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.