Category Archives: peace

Sleight of mouth

2 Replies

When I was a kid, I really enjoyed magicians. Even though I knew it was a trick, I still became a part of the illusion.

Sleight of hand, or prestidigitation for those who like using big words, is usually a big part of any magician’s act. A lot of it depends on getting people to look at the wrong thing, on distracting your audience with a diversion while you are doing something else.

I think that we need to create a new term: sleight of mouth. To really catch what’s important, we often have to look at what people don’t say, rather than what they do.

One place where I think this is true is war. There is a natural fog of war that clouds the information process; even those involved don’t know everything that’s going on. There’s also a manmade fog of war, where those involved practice sleight of mouth, saying only what they want people to hear.

One of my language teachers in Argentina was able to illustrate this for me. She was living in Los Angeles during the 1982 Malvinas (Falklands) War between Argentina and Great Britain. She said that she heard news from three sources: the United States (which she could hear for herself), Argentina (which she heard from friends there), and Germany (thanks to a neighbor). The U.S. news consistently presented the news from the viewpoint of Great Britain. The Argentine news was slanted toward Argentina, so much so that when Argentina surrendered, her friends wouldn’t believe her when she called them. (“How can that be? We’re winning.”) In the end, it was the German news that seemed to be the most objective.

What makes me wonder is why it’s so hard to find out civilian death totals from Iraq and Afghanistan. I can understand the difficulty in knowing how many enemy fighters have been killed, but it seems like our government could present a clearer picture of how many bystanders have been killed. Actually, we know that they can: the Wikileaks documents confirmed the numbers that non-government sites have reported.

So why doesn’t our government talk about this? Sleight of mouth. Nobody wants people thinking about the tens of thousands of people who have died. Let’s focus on the three thousand or so that died 9/11 or the four thousand or so U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Talking about the deaths of over one hundred thousand civilians might dampen the enthusiasm for the war. Let’s talk about something else.

We should mourn those one hundred thousand as strongly as we do the ones who died 10 years ago in the terrorist attacks. That needs to be said time and again. Let’s not be children who are deceived by a magician’s tricks. Let’s not just look where they tell us to look. Let’s look at the whole picture.

There’s a reason why we keep saying we want to “fight them over there.” Because if those one hundred thousand dead were American citizens, this country would look at things in a whole different light.

Honoring the sacrifices of war

4 Replies

There’s an aspect of the U.S. military’s actions overseas that is continually hidden by proponents of military participation: the cost in human lives in other countries. When discussing the sacrifices of war, so many Christians in America focus on our soldiers and their families. They are to be considered, naturally, but so are the tens of thousands of people affected by those wars we fight. (It’s extremely difficult to get good numbers on that. I have been chastised for referring to the site Iraq Body Count, but the material released by WikiLeaks has shown that, if anything, that site is conservative in its counting.)

One reason that 9/11 impacted this country in such a strong way was the fact that it happened on American soil. We’ve worked hard throughout the years to keep all fighting limited to somebody else’s home, not ours. This morning on the news, as the proposed reduction of troops in Afghanistan was being discussed, people expressed the fear that the fighting might come here. “Better to fight them over there” has always been a popular slogan.

As Christians, I think we’re obligated in such a situation to consider those who live “over there.” Consider the Afghani people. In the late 1970s, the Soviets became involved in Afghanistan as military advisers. The U.S. saw the chance to lure the Soviets into a military quagmire, so operations were undertaken to escalate the fighting in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets invaded, the U.S. began arming Afghani warlords to fight the Soviets (When asked about the dangers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, responded “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”). When that war came to an end, these armed strongmen continued to dominate the regions where they lived. Then after 9/11, the United States invaded, fighting against many of the same people we had helped arm and train. And throughout it all, the civilian population suffered destruction of property, serious injury and death.

When we speak of sacrifice, do we think of those people? Do we consider the mothers who lost sons, the children who lost parents, the villagers who lost everything? Where are their parades? Who raises memorials in their honor? Where are the churches that send them care packages and stand and clap for them during worship?

But they’re not “our people.” No, of course not… unless you’re a Christian. Unless you believe that there is no “Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free.” Then, of course, those people are as much “our people” as any freckle-faced American soldier.

On Memorial Day, I was accused of not honoring the sacrifice of those who have lost loved ones in war. I respond that I honor many more of those people than do those who march down Main Street and salute the flag.

When we count the costs of war, let’s count all the costs of war.

The Case for Non-Participation: Deceit

19 Replies

This week I’m laying out a case for Christians not participating in war nor in the military. I had laid out the basic reasons a couple of weeks ago and am now analyzing the four principal ones that I mentioned.

One big reason I see for not participating in war is the deceit that surrounds it. Wars are complex things with multiple causes and myriad effects. There’s hardly anyone that fully understands all the reasons for a war when that war begins. Even when leaders have nefarious goals in view, they always present their wars as justified reactions to some wrong. Every nation is waging a just war; every country has God on their side; every arm fights for the side of justice.

Talking about this point is always a bit delicate, because we prefer the edited-for-public-consumption view of history. We want to look back at history in simple terms, like the inspiring stories taught to school children. Any attempts to pull back the curtain on the ruse is quickly labeled as “America bashing.” But we need to be able to discuss realities, not just popular lore.

Almost every war that the United States has been involved in has had a dark side to it. (I say almost because I’m not knowledgeable enough to speak of all of them.) People manipulated that conflict for their own ends. Soldiers were sent to fight based on a misconception. These men responded with courage and sacrifice. Most of them joined for honorable reasons and honor marked their time of service. It’s not the common soldier that is to blame.

It’s not always the leaders, either. They can also be duped into believing falsehoods regarding a war. The U.S. government was fooled into thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, for example. But I’m cynical enough about government to think that those moments are the exception. Too many times, wars are fought for political or economic gain, and the leaders are well aware of that. It’s the general public and the common soldier that gets manipulated into thinking the fighting is for a higher cause.

It’s amazing to me how Americans can distrust their political system on so many levels, yet place blind faith in the very same leaders when it comes to sending our young people to kill and be killed. Just as the powers seek their own ends, so the servants of those powers become a part of the system, justifying the deaths of innocents for the “greater good” of the preservation of the machinery.

The United States is not unique in this. This country is no worse than other nations of this world. We just need to drop the myth that we are somehow exempt from the ills that plague the others. We need to accept the fact that our nation seeks its own good above all, and the leaders of our nation sometimes act seeking their own goals. Politics, personal ambition and the quest for pre-eminence in this world; all these things play a part in the decisions made to unleash the horrors of war.

I don’t want to be a part of it. I don’t want my children to be sucked into that. I don’t want to see the church saddled with the weight of using valuable resources to support a web of deceit and lies. We are the church, and when we give our young people to the military, when we support the military system, we take from the Kingdom of God and give to the kingdoms of this world.

It’s time to say: no more.

The Case For Non-Participation: Jesus’ teachings

18 Replies

As we look at reasons for not participating in any nation’s military, it’s obvious that we need to look at what Jesus taught, as well as the rest of the New Testament. I read a piece by Patrick Mead where he claimed that the only way to support pacifism was to cut certain portions out of the New Testament. While I understand his feeling (I feel the same toward military involvement), such an attitude is counterproductive to biblical discussions. I won’t claim that those who choose to participate ignore Scripture. I disagree with them on how to interpret certain passages. And I think their interpretation is more reflective of our culture and society than it is of biblical teaching.

At some point, we have to take the Sermon on the Mount (and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke) seriously. The sayings are hard. As I’ve written about before, some want to explain them away through various creative strategies. But we can’t get away from the fact that Jesus taught that it’s better to let an evil man have his way than to retaliate. Turning the other cheek, letting people rob us and take advantage of us, loving enemies… none of these things are easy nor come naturally. Jesus was saying that what is natural isn’t right, that we have to overcome our human impulses and replace them with spiritual ones.

“Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” These words were spoken as a rebuke, not merely as a commentary on life. Jesus wasn’t just saying that his disciples weren’t to defend him at that moment. He was saying that there are those who live by the sword… and they aren’t us! We aren’t them. Jesus’ followers are not to live by the sword.

What about the New Testament passages that talk about Jesus coming to execute judgment on his enemies? Aren’t those violent passages? Of course they are. Which is why Paul reminds us that vengeance belongs to God. He will do it. Just as we aren’t to judge because there is only one judge, we aren’t to avenge because there is only one avenger. Passages that show God doing violence argue against our doing the same.

We live in a militarized society. That colors the way we read Scripture. It leads us to look for every exception and every loophole to allow us to follow the current of our culture. We need to recapture the countercultural spirit. We need to seek to be a holy people. Jesus called us to a higher standard. I think we need to stop trying to talk our way around that and merely seek to live it.

The Case for Non-Participation: The Powers

4 Replies

I should have clarified in the last post that I’m specifically talking about non-participation in the military. The term “pacifism” brings lots of different ideas to mind, so I thought the term “non-participation” might be more helpful.

As I said before, the second major topic is that of the powers. In the biblical world view, the spiritual world and the physical world are connected. They aren’t identical, like in pantheism, but they aren’t separated by a great gulf, like deism. Specifically, Satan and his allies are at work in this world, just as God and his hosts are at work in this world. The Western mind has trouble accepting that; biblical writers wouldn’t have questioned it.

The nations are deceived and controlled by Satan (Luke 4:6; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 20). They seek their own survival above all. In the Bible, Israel was to seek God and trust that He would see to their survival, but they had a hard time with that. They wanted to be like the nations around them, and they eventually got their wish.

Every nation, no matter how good or how evil, sets itself up as an object of worship. They demand obedience. Pledges and oaths. Talk of allegiance and loyalty. History taught in a way to instill civic pride and patriotism.

Even as the Bible teaches that authorities are to be respected and obeyed, it also warns us that the powers behind these authorities are limited by God, but they are not godly themselves. When God’s Kingdom comes in its fullness, they will not be a part of that Kingdom. They will be destroyed as the enemies they are. (1 Corinthians 15:24)

Though we live among the nations as strangers and exiles, living out a diplomatic mission as ambassadors of Christ, we are not to make ourselves a part of these nations. Their wars are not our wars. Just as the powers they serve are not our God, so their aims and goals are not those of our God. We are soldiers, but it’s a different army with different weapons.

Paul warns against trying to eat at the table of demons and at the table of the Lord. We can’t serve two masters.