There’s an interesting book that’s being written, called “The Moral Legacy of World War II.” It’s being written by Ted Grimsrud, who teaches theology and peace studies at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA. He is posting rough drafts of each chapter on the web. You can see the table of contents here, with links to the chapters that have been made public.
It’s an interesting topic. While the impact of the war on society as a whole is interesting, I’m particularly aware of the impact on the church in the United States. Our fellowship, the churches of Christ, transformed almost overnight from a predominantly pacifistic movement to a movement that broadly supports military involvement.
I overstated my case the other day by saying that this country has basically been at war for the last 70 years. Nick rightly corrected me on this. If you want to get technical, the last declaration of war by the United States Congress was in 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Romania. What may have seemed like wars since then have merely been military actions. What is unquestionable, however, is that the U.S. geared up militarily in the 1940s and never “geared down” after that. We became, and remain, a militarized society. And our churches, the churches of Christ at least, became and remain a militarized religious movement.
So Grimsrud’s study should be interesting. I’ve only read the first chapter. I hope some of you will read his writings and comment on them. His bias is obvious, which can often be helpful. Studies done under a pretense of objectivity can be deceiving. Every story has a slant, and it’s useful to know ahead of time what that slant is going to be.
I do not believe that 70 years of war is an overstatement. This country has been at war whether it was declared or not. Call it a police action, a support action, or whatever; it is still war. People still get killed unnecessarily. The government simply does not declare war because they know that the people are so tired of war after the Vietnam fiasco they simply would not stand for it. Sooner or later the American people are going to catch on to the lie. I then fear for this nation and indeed the entire world because of the undue influence it has wielded.
As Christians, we should be praying as Paul instructed. “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:1-4). This and teaching the gospel of the kingdom of God is the way Christians improve the earthly nation and the world in which they live, not through the ballot box or on the battlefield.
May you always be at peace,
Wes
I looked for Nick’s correction of your statement but couldn’t find it (was it in a previous post?)
I tend to agree with Wes that your comment was not an overstatement. Even though we may not technically have been at war every moment of the last 70 years, we have certainly been geared up and in position for it. We have troops in some 100 nations of the world.
This has certainly changed our theology, one from pacifism (or even just war) to embracing war as a solution for many problems. Shortly into the first Gulf War I read suggestions and recommendations in Christian magazines that it would be acceptable to nuke Iraq. That advice coming from Christian leaders/writers?
Rarely considered now is the right-to-life of civilians in a theatre of war. They are “corollary losses.” This has become a bigger issue since killing has progressed from using rifles (one-to-one killing) to the use of bombs (one-to-dozens/hundreds/thousands killing). You simply cannot discriminate between the soldier and the civilian with bombs. So, we either have to condemn the use of aerial bombardment in favor of civilian right-to-life, or we have to change our theology to allow for it (God approves war in the OT, therefore he approves ALL war [to the neglect of other significant OT texts where he didn’t approve of it]; civilians are no longer presumed innocent, they are corollary).
It may be hard for us to see just how war-oriented our society has become while living inside the bubble.
Interesting post.
wb
Wes and Terry,
I think 70 years of military mobilization or something of the sort would be more accurate. There was a definite “lull” between Vietnam and the first Gulf War. That’s what Nick pointed out in a comment a few weeks ago. It’s hard to say we were actually at war during all of those years.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Nick may be right about the “lull” I never was a good student of history except for the church. I’ll have to look it up because my mind, which I admit is getting slower these days, keeps nagging at me that the U.S. was still involved in several little “brush fire” wars even then.
In any case, thanks for the link. The book looks very interesting. I intend to read the whole thing as soon as I get through “rendering unto Caesar”. I have to get that done this week or Caesar will be rendering unto me:-)
May you always be at peace,
Wes
I have heard it rationalized this way: “It would be poor stewardship of the power and strength bestowed upon us by God if we did not use it.”
Was Jesus a poor steward of His power? Yes, his mission was to die. But, what about James the apostle? Instead of being beheaded, why didn’t he stop the whole fiasco??? In all of the book of Acts, with miraculous gifts at their recorded highest activity, we never once see the Spirit using these powers to crush the enemies by force — at least through the church. Ananias, Saphira, and Herod were all struck down directly by God. If it is poor stewardship of power, what does that say about the church in scriptures? Acts 8:4 would read quite differently if God wanted His kingdom using the sword to maintain prosperity. If the church responded to terrorism the way the U.S. has, the apostle Paul may not have lived through his days as Saul because the Sons of Thunder would have had lightning called down upon him, or the church would have committed to an all-out assault on Saul and his minions seeking to crush the church. Religious terrorism, pure and simple. Yet, God’s kingdom in the first century did not respond with their God-given power in the first century the way nations that have “In God We Trust” responds to terrorism today.
Is it possible that salvation for our enemies has been traded in for safety from our enemies? Whatever drove the church and its use of power has changed what motivates the use of power today. Really, allowing ourselves to be corrupted by power is not a new thing. But, all the rationale I have heard for our use of force just does not mesh with how God used His kingdom in the New Testament.
FWIW John Howard Yoder’s “What Would You Do?” is a fantastic book of real-life stories detailing God’s deliverance of people in some of the scariest situations, without the use of force.
The decision to do an about face from pacifism to war support/participation has it’s consequences. I just read a news story on the Christian Chronicle website of a Church of Christ in Louisiana where the State Governor led a ceremony praising veteran’s who have sacrificed “…to protect the liberties and freedoms we enjoy everyday.”
I am not saying this to criticize veterans who have served in nobility believing that they were doing right. My criticism is that such praise subverts the very truth of the gospel. If Colossians 1.15 is true then Christians need no other protection; If 1 Corinthians 15.54-57 is true then there is no life that can be taken from us and is in need of protection; for Jesus has already set us free (a freedom that cannot be taken away) and in him we have already overcome death (and therefore cannot have our life taken from us). So for a church to endorse the proclamation of another story, which is what they are doing, is functionally a denial of the gospel.
If the state wants to proclaim a different story than the gospel of Jesus Christ, let them do it in their own house!
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Perhaps this is slightly off topic but it does deal with war and how the CofC has thought of it. Richard Hughes, a professor at Messiah College and formerly a prof at Pepperdine and ACU I think, has made the point that at one time the CofC was the largest “peace church” in the USA – even though it may have been a “minority position” in the CofC. It was a larger group than the Amish or Mennonites or Quakers. The pacifism is attributed in a number of significant ways to the influence of David Lipscomb and James A. Harding and what some call the Tennessee Tradition.
All that changed in the first part of the 20th century and the US government played a significant role via the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917-18. In Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America Hughes writes that the “United States Attorney General for Middle Tennessee, Lee Douglas threatened J. C. McQuiddy, publisher of the Gospel Advocate with arrest if he continued to publish “”seditious”” articles in the Advocate that discouraged “”registration of young men under the Selective Service … Act.”
Hughes also recounts Cordell Christian College (Cordell, Oklahoma) closing near the end of WWI. Cordell CC’s president J. N. Armstrong, a son in law of James a Harding embodies what Hughes refers to as the apocalyptic perspective, which was pacifistic. The was also true of much of the faculty of Cordell CC. Hughes writes that the Selective Service board in Cordell demanded the “”institution be so reorganized as will unreservedly conform to all military policies and requirements of the government in order to successfully carry on the war and that no half-way compliance will be tolerated.”” “The board also further demanded the immediate resignation of Armstrong and all of the faculty and board of trustees who shared his pacifist position. Because that would have meant a total reorganization of the institution, Cordell had little choice but to close its doors.”
So the US government put at least one CofC college out of business. By the time I was a student at ACC in the late 1960s a pacifist was hard to find among the student body and I knew of only one professor that was a pacifist.
Hesed,
Randall
tried to start reading The Civil War as Theological Crisis by Noll, it’s thick so I haven’t made it past the first chapter yet, but he talks references sermons in US and Europe for and against slavery in their day,
Randall,
I knew of these things, but had forgotten. My idea that the CofC changed positions due to WWII is not entirely accurate. Thanks for sharing that info.
I have the Christian Chronicle’s Decades of Destiny, and they tell the story of Cordell there. I was unaware of that bit of history until I read it in that book.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I’ve read Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, which is quite good.
Pingback: THE CHRISTIAN AND PACIFISM « Committed To Truth