Bullets & Bibles

BULLETS & BIBLES

The ethical dilemma of marrying C h r i s t i a n m i s s i o n s t o US m i l i ta r i s m b y A ndrew F. B u s h

PRISM 2009

10

Historically this sense of sacred mission in American culture has extended to its armed forces, and consequently it has sacralized American militarism. The discussion below will illustrate why this linkage of missions and militarism still persists. First, however, what are the evidences of such linkage? Are they sufficiently significant to determine there is tendency in evangelical missions towards such alignment?

With this cultural tradition as background, it is relatively easy to understand how military involvement in foreign wars might be understood as a legitimate opportunity for missions.

To illustrate this fallacy, consider how during the Persian Gulf War the evangelistic and development agency Samaritan’s Purse, under the leadership of Franklin Graham, sent unsolicited New Testaments in Arabic to US troops with an accompanying note that read: “Enclosed is a copy of the New Testament in the Arab language. You may want to get a Saudi friend to help you to read it.”2 The Saudi Arabian government had argued that US troops were seeking to evangelize Muslims. The revelation of Graham’s efforts confirmed their suspicions.

Graham saw the American invasion of Iraq as an opportunity for fruitful new missions to Muslims.3 Other evangelicals followed suit with similar pronouncements. Charles Marsh observed that when “the president of the Southern Baptist convention said, at the conclusion of his enthusiastic defense of the invasion of Iraq, that ‘in these urgent days we will seize the opportunity to advance the Kingdom of God,’ he encouraged the perception that the church and the military were an interconnected part of the enormous providential campaign in the Middle East.”4

With the involvement of the US armed forces in recent wars in the Middle East, the linkage of missions with military force has become an urgent ethical problem for the evangelical church.While this problematic association has stirred some debate, the evangelical missiological community has shown an alarming lack of concern. Protest has, instead, issued from the unwilling recipients of Christian mission aligned with militarism, including the peoples of Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, among others.

There are many critical questions that must be asked.

In what ways is missions seeking to take advantage of military engagement in war zones for the advancement of its agenda? What is the effect of this linkage? Why has the Christian community been largely unresponsive to what should be an obvious ethical aberration in its missions praxis? What should be the response of the evangelical missions community to this trend? How can this community resolve to avoid this ethically distorted and ultimately futile association of missions and militarism?

Missions and military force “But you’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops,” asserted Rev. Jerry Falwell to Rev. Jessie Jackson on Cable News Network on October 24, 2004. “And I’m for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”

The bombast of this statement approximates buffoonery, yet the fact that a nationally known Christian leader would make such a pronouncement on an internationally broadcast network—and considering the implications of the understanding of the missio Dei which this statement represents—the late Falwell’s proclamation must be taken seriously. From his perspective, in fighting those it deems to be terrorists the US military is apparently doing God’s work with divine blessing.

Falwell’s statement in one sense is no surprise. It is consistent with the history of American self-definition as a “city set on a hill,” ordained by God with a unique obligation to bring righteousness to the nations. Peter Marshall emphasized this strain of national identity over 30 years ago when he wrote: In the rocky fields of New England, God was raising up a kingdom of stone houses, with each stone in each house fitted into place by Him. This kingdom would be as close as a family, a spiritual family which would be able to withstand the most implacable pressure the world could bring to bear. As we’re coming to see, these stone houses were in turn to be the foundation stones, not merely of American democracy, but of the Kingdom of God in America…Entering into covenant with us, God has called the people of this country to be a “city set on a hill.”1

This billboard in Lutz, Fla., parrots the National Rifle Association’s mantra. Photo by Stephanie Bolling.

PRISM 2009

11

A less direct but nonetheless controversial linkage to militarism were the efforts of Samaritan’s Purse and other Christian relief agencies to follow US troops into Iraq at the onset of the present conflict. In view of Graham’s harsh critique of Islam, referring to it as, “wicked and violent,”5 the relief efforts of Samaritan’s Purse are, in the opinion of many Muslim Iraqis, part of an effort by US armed forces to destroy Islam.6 Another recent example of the entanglement of missions with militarism is found in an episode of the popular Christian reality television show, Travel the Road. In this episode the two young missionary leads, who are typically filmed evangelizing remote people groups, are embedded with soldiers in Afghanistan and are filmed distributing New Testaments in Dari, one of the two official languages of the country.7 Apparently the producers did not envision any protest from their Christian audience, which is an indication of how conditioned the American evangelical community is to the association of missions with militarism.

Some mission agencies seek to supply military personnel on active duty in war areas with religious materials to distribute to civilian peoples. According to a critic of mission work being conducted through the military,8 the newsletter of the International Ministerial Fellowship discusses approvingly the efforts of an Army chaplain to distribute Christian tracts written in Arabic on how to convert to Christianity.

While these examples of militaristic mission do not explicitly endorse the use of force to advance the missio Dei, the recipients certainly perceive this association as one in which the Christian agenda is being furthered by force— thus the claim in the Islamic community that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are intended to destroy Islam itself.

In Israel and Palestine the association of military force with the missio Dei is more explicit. Pre-millennial theology, coupled with the nationalistic ideology of militant Zionism, is known as Christian Zionism. This movement argues that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophetic promises to restore the nation of Israel and that it has an unconditional mandate from God to possess all of ancient Israel, even to the extent of Greater Israel, which extends to present-day Iraq.9 In Israel and Palestine, mission is consequently linked to militarism by Christian Zionism’s framing of the Israeli Defense Forces as a modern-day equivalent of Joshua’s armies, ordained and sanctioned by God. Consider, for example, the enthusiastic participation of American Christian Zionists in what have been called “terror tours,” designated the “Ultimate Mission,” the symbol of which is an Israeli gunman, sponsored by the Israeli organization Shurat HaDin, or Israel Law Center. These tours take Christians and others to visit Israeli

Is this what it means to be an American?

Image courtesy of Zazzle.com

military units, meet government security officials, watch Palestinians being tried in court, and generally support the militaristic operations against the Palestinian people. One of the leaders of this organization states: “[The Christians] cry.

They are very sensitive…It makes them proud that they are supporting this country.You know, it fits all their nice Bible stories.”10 These examples illustrate that through various avenues mission is being linked with military force. Missions is taking advantage of military conflicts by following in the wake of the US military to gain access to countries. Missions is being executed by military personnel themselves with the support of various ministries. In the case of Christian Zionism, the use of military force against an indigenous people is being reckoned as an expression of the missio Dei. What causes this deviation of Christian mission from the ethical foundations of the kingdom of God — reconciliation, forgiveness, and forging peace with one’s enemies?

Roots of the military-mission marriage Several factors may be suggested for this severe blind spot in contemporary missions: the historic Constantinian linkage of Christianity with empire; the American sense of exceptionalism under God; the separation of evangelism from social justice, reconciliation, and other kingdom values; an overrealized eschatology in Christian Zionism; a widespread Islamophobia in Western society; and, finally, a lack of renewed theological reflection to undergird mission praxis during this time of transition in missions.

Militarism as an agent of God has had a long history beginning with the inception of the Christendom paradigm

PRISM 2009

12

into our rhetoric and our perception of the recent war with Iraq… I must declare loud and clear that no nation should ever view itself as the God-ordained instrument of his will.17

following the conversion of Constantine, as Alan Kreider develops in his article “Violence and Mission in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries: Lessons for Today.”11 At his conversion Constantine reportedly saw a vision in the sky of a cross and heard a voice saying,“In this sign conquer.” Christian missions subsequently became intertwined with the militaristic extension of the empire: For example, the armies of the Eastern Roman Empire under Emperor Heraclius, which, in the same year as Muhammad’s relocation of the nascent Muslim community from Mecca to Medina, engaged in war against the Persians with the blessing of the church. Don McCurry argues that the example of these armies that swept into ancient Palestine could have been critical in the formation of Islam’s theology of jihad.12 The battles of Charlemagne to forcibly convert pagan kings 13 and the horrifically destructive Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries are ugly scars in the history of Christian mission.

The emphasis in American society that it is a nation established by God with the purpose of being a Christian nation has enabled the framing of its use of military force as expressions of God’s will. The political/theological idea of “manifest destiny” legitimized the Western expansion of the American colonies at the brutal expense of Native American peoples.14 The American colonization of the Philippines followed the Spanish American War. In what would be its first Asian ground war, the United States defeated the Spanish colonial government, while at the same time suppressing Filipino freedom fighters who sought liberty from foreign colonial powers.

From the beginning of US adventurism in the Philippines, God, guns, and paternalism were mixed in a potent stew.

Stanley Karnow, in In Our Image:America’s Empire in the Philippines, notes that President McKinley confessed that God had told him to annex the islands and “Do the best we can for them.”15 One can argue that the slogan “God bless the troops” is only marginally removed from the idea that God intends the victory of the troops — our troops, not the enemy’s.

The proximity of these concepts is illustrated by inadvertent admissions, such as President George Bush’s statement concerning his intended “crusade” against terrorism.16 Tony Campolo observes this trend of merging spiritual sentiment, nationalism, and militarism: Any attempt to cloak nationalism with religious legitimation is bound to lead to militarism in a nation that is a superpower. It then becomes easy to view the armies of that nation as an instrument through which God exercises righteous judgment upon the earth. People who hold this opinion view those who oppose the ideals of the nation as enemies of God who must be held in check, if not destroyed. More than a little bit of this thinking has crept

Another contributing factor to the linkage of missions and militarism is the isolation of evangelism from other important aspects of the missio Dei, such as justice, reconciliation, and the forging of peace between peoples at enmity with each other. When evangelism is not joined to justice, then evangelism may actually further injustice. Jesus referred to this possible disjunction between evangelism and the kingdom purposes of God in his rebuke of the Pharisees: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23.15).

Consider in contrast the righteous insistence of Billy Graham, Franklin Graham’s father, that evangelism be linked with justice. In 1953 Graham insisted that a crusade he was to conduct in Chattanooga, Tenn., be integrated. In spite of a storm of protests, Graham proceeded with the crusade, the first of its kind in the South at that time.18 If he had not taken this prophetic stance, what would the evangelism have communicated about God and his kingdom? Mission divorced from justice may well become an instrument of injustice.

Evangelical enthusiasm in mission that is unwilling to consider broader social issues may cease to become an expression of the kingdom of God. An over-realized eschatology can also distort the ethics of Christ in mission. By speculating that an end-time scenario is in progress, unethical actions — such as the disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people — may be understood to be a legitimate part of the unfolding of God’s purposes. So the reasoning goes, the impending coming of Christ will establish that Israel is the center of God’s purposes and that, indeed, all

STRANGER THAN fiction?

In June, Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church of Louisville, Ky., a former US Marine, preached a sermon called “God, Guns, Gospel, and Geometry: Connecting the ‘4G’ Dots.” He invited those of his congregants who are handgun owners to bring their guns to church to celebrate Independence Day and show their support for the right to bear arms (“Pastor Urges His Flock to Bring Guns to Church,” New York Times, June 26, 2009).

PRISM 2009

13

the land of ancient Israel belongs only to the Jews. With this millennial revelation, it is supposed that the “rightness”of taking the land by force will be vindicated. But prophetic speculation cannot negate Christ’s commands to love our enemies as ourselves. Some go so far as to say that taking the land by force will help to usher in — and, by implication, actually hasten—the coming of Christ.The arrogance that lies at the heart of such a belief should make us shudder.

The historic failure of the Christian community to bring a meaningful witness of Christ’s love and mercy to Islam, including its use of terms of enmity and conflict in relation to Islam, has been renewed since the 9/11 tragedy.19 Muslim peoples are frequently portrayed in evangelical circles as a threat, the enemies of Israel, and the enemies of God. Hugh Goddard, in A History of Christian-Muslim Relations, writes: There are also wider cultural and religious reasons for the rather negative attitude towards Islam among some evangelicals: one is their tendency to identify faith and culture rather closely and thus to react rather strongly to the challenge of Islam to Western culture, which some evangelicals identify as “Christian”; and another is the widespread influence, particularly in North America, of Christian Zionism…this view leads almost inevitably to some kind of demonization of Islam…Muslims, on this view, become almost “untouchables”….20

mission during this era of intense transformation. Mission has historically advanced as a result of the fruits of theological insight. A proper development of this issue goes well beyond the constraints of this discussion; however, in brief, during these years there has been an emphasis on the methods of mission — the importance of cultural anthropology, global strategy, etc. — and while missionaries have to a certain extent become capable cultural observers and strategists, theological reflection has not proceeded apace.

Areas of theological innovation, though they are certainly not recent — such as liberation theology, the rise of majority world theologians with their emphasis on the authority of the reader and context in exegeting Scripture, the critical role of justice in God’s purposes, and the implication of Christ’s selfemptying (Phil. 2. 6-9) as the ultimate act of mission — require further development in evangelical missiology.

Adverse effects of the military-missions marriage The harm in associating missions with militarism is profound.

For starters, it can have the effect of dulling our awareness of other uses of force in missions. As Samuel Escobar argues, Western mission has historically associated itself with some form of power — whether economic, military, and/or technological — to advance its purposes.21 For people groups who were formerly colonized in the Middle East, the association of militarism and mission inevitably will be perceived as a reassertion of colonialism, an attempt to conquer and subjugate the Muslim community to the West.This in turn reinforces the accusation of a “crusade” against Islam and can only further hostilities between Islam and the Christian community. Perceptions of Christian mission as crusade have played into the hands of Islamic extremists who routinely call for jihad against Israel and Christian “crusaders.”

This environment of hostility places both missionaries and Christian Arabs at risk. The reality of this is made abundantly clear by the Christians who have been killed while serving in Islamic majority countries in recent years, including Rami Ayyad, the former director of the Palestinian Bible Society in Gaza who was martyred on October 7, 2007.

Christian Zionism, which uncritically supports Israeli militarism against the Palestinian community, places a tremendous burden on Palestinian Christians and the wider Arab Christian community in the Middle East. The Muslim community generally associates Arab Christians with Christian Zionism, which increases resistance to their witness and may heighten persecution of Muslim seekers or converts. I remember the bewildered question I heard a Muslim student ask at Bir Zeit University in Palestine: “Why do Christians in America hate us and only support Israel?”

From this perspective, military action against Islamic peoples is combating the enemies of God and defending Western, selfidentified Christian societies.

It can be argued that an equally critical reason for the ethical failure of linking missions to militarism has been the neglect of renewed theological reflection to sustain and guide

The challenge Western missions faces is how to empty itself of the prerogatives of power so that the weak are not further humiliated, the marginalized not driven further into powerlessness, and mission in Christ’s name is not an exercise in coercion.

PRISM 2009

14

The radical ethics of Christ

“if evangelicals continue to be influenced by historicist dispensationalism (the dispensationalism that goes in for identifying specific current events as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy), there is little intellectual hope for the future.”25 Christians must affirm that Christ’s exhortation for his disciples to be peacemakers is not only legitimate, but is urgently needed in Israel and Palestine and cannot be mitigated because of speculative eschatologies. Accordingly, Christians in the West should listen to the voices of Palestinian Christians, who — in spite of the violence they suffer under an Israeli occupation approved by Christian Zionists — still call for reconciliation and peace based on the biblical precedent of the inclusion of all peoples in the salvation of God. Naim Stifan Ateek, a Palestinian Anglican priest, writes in A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation: The Hebrew Scriptures contain many inclusive texts that can inspire and promote a new theology that can lead to peace. Its pages include inclusive teachings about election and chosenness, God’s mercy for all people, and God’s demand for justice and righteousness. In fact a model for a new theology could be the message of the book of Jonah, which challenges leaders and people to see the inclusive nature of the one God, an inclusive theology of the people of God that embraces all of humanity, and an inclusive theology of land that opens the way for the sharing of the land between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel must, however, abandon its exclusive tribal theology if it is serious about bringing about a genuine peace with the Palestinians.

Only a transformed theology can lead to peace.26

As Alan Kreider has argued, the “Christendom shift”— from Christianity as faith in Christ, to Christianity as the effort to promote coercively the rule of Christ over people — represents a tragic distortion in the missio Dei.22 Remedying this distortion will require both an acknowledgement of the sin of linking missions and militarism and an energetic reflection on/affirmation of the radical ethics of Christ. Jesus exhorted his disciples to radical servanthood, forgiveness, and reconciliation with one’s enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). Can missions affirm in its faith and practice the critical truth of the cross that God’s love is revealed in the deepest weakness and vulnerability? Christ in his crucifixion identified with those who suffered under oppression.The apostles accordingly followed in their exhortations. Paul instructed the church in Rome: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18). The apostle James affirmed that “the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:18).

As practical steps, Christian missions must make historic decisions to renounce association with militarism. The perception that Christian missions is an extension of Western domination has developed through centuries of the misuse of missions. Correcting this perception will require definite and consistent effort on the part of missions organizations.

First, the use of military personnel as agents for missions must be rejected. Relief work in areas where the military is currently engaged in a conflict, or has been so recently, should be avoided by Christian missions. Kreider suggests that Christian missions that seek to serve peoples in such areas can do so by funding secular organizations such as the Red Cross or United Nations relief agencies.23 In terms of Israel and Palestine, Christians must affirm the value of all humanity and that Christ’s love is not preferential.

The late Audeh Rantisi, an evangelical Palestinian Christian, wrote of his longing for such an affirmation: The deepest lesson I have learned in my life is also the simplest: God loves me and the others equally. I may dispute what another does, but he or she is not my adversary.

I have suffered, but so have others. I do not want Jews to suffer. Down deep where it is important, my Jewish brother and I are very much alike. We have the same need for security and the same need for acceptance. We must learn to provide for each other’s security and well-being.24

Finally, Christian mission must consider other forms of force and violence that wrack this world and whether Christian mission may have advantageously aligned itself with such force, even if only unintentionally. Economic, healthcare, and educational inequalities can be used as a means of force. Mission agencies must examine themselves to determine if they are using the pressure of inequalities to leverage their own advantage. The challenge Western missions faces is how to empty itself of the prerogatives of power so that the weak are not further humiliated, the marginalized not driven further into powerlessness, and mission in Christ’s name is not an exercise in coercion. The exhortation of the apostle James is pertinent, “Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up and the rich in being brought low, because the rich will disappear like a flower in the field” (James 1:9-10).

Acknowledging that entrenched theologies take many years to change, a thorough reevaluation of the ethical implications of dispensational theology, and the nationalistic triumphalism it promotes, is in order. In The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark A. Noll writes concerning this theology,

Renewing a witness to Christ’s love The history of Christian mission reveals a recurring tension between the tendency to advance mission through the Continued on page 27.

PRISM 2009

15

those needing the blessings of Jubilee (see “Hope for Homeowners” sidebar on page 24) in order to keep their current home. If possible, consider investing in community banking to provide credit to low-income people.

Many opportunities exist to help responsible working families achieve the sense of place that builds strong communities for future generations. By supporting programs like Habitat for Humanity and others that allow people to earn all or a portion of their equity “investment” in a home, we can help preserve and create communities.

Jesus came to earth to bring good news to the poor.

That good news includes social empowerment and community engagement. We need to change those basic socioeconomic realities that prevent these ideals from being realized by everyone and make a new one, so that the exile that is currently being felt by so many Americans can be reversed— and hopefully eliminated. n

A woman in our family is involved in a ministry that helps poor women find better jobs; she told us how frustrated she became when one of her clients refused to move 30 minutes away to take a good job. Even though the woman had financial and emotional support with a local church in the new area, she couldn’t bring herself to leave her community and her roots. In communities experiencing extensive layoffs, some workers may choose unemployment rather than leave behind close family ties. We might find this difficult to understand, but clearly this illustrates the importance some people assign to community and their anxiety over adapting to its loss.

What is our response?

The current economic crisis presents a tremendous opportunity for evangelical Christians to minister to low-income communities. As New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D) stated at the same National Housing Forum where Congressmen Frank made the comments quoted at the beginning of this article, “The crisis must be addressed one mortgage and one homeowner at a time.” This is just the sort of challenge that many churches may be well positioned to address. We can advocate for returning to the bedrock principles of subprime lending by our national institutions and government (see “Bedrock Principles” sidebar on page 24). We can share our talents to provide counseling to potential homebuyers or

Jodie and Bradley King reside in Media, Pa. Jodie has a masters of theology from Palmer Seminary and speaks, writes, and teaches on public policy and the Christian worldview. Brad is a partner with a management consulting firm with offices in Philadelphia and Washington, DC. Zhu Xiao Di, “Growing Wealth, Inequality, and Housing in the United States” (February 2007) Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.

1

to the simplicity and clarity of the ethics of Christ, can missions possibly continue to be useful to the kingdom of God? The exhortation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to rescue the usefulness of the church is relevant for mission today: We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds; we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us and even made us cynical.

Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, straightforward people.Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?”27 n

Bullets & Bibles continued from page 15. advantage of force and the effort to attract people to Christ through humility, servanthood, and the promise of the gospel. These contradictory impulses cannot be relegated to non-Protestant tradition, for evangelical mission displays the same penchant towards aligning itself with militarism as has Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. This conflict reflects the tendency to isolate and emphasize particular aspects of the missio Dei instead of embracing the full implications of the ethics of Christ.

What would have been the effect on post-World War II American missions in Japan had such missions not been launched after the defeat of Japan by the United States with its use of atomic weapons? If contemporary missions would renounce its alignment with militarism, might it be possible for the Islamic community to receive a witness of Christ’s love that it has historically been denied? Today Christian mission must resolutely seek to embrace the ethics of Christ in its praxis. Without such resolute determination to return

(Editor’s note: due to space limitations, the endnotes for this article have been posted at esa-online.org/Endnotes.)

Andrew F. Bush is an associate professor of missions at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pa.

PRISM 2009

27