So, now that I've addressed a pastor's recent claim in front of his congregation that the U.S. military fights to preserve our rights (particularly that of free speech), I'd like to deal with the appropriateness of a pastor exhorting his listeners to give honor to those in the military. This is something I've read about, but never experience firsthand. It deeply troubled me for several reasons.
I find it interesting and perplexing why the profession of government soldier is more worthy of mention in the first place than other professions. I have a hard time believing that if said church member had been an investment banker, or a Starbucks barista, or a plumber that the pastor would have bothered telling us that we should honor him for his profession. In that case, it would have just been, "Let's pray for Joe Church Member who is moving." There wouldn't have been any reason to mention his profession. Who cares? It's irrelevant for the most part, assuming his profession isn't sinful (more on this shortly). He's a member of the church universal and the church local, and deserves our prayers whether he paints houses or designs websites or writes novels.
I have a problem with the elevation of military personnel above all others in society. It reflects an underlying but dangerous glorification of violence and killing that surely can't be good for societal health. How much more so that of the church, which is called to love sacrificially, to serve the poor and needy, to evangelize the lost; not to occupy the land of others and kill them.
In the early church, Christian participation in the military was forbidden. If a soldier came to Christianity, then he was encouraged to either quit or at least request a noncombatant role. This all changed with Constantine's conversion, which brought with it the corrupting power of the state. Suddenly, in order to fight in the Roman army, rather than committing fealty to the pagan Roman gods, one had to pledge allegiance to Christ. The empire needed the Church to abandon its pacifist heritage and find a way to justify Christian participation in war. As usual, there were theologians willing to bend to the state's wishes, and so-called just war theory was developed.
Of course, even a liberal interpretation of just war theory doesn't come close to morally justifying the current U.S. wars. Therefore, even if a Christian rejects pacifism, he is obligated to oppose Christian participation in the U.S. military at this time. Tragically, in America the opposite is largely true. In fact, military action finds wider support among Christians than among the general populace.
Even if we accept that the actions of the U.S. military are the reason we enjoy such great religious freedom, is this somehow a legitimate justification for actions that violate Christian morality? The Christians of the first three centuries suffered great political persecution, but never advocated or attempted violence in the pursuit of greater freedom. One of the great distinctions of Christianity is that morality applies to both means and ends. Don't get me wrong, religious freedom is a great thing, and should be pursued by all nonviolent means available. But no end is so precious as to justify immorality in its pursuit.
In most professions, it is possible to serve in a Christ-like way to at least some degree. But how, pray tell, does one war in a Christ-like manner? When the Christian pilot drops bombs, does he target his victims for the glory of Christ? When the Christian foot soldier kicks in the door of a private residence in the middle of the night and points his gun in a child's face, is he somehow furthering the kingdom of God? The answer is too obvious to miss. Many of us engage in tasks and activities that are largely irrelevant to our Christian mission. But a Christian soldier directly and proactively violates his. Is this who we should hold up for honor in our churches?
In my mind, it would be bad enough if Christians were neutral or silent on the issue of war and militarism. But that would be a drastic improvement over the current outspoken advocacy of war among the American church. Even greater than support for war though, is support for the military itself. Many of those who strongly disagree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan still venerate and extol the virtue of fighting in the military, much like the pastor mentioned earlier. I have no idea what his views are on the current wars. He seems like a decent, sober-minded person; far from a warmongering neocon. Yet he calls out a soldier for special recognition and honor in a church service. This is shameful and unnecessary.
My ideal is that pastors would use the pulpit to advocate Christians only taking part in peaceful activities and professions. At the very least, his call for prayer should completely leave out the fact that the subject of prayer is in the military. I don't think this Christian soldier should necessarily be condemned any more than I would condemn a drug addict or a prostitute. He should be gently and lovingly brought to a knowledge of the truth. But it is simply inexcusable for the pastor to hold up this member as worthy of exceptional honor solely and exclusively because he is a professionally trained killer dressed in a government uniform.
As nearly the entire congregation stretched out their hands in prayer for this soldier and his wife, in effect endorsing and blessing his every action as a soldier, I bowed my head and prayed that the Holy Spirit would convict him and help him to see the reality of his profession. I prayed that he would repent and refuse to serve any longer in the military. I just hope I wasn't the only one with this prayer.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Military Defends My Freedom?
This Sunday, an unfortunate event took place at the church I attended. At the end of the sermon, in the midst of the call to ministry and prayer, the pastor called for prayer for a particular couple who are moving out of state. The reason for this move is that the husband is in the military and is being transferred to a new base.
The pastor mentioned that this church member has done more than one tour in some "hot zones", and is likely to be deployed again after the move. The pastor told the congregation, "these are the kind of men you honor," and, "no matter what your views are on the wars, you can have that freedom of opinion because of guys like this that have fought to protect your freedoms." At this, I heard 4 or 5 "amens" from around the sanctuary; 4 or 5 more, by the way, than I had heard during the entirety of the passionate, inspired, and challenging sermon. The pastor then had the rest of the membership stretch out their hands and join in corporate prayer for this soldier and his family.
One may wonder why I would find such a thing "unfortunate." (In fact I find it more than unfortunate; more like disturbing and tragic.) There are two main issues here that I'd like to deal with. One is the idea of special recognition and honor for members of the military within the church. The other has to do with the idea that freedoms unique to Americans have been won and are continuously preserved by the military and through war. I'd like to deal with this second idea first.
There are few more deeply and widely held American beliefs than the one that we owe our freedoms (which are unique among all nations on earth), and therefore our allegiance and reverence to the mighty U.S. military. Laurence Vance, who regularly contributes antiwar articles from a Christian perspective to LewRockwell.com, recently received a response from a reader parroting this grand American fallacy. There are several layers of error contained in this view, and I'll try to take them on as systematically as possible in an informal blog.
1) The military does nothing to protect our freedoms
Most military apologists seem to concentrate on freedom of speech as the quintessential right that the military has secured and is securing. I've heard things like, "you antiwar people only have the freedom to speak out against wars because of the wars that have protected your right to free speech." Which wars are these? The Iraqis and Afghans have never done anything to limit my right of free speech, much less any other right. Do we honestly think that if we weren't slaughtering hundreds of thousands, even millions of Middle Easterners that we would be in dire threat of being conquered by a Shiite caliphate?
A common retort is, "you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the military." Well, since the Third Reich couldn't cross the English Channel, it's a pretty hard sell to convince me they could have crossed the Atlantic Ocean. For some crucial alternate views on WWII, please read these indispensable works by Nicholson Baker and Pat Buchanan. WWII, after all, was little more than a continuation of WWI, which was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to American freedoms. In fact, during WWI, dissenters were imprisoned by the Woodrow Wilson administration for speaking out against the war. So much for American wars protecting freedom of speech.
The same occurred during the Civil War, which freed slaves only as an unintended consequence of war strategy. The Spanish-American War, the Mexican War, the War of 1812; none of these achieved anything positive in the way of preserving American rights. One would have to go all the way back to the War for Independence to find any war in our history that could remotely be said to expand American freedoms, and even that is debatable. A reasonably sober-minded survey of our history reveals little if any correlation between U.S. military action and the preservation of essential American freedoms.
2) Our freedoms aren't all they're cracked up to be
What is it exactly that these heroes are preserving anyway? An opponent of war can count on the fact that at some point they will hear something like (as in the case of the letter to Vance), "if you don't like America (erroneously conflating government/military and country), then leave." This can only lead one to conclude that free speech really isn't all that important to supporters of militarism. In fact, it's more of a nuisance than a fundamental natural right. They'd just as soon have a monolithic militaristic state with no dissent allowed.
Of course, without the freedom of dissent, there really isn't any freedom at all. And during times of war, dissent, if not directly outlawed, suffers from intense social persecution. It's difficult to survey history and not recognize a correlation between war and loss of individual freedom. This brings me to my next point.
3) The military undermines and endangers what freedoms we do have
First there is the indirect way that times of military action, even when acting abroad, tend to limit and restrict the freedoms we enjoy here on the home front, as referred to above. One only needs to take the most cursory look at the expansion of the domestic American security state during the last 8 years to recognize this phenomenon. The Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the Banking Secrecy Act, the TSA and their body scanners, expanded executive power, illegal wiretapping and monitoring of citizens' phones and emails, illegal detention and torture of citizens; all these and more are justified and supported solely on the basis that we are in a time of war.
But there is the even more pernicious direct method of freedom-destroying power employed on the military's victims abroad. If the rights we hold so dearly as Americans are in fact natural rights granted to us by God, by virtue of our humanity, then those same rights must extend to all of humanity across the globe. This means that to the extent that the U.S. military kills, wounds, or destroys the property of noncombatants (and combatants if they are acting in self defense against aggressive invasion), they are acting as agents of destruction of those very rights they purport to be defending.
None of the current wars are in any way legitimate actions on the part of the U.S. military. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the unofficial missions in Pakistan and Yemen have all been aggressive proactive actions on the part of the U.S. military. This means that anyone retaliating against U.S. forces is acting in defense. This effectively makes every U.S. victim an unjustified death. But even if we consider combatant deaths as legitimate targets, the American military has still managed to kill 40 times as many noncombatants. Millions have also been displaced from their homes and live as refugees. The level of crime this commits against natural human rights is almost inconceivable.
Noncombatant deaths made up approximately 43% of total deaths during WWI; about two-thirds of WWII deaths were suffered by noncombatants. Now, over 95% of deaths inflicted by the U.S. military fall on noncombatants. These figures scream of the injustice of the American cause.
4) It doesn't take an empire (or constant wars) to protect freedoms
The simple fact is that the citizens of many countries around the world enjoy a similar level of freedom without the burden of maintaining a gargantuan network of over 730 worldwide military bases. Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong. These are just a few samples. Each nation in some ways is more free than America, and in some ways less free. The crucial point is that freedom is achievable and maintainable without a huge military spread across the globe.
Well, that turned out longer than I thought it would. I'll continue in an additional post with my views on church militarism.
UPDATE: Click here to read Part 2
The pastor mentioned that this church member has done more than one tour in some "hot zones", and is likely to be deployed again after the move. The pastor told the congregation, "these are the kind of men you honor," and, "no matter what your views are on the wars, you can have that freedom of opinion because of guys like this that have fought to protect your freedoms." At this, I heard 4 or 5 "amens" from around the sanctuary; 4 or 5 more, by the way, than I had heard during the entirety of the passionate, inspired, and challenging sermon. The pastor then had the rest of the membership stretch out their hands and join in corporate prayer for this soldier and his family.
One may wonder why I would find such a thing "unfortunate." (In fact I find it more than unfortunate; more like disturbing and tragic.) There are two main issues here that I'd like to deal with. One is the idea of special recognition and honor for members of the military within the church. The other has to do with the idea that freedoms unique to Americans have been won and are continuously preserved by the military and through war. I'd like to deal with this second idea first.
There are few more deeply and widely held American beliefs than the one that we owe our freedoms (which are unique among all nations on earth), and therefore our allegiance and reverence to the mighty U.S. military. Laurence Vance, who regularly contributes antiwar articles from a Christian perspective to LewRockwell.com, recently received a response from a reader parroting this grand American fallacy. There are several layers of error contained in this view, and I'll try to take them on as systematically as possible in an informal blog.
1) The military does nothing to protect our freedoms
Most military apologists seem to concentrate on freedom of speech as the quintessential right that the military has secured and is securing. I've heard things like, "you antiwar people only have the freedom to speak out against wars because of the wars that have protected your right to free speech." Which wars are these? The Iraqis and Afghans have never done anything to limit my right of free speech, much less any other right. Do we honestly think that if we weren't slaughtering hundreds of thousands, even millions of Middle Easterners that we would be in dire threat of being conquered by a Shiite caliphate?
A common retort is, "you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the military." Well, since the Third Reich couldn't cross the English Channel, it's a pretty hard sell to convince me they could have crossed the Atlantic Ocean. For some crucial alternate views on WWII, please read these indispensable works by Nicholson Baker and Pat Buchanan. WWII, after all, was little more than a continuation of WWI, which was completely unnecessary and irrelevant to American freedoms. In fact, during WWI, dissenters were imprisoned by the Woodrow Wilson administration for speaking out against the war. So much for American wars protecting freedom of speech.
The same occurred during the Civil War, which freed slaves only as an unintended consequence of war strategy. The Spanish-American War, the Mexican War, the War of 1812; none of these achieved anything positive in the way of preserving American rights. One would have to go all the way back to the War for Independence to find any war in our history that could remotely be said to expand American freedoms, and even that is debatable. A reasonably sober-minded survey of our history reveals little if any correlation between U.S. military action and the preservation of essential American freedoms.
2) Our freedoms aren't all they're cracked up to be
What is it exactly that these heroes are preserving anyway? An opponent of war can count on the fact that at some point they will hear something like (as in the case of the letter to Vance), "if you don't like America (erroneously conflating government/military and country), then leave." This can only lead one to conclude that free speech really isn't all that important to supporters of militarism. In fact, it's more of a nuisance than a fundamental natural right. They'd just as soon have a monolithic militaristic state with no dissent allowed.
Of course, without the freedom of dissent, there really isn't any freedom at all. And during times of war, dissent, if not directly outlawed, suffers from intense social persecution. It's difficult to survey history and not recognize a correlation between war and loss of individual freedom. This brings me to my next point.
3) The military undermines and endangers what freedoms we do have
First there is the indirect way that times of military action, even when acting abroad, tend to limit and restrict the freedoms we enjoy here on the home front, as referred to above. One only needs to take the most cursory look at the expansion of the domestic American security state during the last 8 years to recognize this phenomenon. The Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the Banking Secrecy Act, the TSA and their body scanners, expanded executive power, illegal wiretapping and monitoring of citizens' phones and emails, illegal detention and torture of citizens; all these and more are justified and supported solely on the basis that we are in a time of war.
But there is the even more pernicious direct method of freedom-destroying power employed on the military's victims abroad. If the rights we hold so dearly as Americans are in fact natural rights granted to us by God, by virtue of our humanity, then those same rights must extend to all of humanity across the globe. This means that to the extent that the U.S. military kills, wounds, or destroys the property of noncombatants (and combatants if they are acting in self defense against aggressive invasion), they are acting as agents of destruction of those very rights they purport to be defending.
None of the current wars are in any way legitimate actions on the part of the U.S. military. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the unofficial missions in Pakistan and Yemen have all been aggressive proactive actions on the part of the U.S. military. This means that anyone retaliating against U.S. forces is acting in defense. This effectively makes every U.S. victim an unjustified death. But even if we consider combatant deaths as legitimate targets, the American military has still managed to kill 40 times as many noncombatants. Millions have also been displaced from their homes and live as refugees. The level of crime this commits against natural human rights is almost inconceivable.
Noncombatant deaths made up approximately 43% of total deaths during WWI; about two-thirds of WWII deaths were suffered by noncombatants. Now, over 95% of deaths inflicted by the U.S. military fall on noncombatants. These figures scream of the injustice of the American cause.
4) It doesn't take an empire (or constant wars) to protect freedoms
The simple fact is that the citizens of many countries around the world enjoy a similar level of freedom without the burden of maintaining a gargantuan network of over 730 worldwide military bases. Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong. These are just a few samples. Each nation in some ways is more free than America, and in some ways less free. The crucial point is that freedom is achievable and maintainable without a huge military spread across the globe.
Well, that turned out longer than I thought it would. I'll continue in an additional post with my views on church militarism.
UPDATE: Click here to read Part 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
