In my last post, I made the following assertion:
Because of this, we accept the need to do unChristian things to “preserve our way of life” and “protect our freedoms.” Christians will often justify such by saying that it’s for the good of the church that we promote democracy, that we fight to preserve this country.
Let me offer an example of what I’m talking about.
In 1931, during the Spanish Civil War, the town of Guernica was bombed by German and Italian aircraft. The bombing, for the first time in history, targeted an entire town, attacking civilian and military targets indiscriminately. The world cried out in outrage. As historians say, a line had been crossed. Up until then, aerial attacks had limited themselves to military targets.
In September 1939, World War II began as the Germans bombed Wielun, Poland, then proceeded to bomb cities throughout Poland. Franklin Roosevelt, leader of the then-neutral United States, called on the countries involved in the conflict to promise to limit bombing to military targets. France and England agreed “upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents.” Germany agreed to the restriction, but promptly broke the agreement. When Germany bombed English cities, Great Britain began to respond in kind.
George Bell, Bishop of Canterbury and member of the House of Lords, was strongly anti-Nazi, but was also a vocal opponent of what was called “area bombing.” According to Wikipedia (hey, this is a blog, not a scholarly report), as early as 1939 Bell said:
the church should not be allowed to become simply a spiritual help to the state, but instead should be an advocate of peaceful international relations and make a stand against expulsion, enslavement and the destruction of morality. It should not be allowed to abandon these principles, ever ready to criticise retaliatory attacks or the bombing of civil populations.
In 1941, Bell wrote letters to London newspapers, urging the government to change their tactics. Then in 1944, in a speech to the House of Lords, Bell eloquently reasoned:
If that becomes prevalent, it means this, that the ruthlessness in which it exults, and for which it clamours, must bring us into competition with our enemy at his worst. It must mean that, somehow or other, we become indifferent to those values of humane civilization for which, as a people, we have believed we are contending in this war. That sort of competition is one, we should all agree, in which success would be far more dishonourable than defeat. It is a competition in which we can win only by the sacrifice of what has been best and noblest in the traditions of our race.
He also asked, “How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization?”
Bell’s stand reflected the views of most of the Western world in 1931. By 1941, most had accepted such bombings as a necessary evil. During the years since, bombing of civilians has been accepted as one of the “fortunes of war.” Morality gave way to pragmatism. The end justified the means; protecting our worldly kingdom took precedence over the values of the Kingdom of heaven. It’s one thing when citizens of the world reason in that way; their priority is the preservation of their kingdom. But what about the citizens of heaven? Dare we say “the end justifies the means,” especially when that end is not a spiritual one? Can we say “But they did it first?” Does that justify “whatever it takes”? Or will we, like George Bell, take a stand and speak out? Even Christians like he that believe in “Just War” have a responsibility to speak out against “expulsion, enslavement and the destruction of morality.” We can’t follow our culture’s changing norms. We have to cling ferociously to the values of our Kingdom. We are ambassadors. We’re here to represent the interests of our Kingdom. We can’t afford to be warped by the world.
well, expect the deportation process to begin soon, they will probably fly you back to argentina on the Enola Gay…
cf. Crossing the line. This is from my sermon last Sunday.
From Bernhard Schlink, author of The Reader in an interview on Charlie Rose. He is the “next” generation that grew up after the war in Germany and had to wrestle with coming to know what the adult generation (teachers, family, store owners, etc.) did before his generation came to know them.
cf. an ordinary person who became a Nazi guard at a camp.
How can people do the things they do?
“Again and again reading their biographies or even talking to them about this, I have the impression there’s a line and once you step over that line, pretty much anything goes.”
(The first instance, like a killing, was hard but) “After they had overstepped this moral line that was then torn it allowed them to do anything.”
Looking back on the Third Reich and beginning in 1933: “Individual morality, the individual moral sense, is too weak to help us resist these situations. We need institutions that hold and support our moral sense. It is interesting that in the Third Reich those who were ready to resist were Christians who felt somewhat held and supported by the church…” (and other groups including officers of the nobility who were held by what nobility does and doesn’t do…) I think we need institutions to hold us and to support us in our moral sense and to help us be resistant to these demands, temptations and challenges.
“The frightening thing is to look back at 33 and how these institutions crumbled, fell in a country that prided itself for its cultural heritage…The ice turned out to be so thin and it broke so easily.”
That last line is haunting.
War tramples on the normal standards of peaceful society. An example: In peacetime, people who viciously kill are punished with prision or execution. During war, ruthless killers are rewarded with medals and praise. War leads people to commit immoral acts with greater frequency and less reluctance than during peace time. They do so to survive or because they operate outside the restrictions and discipline of a normal society. War is probably Satan’s most effective tool for encouraging sin.
That said, what’s interesting about your comments Tim is that it assumes that bombing soldiers is less moral than bombing civilians. I don’t find that to be biblical. I find that to be a worldly view. God I think sees it differently. Yes, children are innocent. But the wars caused by Nazi Germany or Japan would not have been possible if the majority of those societies had not supported the troops and government. God punishes societies collectively (Sodom, Gomorrah). Is it so unreasonable to believe God let the bombs drop on Japan and Germany because their societies were being punished for the incredible cruelty and destruction they had unleashed on the earth? While we can not advocate cruelty or war, don’t Christians have a responsibility to do what they can to try to stop events like the Rape of Nanking or the Holocaust from happening? If we sit back as pacifists and observers from another world when evil ascends around us, aren’t we abdicating our responsibility to defend the weak and use our lives to pursue justice and mercy? We are to be in this world, but not of it. That means our decisions should be made with the other world in mind. I am open debate, but I do not agree that no Christian should ever go to war.
I agree that the U.S. is not a Christian nation and that no state can really be Christian. However I disagree that freedom of religion is not worth defending. Having it allows us to try to fulfill the Great Commission. It doesn’t seem like an accident that you are broadcasting from San Angelo to Havana with a Christian message rather than someone in Havana broadcasting to you. Without the freedom, evangelism is harder and ultimately less successful. So the freedom may breed complacency. But it also allows the faithful to mature in Christ and reach out to the lost.
If they do, Brian, I’ll rat you out too. :-)
Interesting. Thanks for the comment Randy.
Actually, I used the example as how society’s views of morality changed and how the church seemingly went along for the ride. My personal view is that war is not an activity for Christians, but that’s a whole ‘nother post.
Christians are never called on to use the world’s ways to bring about God’s plans. Surely it was intentional that Jesus lived in a time of extremely cruel rulers like Pilate and the Caesars; he modeled for us a way of seeking to bring about change, not through “lording over” and violence, but through service and sacrifice. In Revelation 5, the Lion of Judah turns out to be a slain Lamb; victory comes not through military might but faithful sacrifice.
And I have to disagree with the point about evangelism. Historically, the church has flourished in hostile environments and floundered in friendly ones. Even in the book of Acts, it took persecution to scatter the Christians that were in Jerusalem.
That being said… I very much appreciate your participating in the conversation. (Just for you I left out all mention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) Please keep challenging me with your well-thought out arguments.
Pingback: TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen » Blog Archive » Shifting sands