven to protect and to punish, and you know, I agree very much with the concept that we have to let it be the last resort, but somebody has to make that call. 

Essentially, these leaders and many like them across the country, gave lip service to the “just war” tradition. But they didn’t understand enough about it to see that Christian leaders actually have a responsibility to apply the standards of “just war” and decide whether the particular circumstances warrant Christian support. A “just war” is not simply whatever a government says it is.

Third, it is crucial that Christians in America learn to listen to Christians from other lands. Church leaders elsewhere in the world weren’t taken in by Bush’s claims about Iraq being an immediate threat to peace. They had a clearer vision about the injustice of the war and the possible destructive consequences. Many churches outside the U.S. condemned the war both before and after it started. I have not found one that offered support for it. This matter was raised in the interview by a caller to Larry King.

CALLER: Hi, my question is for the entire panel. It seems that most Christians in the United States support the president, support of the war in Iraq. So do Christian leaders in the United States. It also seems that many Christians in Europe, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the pope, don't really support the United States, don't really support the war in Iraq. How do we as Christians -- what do we do with that? How do we process that? How do we reconcile that chasm?

KING: Fair question, John, and we'll go around. What do they do? Christian leaders in other parts of the world are opposed.

MACARTHUR: Yes, again, you know, Christian leaders giving their opinion or the official opinion of their institution or their denomination doesn't carry any real weight when it comes to Christianity.

KING: But he's asking as a Christian what does he do if two esteemed Christian leaders, Archbishop of Canterbury and you.

MACARTHUR: Yes, very simple go back to the word of God, compare everything with what the Bible says.

And with that he arrogantly disregarded the insights of the Christian leaders outside of America. Turning to Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University, King was largely met with the same dismissal of the voices of Christian leadership throughout the world.

KING: What do you trust, Dr. Jones, if great Christian leaders around the world disagree?

JONES: I do think we have to agree that moral issues must be addressed in this world, and crime and bombing and terrorism are unjust and immoral. And where innocent people are threatened by terrorism, terrorism must be addressed. And our government is trying to do that for the good of the whole world, not just for the good of America, because these terrorists are a threat to everybody on the face of the earth.

The result of ignoring the pleas for restraint by the rest of the Christian community throughout the world has been the devastation of the church in the Middle East. The Christian leaders who supported the war in Iraq share responsibility for that destruction. It is crucial that Christians across national borders be extremely attentive to each other in times of war rather than assuming that political and military leaders know best.

Fourth, Christians need to be slow about taking at face value the reasons a President or political leaders give for going to war. National leaders don’t deserve the blind faith – particularly in times of international conflict – that too many religious leaders have offered them. Conservative Christian leaders displayed a naïve trust in the Bush administration. Many clergy in mainline churches and Roman Catholic parishes did pretty much the same thing, even though most of their denominations opposed the war.  This blind faith in the Bush administration’s rationale for war was well represented by the Christian leaders King interviewed.

MACARTHUR: I don't think we're starting a war. I think a war already started.

KING: What war did Iraq start?

MACARTHUR: Well the war on America based upon the terrorist attacks on America...

KING: Oh, 9/11.

MACARTHUR: Sure, 9/11. Which intelligence tells us can be traced in some measure back to Iraq. 

The issue of the credibility of the Bush Administration’s reasons for attacking Iraq was raised again when King accepted calls from his audience.

CALLER: My question is with absolutely no proof linking 9/11 with Saddam Hussein and also, we don't even have proof that they possess any weapons of mass destruction outside of this administration's word, why would this administration think that God is possibly sanctioning the senseless slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent lives, both American and Iraqi? 

KING: Max? 

LUCADO: Why would the administration lie to us? I would agree if the administration is misleading us that this would be an inappropriate action. I haven't seen anything myself. I'm not privy to any inside information but you have to trust somebody. 

MACARTHUR: And I think where I come in on that is I've got to trust my president and his cabinet and intelligence and military people. George Bush doesn't want to throw away life.

By the time this interview was conducted many voices had been raised about the quality of the Bush administration’s information and that pointed to the great unlikelihood of Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden and the terrorists associated with him. United Nations inspectors cast doubt on claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But all evidence that contradicted the President was dismissed by the many Christian leaders who cast their lot with the political advocates of war. It is important that this sort of mistake be avoided in the future.

Fifth, especially in times of war Christians must refuse to make excuses for the inexcusable. Some military leaders have shown much more wisdom about this than some religious leaders. As Gen. David Petraeus said, "Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradable. They don't go away." Official use of torture and turning a blind-eye to abuses of detainees has put a stain on America’s national reputation. Likewise, the broad evangelical support of torture revealed in the 2009 Pew Research survey is a shameful and ugly mark on the reputation of the church in America. The rank and file didn’t come to this morally repugnant position without any leadership. Prominent public figures of the caliber of Charles Colson set the tone by asserting that torture is permissible “in some circumstances.” This position flies in the face of what the church has traditionally taught, to say nothing of Jesus, who said, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12) and “Bless those who curse you” (Luke 6:28). The ends do not justify the means, even if the stakes are high. To believe otherwise displays a failure of faith.

Sixth, if the experience of the Iraq war is any guide, it suggests that Christian leaders who support war are even more untrustworthy and prone to cling to mistaken views than are hawkish politicians. Their credibility needs to be questioned. It should be no wonder that active church members continued to support the war in Iraq even after most of the country was souring on the war. So many of the leaders of their churches were tenacious war supporters. Well after President Bush had shifted ground, conceding that Saddam Hussein neither had weapons of mass destruction nor had any role in the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Hal Lindsay of The Late Great Planet Earth fame declared that "it is now evident to all but the blindest partisans that the intelligence was correct and that Saddam not only had weapons of mass destruction, but that he worked directly with al-Qaida." Clearly, he – and others of his ilk – didn’t get the memo that those he called “blind partisans” were actually the ones who had the clearest vision from the beginning.

No doubt there are other lessons from the war in Iraq that can and should be learned by Christians. But whether any of them will be absorbed by those who need the lessons the most is another matter. We can only hope and pray that something will be learned before the next war occurs.

Craig M. Watts is the minister of Royal Palm Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Coral Springs , Florida and Co-Moderator of Disciples Peace Fellowship. He authored the book Disciple of Peace: Alexander Campbell on Pacifism, Violence and the State (Doulos Christou Press: Indianapolis, 2005) and his essays have appeared in many journals such as Cross Currents, Encounter, the Otherside, DisciplesWorld and more. Craig blogs on the Disciples Peace Fellowship’s, “Shalom Vision.”

The Challenge of Keeping the Real Christ in Christmas

 The Challenge of Keeping the Real Christ in Christmas

Craig M. Watts

Like most kids, when I was growing up I looked forward to Christmas with eager anticipation.  With each passing day the excitement heightened.  I constantly fantasized about how wonderful it would be when Christmas finally arrived.  Inevitably, when I got tucked into bed on Christmas Eve I found that I couldn’t go to sleep because I was too excited.  Consequently, it seemed like the longest night of the year.

Most of us adults don’t look to Christmas with such trembling joy.  More likely we think about all the extra work that must be done before the big day.  Still, despite the lack of the simple, innocent exuberance we once had about Christmas, many of us still find our hearts stirred at this time of year.  It could hardly be otherwise since there are so many good experiences and warm memories most of us associate with this season.

In the midst of all the busyness, ministers – and an assortment of others – offer reminders that Christmas is above all about Jesus Christ.  And so it is important that we, as the familiar refrain says, “put Christ back into Christmas.”  That sounds reasonable enough.  But would we look forward to Christmas with greater enthusiasm if the real Christ was more fully “in” it?

The first Christmas was certainly not greeted with open arms by everyone.  For instance, King Herod had some serious reservations, to say the least (Luke 2:1-15).  He didn’t look to Christmas with glee but with dark suspicion.  For him Christmas was a threat, an unwelcome challenge.  He knew that with the birth of Christ the King, life could no longer be the same.  But he didn’t want the change.  Herod didn’t look upon the Christ-child as a cute and harmless bundle of joy!  Jesus Christ dropped into his world like an exploding bomb.  Herod’s response was murderous.  He did his best to quite literally “take Christ out of Christmas.”

        Herod would have been just fine with a Christmas of presents, decorations and music.  But it was that baby that annoyed him so much.  For him Christmas could never be a pleasant and harmless affair.  Not if there was a new born king.  He knew that this particular baby would not leave things alone.

        King Herod wasn’t the only one who realized that fact.  So did our Lord’s mother, Mary.  For her the baby was reason for joy.  She anticipated that the One within her would bring the sort of change she as a vulnerable young woman, a commoner, could gladly embrace.  Not able to contain herself, Mary sang:

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden… He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty (Luke 1:46-47, 51-52).

If Mary was right about Jesus, then Herod had little reason to look forward to a “Merry Christmas.”  His interests, as one who sat on the top of the world, were not likely to be served by One who would turn the world upside-down.  But for the many, the coming of Jesus was reason for celebration.  Whatever challenge he brought to the world would be seen as something to be happily welcomed.

It was no accident that the angels announced the birth of Jesus to the minimum wage workers on the night shift, those shepherds in the field.  They were not God’s second choice, selected only because no one could be found in the royal court at that hour to hear the wonderful words.  Rather, the undignified shepherds were the divinely preferred recipients of the greatest news ever told.  Later Jesus would identify as a hallmark of his ministry that “the poor have good news preached to them” (Matthew 11:5; Luke 7:22).

In keeping with what Mary anticipated, Jesus taught, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God….But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation” (Luke 6:20, 24).  He also pointed toward a reversal of fortunes on the horizon by saying “many who are first will be last, and the last first” (Mark 10:31, also Matthew 19:30, 20:16; Luke 13:30) and “whoever wants to be great among you shall be your servant” (Mark 10:43, Matthew 20:26) and “whoever wants to enter the kingdom of God must do so like a child” (Mark 10:15, also Matthew 18:3).  Swaggering power and prideful privilege was given no respect by the grown up Christmas boy.

With a view to such scriptures, some Christians who are involved in the Occupy movement have recently been saying, “God is with the 99%!”  I hesitate to echo this claim only because it sounds a bit too much like those who go into war declaring, “God is on our side.”  Surely, God loves the wealthiest 1% as well.  But they get no preferential treatment.  Instead they are given warnings (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25). Scripture suggests that our Lord identifies with the least advantaged people in a way he does not identify with the most privileged (Matthew 25:31-46). Because of this, I can’t understand why any Christian would support policies or practices that disproportionately empower the powerful or further advantage the over-privileged and accept the claim that doing so is the best way to help everyone else. To do so seems to require that we ignore Jesus, from his birth forward.

Do we really want to keep Christ in Christmas?  If we do, this will be a season for more than presents, pleasant carols and colorful decorations.  We would do well to position ourselves so we can better welcome the changes Mary envisioned. We can do this by looking out for the interests of those who are weak, poor and suffering.  If Christ of the Gospels is truly in Christmas then we shouldn’t be surprised if we experience both joy and challenge.  In fact our deepest joy will most likely be found as we give our lives over to his challenge to follow him in ways of love, peace and selfless service.

Craig M. Watts is minister of Royal Palm Christian Church, Coral Springs, Florida. He is also Co-Moderator Disciples Peace Fellowship and author of Disciple of Peace: Alexander Campbell on Pacifism, Violence and the State (Doulos Christou Press: Indianapolis, 2005).  His many essays have appeared in Cross Currents, the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Encounter, DisciplesWorld and elsewhere.

A VISIT TO OCCUPY WASHINGTON, D.C.: Some Thoughts on Violence and Nonviolence

Craig M. Watts



My son and I were in Washington, D.C. on November 20^th to attend the "Super Vigil" for a just and fair budget. Afterward, when we had finished visiting with a few of the people who had gathered for the event, we decided to check out the nearby Occupy encampment. In particular we looked around for any hint of violent radicalism. No doubt there has been some violent behavior in the vicinity of some Occupy locations. This has been loudly condemned by the clear majority of the participants who have made it known that they deplore the violence of the fringe. Still in some circles there are voices who claim that at its core Occupy is not nonviolent and that the fringe is not a fringe at all but the real face of the movement.

With these things in mind, we walked into the Washington, D.C. Occupy encampment.  I was struck by the fact that one of the first tents I saw had a large cross on it and a sign declaring the inhabitants intended to be a Christian presence in the protest. There was no evidence of unruliness anywhere. I talked with a number of the people among the  100 or so tents.  I spoke with some Occupiers who have full-time jobs but support the cause during the weekends and some evenings. Others were unemployed. Most of the people seemed to be in their twenties and thirties but some were probably in their fifties or older. I'm pretty sure there were some homeless people mixed in the group. Apparently, that is not the case at all  Occupy sites.

People were playing board games. Others were involved in serious discussions. Some were just dealing with the mechanics of living in a difficult situation. Among the things I found notable was a very large sign in the middle of the tents outlining what was essentially Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s thoughts on nonviolence and the “beloved community.”  While there were other smaller signs with a variety of messages, this particular sign was in fact the clearest and most obvious “values statement” in the encampment. It reminded the Occupiers, not only of the sort of actions they should use as they seek to bring about social change but the attitudes that best guide their efforts. Among these are reminders that “Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not people,” and “Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate.”

The only thing resembling violence that we saw was the annoying disruption caused by a loud, obnoxious street preacher with a bullhorn who made a constant stream of noise.  Whenever he ran out of words, he just made irritating sounds and shouted random, senseless phrases. I asked if the man was there every day and someone in the encampment told me, "Yep, every day." I suspected he was mentally unbalanced. He stood across the street and was not part of Occupy but those inclined to slander the movement might claim otherwise. I couldn’t help wondering whether he was getting paid by the city to drive the Occupiers crazy.

The attempts to smear the Occupy movement with accusations that it is not truly committed to nonviolence seem disingenuous. Largely they come from those sympathetic toward the sort of politicians who spoke of resorting to “Second Amendment  remedies” not so long ago, and those who had participants at their rallies showing up bearing automatic weapons and those who have uttered  threats of armed violence against the government if policies veer too far from their vision of how things should be.  Similar threatening behavior and ominous warnings have not been characteristic of the supporters of the Occupy movement. One will have to look hard to find Occupiers suggesting they will rise up to use deadly force if they don’t get their way.

Certainly, there are dangerous extremists who can insert themselves in any crowd. Those in the Occupy movement will need to do all they can to discourage and distance themselves from anyone who undermines their nonviolent witness. Detractors will get as much mileage as they can from any failure to do so. Clearly, the critics use a double standard when evaluating movements. One can only imagine the kind of reaction the Occupy movement would evoke if participants showed up with automatic weapons and proclaimed the need for “Second Amendment remedies” as Tea Party leaders and sympathizers have done. But Occupiers have not been the ones to suggest that the “tree of liberty” needs to be watered with blood.

The vast majority of the incidents of violence at Occupy sites around the country have been due to police abusing their power, not a result of threatening actions by Occupiers.  Even some unsympathetic conservative reporters who recently found themselves in the middle of a confrontation between Occupiers and police at Zuccotti Park have admitted that the Occupiers “were actually very kind and helpful. It was the police officers who were very aggressive.”  When a writer at Forbes –certainly no hotbed for leftists- can say of the police response to the Occupy movement, “It should have our collective blood boiling, whether or not we even agree with the protesters themselves,” it is hard to deny that there is a serious problem. And the problem is not the protestors. Police officers themselves are beginning to speak out against the excessively violent response of their fellow officers.

Whether the Occupy movement will be crushed by the police violence or revitalized by it is yet to be seen. But the central issue the Occupy movement has spotlighted, gross economic inequality, is not likely to fade away any time soon. Nor should it. It is a total distortion of the issue to say, as did Newt Gingrich, "All the Occupy movement starts with the premise that we owe them everything." Rather the issue is that too much of the wealth and income is concentrated in too few hands. Too many are working hard and still not able to take care of their families while the wealth of the richest few swiftly grows. It is not because they have all worked harder than everyone else. And these favored few are not creating jobs. Further, studies of developed nations indicate the greater the inequality in a society the greater the social problems, ranging from infant mortality rates to murder rates to mental illness to the lack of social mobility. And the United States is the most unequal of them all. I think it is fair to say that gross economic inequality is a form of violence that hurts everyone.

Regardless of what happens to the Occupy movement, I believe continuing the trend toward greater economic inequality is both unsustainable and destructive. I don’t claim to know what must be done to address the problem but it can no longer be ignored. To howl, “Communism!” at every idea or effort to deal with gross inequality is both ridiculous and counter-productive. Instead, to put it in the simplest possible terms, I think it is time to ask what it means in our present situation to love our neighbors as we love ourselves and do unto others as we would have them do unto us… in the public realm (Mark 12:31, Luke 6:31). There is no one single right answer. But not one thing I see in the life of Jesus or hear in his teachings would lead me to believe that he would be pleased with his disciples supporting the situation as it stands now.

MUSLIMS IN THE MILITARY: A CASE OF ENVY

Muslims in the Military: A Case of Envy

By Craig M. Watts

I envy the distrust that Muslims in America face. There are loud voices claiming that they can't be counted on to be totally dependable citizens.  In particular, we are being told that Muslims can't be trusted to serve in the armed forces. On Veterans Day Tennessee State Representative and outspoken anti-Shairah advocate Rick Womick was very clear: "Personally, I don't trust one Muslim in our military."  When asked whether he believes they should be forced out, he answered unambiguously, "Absolutely, yeah!"  I wish that kind of concern was being expressed about Christians.

Largely, I find Womick’s fears about Muslims to be ridiculous and baseless.  He and others in the anti-Shariah law movement oppose a non-existent threat, given the absence of a single move to institute this Muslim code anywhere in the U.S.  In fact there has not been so much as a serious discussion among Muslim leaders about even making an attempt to do so.  But none of this has stopped Womick and those who share his views from depicting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom in our time.  The entire issue is a fabrication apparently devised by alarmists who seek to keep Muslims on the margins of American society by heightening suspicions of them.

In a statement of full-bore fear-mongering, Womick declared, “[I]f they truly are a devout Muslim, and follow the Quran and the Sunnah, then I feel threatened because they’re commanded to kill me.” [sic] He and his fellow travelers can be counted on to give a fair and informed interpretation of Muslim scripture just about to the same degree that a leader of Al-Qaeda can be counted on for a credible interpretation of the Gospels, which is to say, not at all.  But what is striking in his words is the assumption that Muslims will follow the logic of their faith where ever it leads regardless of the costs and American interests will not be given priority.

Why don’t Christians generate that kind of concern? 

I am envious because the anti-Shariah law clan believes Muslims are likely to take the teachings of Mohammed seriously enough that it will get in the way of their military service.  But apparently Christians can be trusted because they can be counted on to come up with reasons to ignore Jesus.  Ultimately, they will do their duty to the state unhampered by the words and teachings of Christ.  Christians can be trusted to wear the name of Christ without actually being like him.  This is the kind of religion that works well in the military, quite in contrast to what Womick takes to be the posture of a serious Muslim. 

Because of their vociferous critics, Muslims in America are reminded that they are outsiders.  They can’t easily believe that they comfortably belong in the mainstream of society.  The suspicion of others reminds them of their distinctive identity.  Christians aren’t confronted with that sort of reminder because they aren’t viewed as being distinctive, at least not in any way that is seen as important.  So there is no one suggesting that Christians shouldn’t be welcome in the military.  No one suspects they will be resistant to learning how to kill well or be reluctant to kill who they are told to kill, even other Christians, if so commanded.

I can’t help but wonder how people would react if Christians were Christian first of all. For instance, what would happen if Christian soldiers took the idea of “just war” seriously?  Sure, officers learn of the “just war” tradition as part of their training.  But what if they understood that what “just war” is should not just be relegated to politicians alone to decide.  The church has something to say about it.  How well would Christians in the military be trusted if they got together to discuss whether the cause of a war was truly just or whether it was, indeed, a last resort or whether discrimination / non-combatant immunity was likely to be respected in a given operation, regardless of what they were being told by political or military leaders? If the “just war” tradition truly guided Christians, it could not be taken for granted that Christian soldiers would automatically take to the battlefield just because they were told by the President and their superior officers to do so.

What would happen if Christians in the military prayed in a way that was as striking as Muslims pray?  What would happen if Christian soldiers got together and prayed like Jesus taught?  Not the God-Bless-America sorts of prayers.  Not the protect-us-and-help-us-be-successful prayers.  Rather what if Christian soldiers prayed for their enemies and asked that God bless them?  What if they prayed to see all people as God sees them and prayed for the strength and wisdom to behave accordingly?  Would the military really want men and women in their ranks who are at risk of actually believing that the enemy’s life is every bit as precious as that of other Americans or even that of fellow soldiers? Just how dependable is a soldier who allows his or her faith to exert such life-shaping influence?

But no one seems to worry about these sorts of questions.  While there is fear in some quarters that Muslims might be too independent, too influenced by their faith to be fit for the armed forces, Christians don’t evoke that kind of concern.  Apparently, it is universally believed that as a group Christians in America can be counted on to be compliant.

So I envy the distrust faced by Muslims in America.  I long for the day when Christians will take Jesus seriously enough that politicians question whether they are fit for military duty.

MILITARY SACRIFICES and the WAY of JESUS

As I write these words my Dad’s dogtags are lying in front of me. He was in the Army during World War 2, serving in North Africa and Italy. My uncles also spent time in the military during these same years. One was a bombardier in the Pacific, earning the Silver Star. I was told by family members that when he returned from war he deeply grieved with the knowledge that the bombs he dropped surely killed innocent people. Consequently, despite my anti-war commitments, I have no inclination to demonize soldiers. I know they have made sacrifices that impacted them physically, psychologically and spiritually, whether their bodies were ever wounded or not. But just as I will not demonize them, neither will I glorify them or the military as a whole. Those who do so, too often foolishly and flagrantly blaspheme as they celebrate soldiers and soldiering, an example of which we find in the picture below.

Identifying battlefield deaths with the sacrifice of Jesus is part of a broader effort to blend American militarism and Christianity. There are those -both in the military and outside of it- who seem determined to associate the work of the armed services with the way of faith. Col. Bob Young, who served as commander at Kandahar air base, insisted, “Arguably the military is the last American institution that tries to uphold Christian values. It is the easiest place in America to be a Christian.” He is far from alone in this belief.  Popular motivational speaker and former Marine Lt. Clebe McClary, the center of controversy when he was invited to address the U.S. Air Force Academy's National Prayer Luncheon earlier this year, declares that USMC stands for “US Marines for Christ.”  Several years ago Gen. Jerry Boykin made national news for his speeches in churches and before civic groups dressed in full uniform, claiming the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “spiritual battles” and stating that “Satan wants to destroy us as a Christian army.” It should not be surprising that those who find this misguided militaristic Christianity commendable don’t hesitate to speak of the war dead as though they are martyrs who were killed in Christian service. 

Whatever sacrifices soldiers have made are utterly unlike the sort we see in the self-giving of Jesus who died expressing nonviolent divine love. Any linking of the deaths of soldiers to the death of Jesus is an offense against the incomparable action of God in Christ. I cringe every time I hear the words from John 15:13 quoted to honor the death of a soldier: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” I cringe, not because I don’t believe that the soldier’s death should be honored. Rather, it is because those words from Jesus have absolutely nothing to do with the deaths experienced on a field of mutual hostility. Immediately before speaking of laying one’s life down for friends, Jesus declared, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (vs. 12). What Jesus speaks of here is a love like his own nonviolent love which was not anything like an act of laying down one’s life in a bloody contest of kill or be killed.

            Still, soldiers make substantial sacrifices. Presidents, politicians and the civilian cheer-leaders for war are quick to declare that the sacrifices soldiers are asked to make are for the noblest causes. Solders, we are told, lay their lives down for freedom or democracy or even the very preservation of civilization itself. In fact this is rarely the case. The reasons for war more often have to do with preserving a sphere of national influence, insuring access to natural resources and opportunities for profit. Nineteenth century religious reformer and Disciples of Christ founder Alexander Campbell speculated that if “the true and proper causes of most wars were clearly understood and the real design for which they are prosecuted could be clearly and distinctly apprehended” war efforts would in most instances fail. Propaganda is crucial both to inspire soldiers and to rally the support of the general population.

            The often quoted line, “Truth is the first casualty of war” is accurate for more than one reason. But certainly among the most important is that truth would likely tarnish the sacrifice of soldiers by unveiling the real reasons for war. It should be no shock to anyone that politicians are stubbornly unwilling to honestly admit they blundered in entering into a war. To do so would insult the sacrifices made by uniformed men and women who gave their lives, to say nothing of revealing the needlessness of the destruction war caused to others. And so we see, for example, that even when the primary justification for attacking Iraq –the presence of weapons of mass destruction- was shown to be without basis, President Bush could not admit the invasion was a mistake. Rather a new reason for the war had to be created: regime change.  Assurances were issued by the President that regardless of the absence of the weapons that were the original basis for starting the war, it was all still “worth it.” Admitting that the sacrifices of soldiers were based on deception or political miscalculation is intolerable. Such an admission would be seen as dishonoring those who died.

           Perhaps the greatest of the sacrifice made by soldiers is not the willingness to die but something more troubling. In war a soldier is told to do what everybody is taught throughout their life that they must never do: deliberately maim or kill other persons. To be fit for warfare soldiers must abandon that crucial lesson for other, more deadly lessons. They must be trained to be killers who are capable of killing on command. “No sacrifice is more dramatic than the sacrifice asked of those sent to war, that is, the sacrifice of their unwillingness to kill,” Duke University theologian and ethicist Stanley Hauerwas has observed. While the rigors of military life can have ennobling effects on a person’s life, at the same time, the experience of war, and specifically the experience of killing, is morally shattering, leading to guilt, shame and self-revulsion. The nature of the soldiers’ sacrifice is not genuinely honored by comparing it to the experience of Jesus any more than Jesus is honored by the comparison. Soldiers do not need glorification but they need forgiveness, acceptance and compassion. This cannot be done by claiming that killing –or dying while trying to kill- has anything to do with following in the way of Jesus.

“What is really true in any society is what is worth killing for, and what citizens may be compelled to sacrifice their lives for,” wrote Carolyn Marvin and David Ingle in their powerful book, Blood Sacrifice and the Nation (Cambridge University Press, 1999). By this measure what is really true in the United States is found in nationalism, before which every other form of “religion is best understood as a jealous competitor.” Not wanting to admit to idolatrous devotion, many in churches, ministers included, have merged their American nationalism with Christianity.  This has resulted in a militarized Christianity in which wars are seen as battles of good against evil and the violent sacrifice of both killing and dying in conflict can be viewed as expressions of faithfulness. But this sort of Christianity is a parody of the real thing. 

What is missing in militarized Christianity is Jesus. Regardless of the frequency with which he is named, and despite the fact that his death and resurrection are proclaimed, still his life and teachings as found in the Gospels are largely marginalized.  Consequently, the wrong kind of sacrifice is celebrated. Sacrifice certainly has an important role in genuine Christianity. We are told to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Romans 12:1).  This is a sacrifice that comes directly from following Jesus in a hostile world. It entails that we “bless those who persecute” us  (vs.14), “repay no one evil for evil” (vs.17), “live peaceable with all” (vs.18), “never avenge one’s self” (vs.19), and “not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (vs.21). Little of Jesus as presented in the Gospels can be found in military Christianity precisely because following such a Jesus would be counter-productive. Those who follow Jesus can't be taught to kill on command and don’t believe what is true is what is worth killing for. Rather what is true is what worth defenselessly dying for.

by Craig M. Watts