From last year, but still seems fitting:
Why is it that conversations about Christianity and war are more likely to take place in academic settings rather than ecclesial ones? Why don’t pastors and preachers talk about war as much as
professors do? What homiletical and catechetical conditions (failures?) make it almost impossible for congregations to undertake a study of, say, the proportionality criterion for just war or the reasons for the early church’s unequivocal pacifism?
And how does the “support the troops” ethos that has pervaded liberal and conservative America and low-and high-church Christianity contribute to the poverty of our discourse around these matters? That is, how does the fear of being perceived as anti-soldier silence preachers and teachers who have an obligation to preach and teach the peace of Christ in churches that glamorize, sentimentalize, and fetishize war – and the soldiers who fight them?
And where exactly did this new “warrior ethic,” summed up in the mantra “support our troops,” come from?
In an essay in the Society of Christian Ethics Journal, Patrick McCormick traces the confluence of narratives from liberal Hollywood filmmakers and the Washington war machine in which the valor of the individual soldier – not the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the greater cause – trumps every question about the justification of war. Genuine political debate about the rightful use of military force has been supplanted with this “idealization of soldiers,” and the just war ethic has been replaced with a “warrior code” — an ethic that embraces every war as just.
So now most Christians get their theology of war from Saving Private Ryan. What matters in the movie (and in real life) is not whether the war is just but that the warrior is righteous; and the warrior achieves righteousness simply by being courageous and loyal to fellow comrades. Support the troops and don’t ask questions. (Our recent fascination with the Navy Seals who “took out” Osama bin Laden only reinforces this new stance).
How can clergy and church educators gain the necessary courage to preach and teach regularly about war, making its intrinsic connections to our foundational practices: Baptism and Eucharist? When will church leaders trust those in their care with the complex history and theology of war in the Christian tradition (and not debate the finer points with their clergy friends only)? And when will we realize that we need to address these matters not so much on Memorial Day or Veterans Day but, more fittingly, during Advent or when we wash each other’s feet?
And how can discernment about war and violence be recovered as a communal, ecclesial practice since, as Bill Cavanaugh has pointed out, the church has always assumed “that those who would judge rightly in these matters would be followers of Jesus Christ, formed in the virtues of a disciple, and given authority by the Holy Spirit within the community of disciples.”
Hardly academic.
May 24, 2011 at 12:10 pm
This post is quite thought provoking. Abandoning the Proverb’s caution that “even a fool is considered wise if he keeps his mouth shut,” I did have a couple of “off-the-cuff” thoughts.
First, I certainly agree that whether a war should be fought is a proper area of inquiry for clergy to not only think about, but on occasion to preach about–just like most other human endeavors. However, I think I would generally distinguish the “decision making” to enter a war by “those in charge” from how a particular soldier who is on the field is evaluated for his service of his “commander in chief” or his “country.” There have always been wars (and always will be, in all likelihood), and they should be debated and scrutinized; but, once underway, I think a “Saving Private Ryan” viewpoint of how a soldier is supposed to act while in the war is not a bad one. In that respect, “war heros” are mentioned in scripture. Also, Jesus encountered Roman centurions without censure and when John the Baptist was inquired of by soldiers as to what they should do to show their repentance, he did not say, “Drop out of the army.” You may already be of the same mind, I don’t know, but I do think there is an important distinction in assessment between a “good war” and a “good soldier.”
Finally, I also agree that some wars just should not be fought, and that an “America, do or die” mentality should not be how a Christian views war. It is not at all clear to me that America should be the “world’s policeman.” Sometimes we simply have to step back and say, “Tragic, but that’s not our place to try to resolve by America’s military might.” Nevertheless, I also would contend that some wars probably SHOULD be fought as a matter of “defense,” either of ourselves or other “innocents.” I think Romans 13:4 suggests that governments have a duty to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” While we are obliged to “turn the other cheek” to personal “affronts,” I think a different rule applies to, first, keeping the bully from slapping the other fellow around, and, second, to letting oneself be killed when, for example, to do so leaves a widow or orphan behind. And this applies on the “world stage” as well, in my opinion.
May 24, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I suspect that we don’t hear many sermons about war for the same reason we don’t hear sermons about abortion and homosexuality – it is controversial. Pastors, for obvious reasons, generally steer clear of ‘secondary’ topics that tend to be divisive. But, yes, clergy and church educators should trust that the laity can handle an exploration of the ‘Pacifism/Just War’ debate.
The challenge, it seems to me, would be for pastors/teachers who come down strongly on one side. Can they (we, I’m a Sunday School teacher) present the topic fairly and moderately? Like anything else, it matters a great deal how the subject is presented.
A negative example would be if the pastor would preach a ‘pacifist’ sermon in an ‘I’m-right-and-others-are-wrong’ tone, wagging her finger at any dissenters in her congregation. Ideologues like Hauerwas, or some right-wing flag waver do not contribute much to the conversation where the rubber meets the road in the local congregation.
But I can envision a truly helpful multi-session study exploring scripture, church history, etc. Did Jesus establish a doctrine prohibiting all violence in all circumstances? What about self-defense and defense of the weak? Does ‘turn the other cheek’ apply only to individuals, or does it also apply to groups, or even nation-states? How does a nation-state turn the other cheek when doing so requires the power of the Holy Spirit? Should Christians serve in the military?
Far from being afraid of such questions, we should engage them fully, in a respectful, honest and open manner.
May 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Dear Debra,
Korean War and was reinforced by Vietnam. In WWI and WWII the enemy was clear and there was a national need to contribute by all concerned. We had a draft and those folks were not volunteers as we have today. Operation enduring Freedom in Afganistan was initiated by 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom was started due to the threat of Chemical and biological warfare abd thge fear that Sadamm Hussein would use those weapons or sell them to terrorists to attack the United States. That being said, I think the Mainline churches may be against the war but find it very difficult to be against the individual Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airman who are placed in harms way by an adminstration that may not have the full support of the congress or the american people. I know that the Methodist Church does not support the war but that it will not take a stance against it publicly because of the backlash. To be truthful I think it is very difficult to assess our feelings because we have to clearly defined enemy. It’s not the Aphagany people or the Iraqi people that we are fighting it is worldwide terrorist network that uses the the Koran and the Muslim religion to justify it’s attacks on not only us but other countries as well. I pray for a day when we might all be able to live in peace and harmony.
May 24, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Thanks for your reflections, Tom – my own “off the cuff” thought in response: the focus on the “good soldier” doesn’t leave room for asking (uncomfortable) questions about the moral agency of those who kill in war.
Jerry – in my experience (and as you suggest) it’s never helpful to “argue” these matters from one’s personal point of view but rather to situate the problem of war within the larger life of discipleship–to let it emerge as a congregation worships, prays, studies, reaches out to the poor, etc. It does, though, take skilled leadership to help people make the connections.
Craig – you’re right about all the rationales for all the wars America has fought but I just don’t believe that that’s where Christians begin. Our starting point is a first-century Jew who refused to meet violence with violence. And so we have to decide if he really meant it and what we, as his followers, will do about. Jesus is just so inconvenient when it comes to these matters!
May 25, 2011 at 7:44 am
Thanks, Debra. And it takes a skilled leader to present the topic in a manner that is not hyper-academic, so that so the rank and file can connect. It is a big, complex issue, but we need not shy away from such. Yet, I do love the bible’s simplicity sometimes: “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all”.
May 24, 2011 at 7:08 pm
I consider myself an “almost pacifist,” because pure pacifism, ultimately, collapses. If I were in a position to save the life of, say, a professor or blogger by inflicting violence–even lethal violence, on a defenseless professor or blogger (much less my mother or a child of mine or a good friend who I’m willing to lay down my own life for), I would go all the way to killing the attacker or attackers out of love of neighbor. I know the early Christians were pure pacifists —as was Jesus. But there are scenarios in which standing idly by and watching a life-threatening attack on an individual or a few innocents, or allowing the wholesale slaughter of innocents by a government or army or terrorist organization with no intervention whatsoever–would make a mockery of the love thing. (Intentionally putting yourself in the path of killers and terrorists the way that MLK and Ghandi and others did, as activists willing to be martyrs, is another matter entirely.) I don’t think Jesus condones violence. I don’t think Jesus condones a terrorist or group of terrorists raping and murdering and destroying at will. It’s one thing to be a pacifist in your head. It’s another thing to be a pacifist in your heart. Jesus is inconvenient indeed. And that’ll preach.
May 24, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Two things. I think Paul’s point is well taken that sometimes there are “other things in the picture” aside from just my own willingness to suffer injustice to myself–what I might call “competing principles.” It is all very well for me to say I won’t fight back against any attempt to harm me, but it is another entirely to say that the government which God has ordanined should take no action to protect innocents against the actions of murderers, rapists, torturers, and all sorts of other “bad guys.” The Bible sanctions all sorts of government “killings” in such contexts. We can’t interpret Jesus to be contrary to the rest of scripture without doing damage to the whole concept of inspiration. Therefore, we must find some way to reconcile what Jesus said and did with that “balance” of scripture, and I think distinguishing a willingness to suffer injustice (and even murder) as to oneself and the responsibility to defend other innocents from murderers, etc., accomplishes that reconciliation.
However, point well taken as to absolving soldiers who are following commands if the war they are fighting in is itself unjust. We can’t absolve those who followed Hitler’s commands in killing Jews, for example. Nonetheless, I think there is still a point of more squarely resting responsibility on the shoulders of those who make the “Should we go to war or not?” determination than upon the soldier who is “in the trenches” in the event of “close calls.” And, I think clearly, if the war itself IS the right thing to do, we cannot properly condemn the soldier who “pulls the trigger.”
May 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm
A little more off the cuff from me and I’m out of here. Regarding Romans 13, I do think it has to be read along with Romans 12 as a whole. And it was the government and government soldiers that brought the ultimate punishment to Paul himself, along with the other apostles. But I do appreciate your position on the whole, Tom. And as for supporting the troops and soldier fetish and all that, I can appreciate Debra’s points as well. But my son, a former Marine who served in Iraq, spent most of his tour walking Iraqi kids to school, walking them a mile to where their goats were for milking, patroling around the residences of fathers, mothers and children protecting those families from some really nasty people who would have slit the throats of those families without blinking. They had slit a lot of throats before my son and his fellow warriors posted up with them. I hate war, I hate what it does to a lot of combatants, but I hate when people present these things entirely in black and white. Those families my son was protecting loved him and love him still, and he loves them. As he has said, the only PTS he has suffered is missing the good times he had with those kids. I didn’t think the war my son served in was just in the least. He thought it was, although I’m not so sure he does anymore. We haven’t talked about it. But I do know he was a good warrior. And most–certainly not all–American warriors are good in the broadest sense. I don’t believe in bumper sticker support. I do believe in supporting troups with our prayers,our care packages, donations to real support groups doing real support for wounded and damaged warriors and damaged families. War is hell for sure, and evil, and I think we throw ourselves at the mercy of God even in the most justified cases. But it’s never as black and white as most people–those either against it or for it–or any media make it out to be. Peace
May 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Yes, Romans 13 must be read in its historical and textual context. See a brief outline here:
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/
May 24, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I love what you share about your son, Paul. It’s a complex matter, indeed.
May 25, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Debra…I found you blog post about war thoughtful and helpful. You raise some great questions and issues that need raising. When my son enlisted 7 or 8 years ago, a Jungian friend poointed out that he was living out the Warrior archetype, which had been pushed to the background by my views as a parent and pastor on war. It seems their is this archetype (universal) that raises it head in societies and individuals. It is reinforced by movies etc. Within our culture the warrior is strong and cultivated and nurtured. Plus, it mixes well with a civil religion so prevalent in our country today. Just some thoughts, I have preached on war once in my 11 years at my present church. I plan to preach on it again this summer. Probably not as much as I should. I see the summer lectionary reading focus on peace! Blessings and Grace…Milton Kliesch
May 25, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Debra, I like the way you posit your question – you don’t just ask how clergy can gain courage to preach on war. You ask how clergy can gain courage to preach on war, “making intrinsic connections to our foundational practices, baptism and Eucharist.” I think the task of the preacher is not so much to preach polemical sermons against war (not that we should avoid the topic – we shouldn’t!) as it is to ask deep questions of ourselves and our congregations about how our liturgy is a paradigm of the kingdom of God. The practice of the Eucharist can push us to see beyond our cultural understandings. “At the banquet feast of the Lamb, we gain eyes to see that Christ has paid the price for our violence and calls us into his Kingdom of Peace in which all peoples are bound together” (David Stubbs). Preaching on “war” can just end up pissing people off and they tune us out but I think eyes can be opened when the preacher helps her congregation see the patterns of the kingdom that are contained in our liturgy. This applies to more than the topic of war, it applies to the intersection of Christian ethics and liturgy, in general. In a sense, liturgy is our ethic (I think this is what Hauerwas says).
May 29, 2011 at 4:56 pm
A Prayer of Memorial Day
http://summittoshore.blogspot.com/2011/05/prayer-for-memorial-day.html
July 17, 2011 at 6:41 pm
I’ve read with interest your blog entitled One World of Earthquakes and Interdependency. As I have been going through the blog, I became interested particularly in your comments on Memorial Day. I think that you may find an interest in checking out my blog, since it would be relevant to what you’re writing about.
I also found it interesting that your teaching at West Virginia Wesleyan. I did my undergraduate work at Texas Wesleyan.
Best Wishes,
Bob Collie
TheApostlePaulandthePostTraumaticStress.com
July 23, 2011 at 11:36 am
Thanks for your feedback, Bob. I’m glad to know about your blog but I’m not able to get to it with the link here – don’t know what the problem is. Yes, it would be interesting to compare our “Wesleyan” experiences!
Blessings.
Debra
May 25, 2012 at 4:26 pm
[...] Kurt Willems teaches us about remembering and re-membering this weekend. Debra Dean Murphy calls for us to bring the discussion about war back into the church rather than relegating it to just academic [...]
May 31, 2012 at 1:55 pm
What I find even more troublesome is that Memorial Day blocked out Pentecost Sunday for many churches.
And, yes this is a topic that churches avoid or have only an adamant one-sided ‘discussion’ about.
My journey from Marine to Christian pacifist:
Christian Pacifism: Fruit of the Narrow Way