"Indeed, [H.G. Wells] defends the only sort of war I thoroughly despise, the bullying of small states for their oil or gold; and he despises the only sort of war I really defend, a war of civilizations and religions to determine the moral destiny of mankind."
I suppose if humankind will always be at war- mostly deeply because of our sin nature- then we ought to fight for more eternal reasons than for strictly material ones. Islamic Fundamentalists certainly get this, but Americans don't. We will continue to lack the fortitude to fight terrorism until we recognize that it is primarily a religious fight. The television media, the mainstream print media, and the federal state department largely ignore this.
Posts
2 comments:
The key understanding then in regards to this being a religious fight,
is to check how ones king/founder/ruler would have you fight it.
How The empire (not saying this in the negative sentiment exactly, just the historical sense of empires) of America's ruler(s)would have us fight and how the
kindgom of God's ruler-Jesus-would have us "fight" are to very
different types of combat. The named enemy is even different...All
that not to say our nation state does not have a right to partake in
military action, but I would challenge any presumption of Jesus'
people taking the view that such action is doing anything positive for the explicit advancement of Christ's kingdom. At one point in the people of God's history there was a specific place for this and with specific purposes...I see that as having long ago passed both because of Jesus incarnation, sacrifice (bearing humanities judgment--battle fought sentence executed), and resurrection, AND because even (especially?) God's chosen people decided to follow the pattern of military behavior that the world pursues--conquest. Thus misrepresenting God...again. Also unfortunate, even when a nation enters into a conflict that is designed to right certain injustices, said entrance
essentially only happens once a perceived benefit to the entering
nation appears actual. Not to say that actual good and righting of certain injustices does not occur (and soldiers, deservedly so, are honored for executing their duties well); but that primarily, if not solely, because of God's good sovereignty and ongoing work of bringing beauty from ashes in every form. Still, the motivations of all nations (like all people) are at best mixed and thus never to be confused with the intentions and motivations with the King of Kings as he has enterned into (and won) the battle against Satan, sin, and death...thus being the battle he invites his followers into as well...one in which we would not trust in "horses," "chariots," or
"alliances," but would trust in the name, the power, the radical, constantly pursuing grace, and sacrificial Lord of Lords who gives his life as a ransom
for many. What else would this King have us do?
Good post Dave...Got me thinking!
Doug,
As always- deep and insightful. I pretty much agree with the heart of your post. As it relates to the role of the individual Christian, you are right on.
I wonder, though, about a more explicitly Christian view of the role of the state and the "sword"- military action.
For instance, you say the "world's" form of expansion is conquest. When I posted this, I was thinking about Islam, which has always been militaristic from it's very beginning. The Moors and Ottomans both tried to bring Islam by the sword to Europe and modern Islamic fundamentalism- admittedly a HUGE part of Islam numerically- is trying to do the same thing.
My point: might America have a justification in instilling values in the rest of the world, if even by the sword when having to defend ourselves? Freedom of speech is a quintessentially Christian idea, not found in Islam. Is this a war worth fighting?
I don't know- my argument is kind of incoherent for the time being. I'm just saying Chesterton had me thinking too.
Post a Comment