I am a man of peace; but when I speak, they are for war. – Psalm 120:7

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace–but now it is hidden from your eyes.” – Luke 19:41-42

All men desire peace, but very few desire those things that make for peace. – Thomas a Kempis

I recently heard praise among churchgoers for the movie, “Act of Valor”, a movie about Navy SEAL’s funded in large part by the Navy itself. (And, judging by the previews, it’s basically a military recruitment film.)  There is even a Bible study that coincides with the movie and is based on the SEAL code of honor.  I was unexpectedly overcome with grief when a Christian excitedly described this to me at church.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the terrible contrast I had just experienced.  The sermon that very morning was on this verse from the Beatitudes in the book of Matthew:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”

Blessed are the peacemakers.  And yet here Christians had high praise for a code of conduct espoused by an outfit whose entire purpose is to kill ruthlessly and efficiently.  And not merely to kill, but specifically to kill whoever they are commanded to kill by the political powers in the United States without question.  The very first tenet in the SEAL code of conduct is “Loyalty to Country” which means, in practical terms, obeying the orders of your superiors who are supposed to represent “the country”, however ill-defined the term.

Not only does obedience to the first tenet render obedience to any of the rest impossible, it is unfathomable to me how a Christian could find this a suitable basis for a Bible study intended to make men into better Christians.  The first tenet of this code means quite plainly to forsake your own conscience, do not question the morality of your orders, do not seek to understand why you are supposed to be at war with whomever you are told to be at war with, do not investigate whether or not your targets are a genuine threat or deserving of death, but simply pull the trigger.

The Evangelical Church in America today looks very little like a body of Christ followers and more like a body of state and military followers.  American flags grace many a pulpit.  Veterans Day celebrations are common.  Prayers for the success of military ventures are not unheard of.  Calls by politicians and pundits for the use of violence in almost any country for almost any reason will almost always gain the unwavering support of the entire Evangelical community.  Anything – including torture, assassinations, and “collateral damage” – can be excused and even praised if it is done “for the country” and under the stars and stripes.

How did this happen?  Can you imagine Jesus, or Peter or John with Kevlar vests and M-16’s kicking in doors, screaming ,“double-tapping” people in the head before yelling, “All clear!”’ and high-fiving each other?  Can you imagine them dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki?  Can you imagine Jesus instructing his followers to study a code of conduct that begins first and foremost with, “Be loyal to the Roman government”?

Not only did Christ and the giants of the Christian faith refuse to aggress against others, no matter how sinful or evil, they even refused to use violence in self-defense and instead chose martyrdom.  When Peter tried to defend Jesus with the sword by cutting off the ear of a soldier, Jesus rebuked him and healed the man’s ear.

Jesus did not instruct the disciples to go to the wilderness and train for a few months so they could plan a stealth nighttime assassination of the guards who crucified Him or any who opposed the Way.  He told them to forgive.  To Baptize.  To turn the other cheek.  To submit even to death for the sake of the gospel, rather than resort to violence.  That is a radical message and they lived it.

And yet the Church finds herself cheering for the military and honoring them without questioning what they are doing, who they are killing, why they are doing it, or if it’s right.  Worship of America and the myth of its righteousness have taken the place of any sense of individual moral responsibility on the part of soldiers or those who support them.

I left church with an immense weight on my soul.  I wept.  I wept because I knew exactly the sentiment expressed by most of the churchgoers that morning.  I used to share it.  I wept as I remembered my bloodlust after 9/11.  I wanted the United States military to kill people.  I wanted bombs to drop and guns to fire.  I wanted somebody to get it, good and hard.  I wanted death.  I wanted war.  I did not want peace.  I felt no love, only hate.

This impulse is the most human of all impulses.  It is also the very impulse Christ taught us to overcome and demonstrated how to do so by His own example.  Even when others hate, love.

I wept as I saw in my minds eye the blood on the hands of nearly every Christian in this country.  How many self-proclaimed followers of Christ have cheered on “the boys in uniform” during every conflict we’ve ever had, including wars of aggression, just because they’re “our countrymen” fighting for “our side”?

What are “the things that make for peace”?  The belief that right and wrong trump nationality and patriotism.  The belief that killing is only ever permissible as a last resort and in self-defense.  An understanding that Congressional or Presidential approval of an action does not make it moral.  That obeying orders is not a virtue unless the orders are virtuous, in which case they should be obeyed because they are right, not because they are orders.  That voluntarily agreeing to kill whomever you are told to kill is not honorable.  That love is better than vengeance.

Before you support any military action, conduct a brief mental experiment: imagine not the US Military, but you as an individual embarking on the mission in question.  In the end it is only individuals who can act and bear moral responsibility for their actions.  Imagine standing before God and saying, “I was only following orders”.

How many churches cheered for war against Iraq?  Yet can you imagine a pastor standing before his church and saying, “For the next six months we are all going to train in explosives and guns, and we are taking a church trip to Iraq to kill bad people and make the world a safer place.”  Who would support it?  In moral terms, it is no different to support taking money from taxpayers to pay soldiers to do the same.  In fact, the latter is in some ways more nefarious and less honest.

Most would argue that there is a difference between unjust violence and just violence – indeed there is.  Some argue there is a difference between just war and unjust war – perhaps there is.  But never in my years of observing church support for state military action have I witnessed a single discussion of whether the action was just or right.  There have been a few discussions of whether it was “Constitutional”, but never whether it was moral.  The morality of war is assumed by the mere fact that the war is waged by the United States Government.

Until the Church in America stops blindly supporting violence done in the name of patriotism, our hands are bloody and our witness is tainted.  We say we are for peace, but we want war.  We say we pray to the Prince of Peace, but we ask him to bless the violence committed by soldiers.  We say “the law is written on our hearts” yet we ignore our hearts and only follow the laws of governments and call what they call right good, and what they call wrong bad.

In our ignorance, we support violence.  We can cry out, “Father forgive us, for we know not what we do.”  But after our eyes our opened and we begin to examine the morality of acts of violence, we will be held accountable for what we know.  I pray we will be willing to oppose violence, even when doing so makes us “unpatriotic” or “un-American”; even when doing so may lead to our own persecution.

“He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God himself” — C. S. Lewis.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Things That Make For Peace

Mike Slaughter and Charles Gutenson wrote Hijacked: Responding to the Partisan Church Divide to both acknowledge and correct a growing problem in the Church. Not only is the divide creating disunity within the Church, it is causing a significant number of younger Americans to reject the church because of the close relationship between partisan politics and religion. Throughout much of the 20th century, the Church’s liberal/conservative polarization was related primarily to theological issues rather than political, Democrat/Republican concerns. Only in the 1980s did theological “liberalism” (or “conservatism”) and voting primarily Democratic (or Republican) become integrally connected.

The Christian Right contributed greatly to this new polarization. Popular Christian televangelists, radio hosts, and pastors began influencing their audiences in such a way that seemed to reclaim a form of “American civil religion that associated America as a nation established by God, advocating our form of democracy as ordained by God and the U.S. Constitution as Spirit-breathed” (pg 29*). Forgetting Jesus’ warning in Matthew 20:25-26 regarding the nature of Christ-followers versus the nature of the Gentiles, this “awakening movement born with such hope and possibilities for diversity, unity, biblical justice, and Holy Ghost revival began slowly to fall back into a church subservient to Caesar” (pg 29). Slaughter and Gutenson claim, “As followers of Jesus we are not to define nor are we to divide ourselves according to the ideologies and platforms of Caesar. The two extremes of rigid conservatism and relativistic liberalism can destroy Christ’s mission in the world through his church” (pg 31).

The authors focus heavily on assessing the need to remember the important distinctions stated in the popular saying, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” They spend time discussing not only what doctrines and beliefs are essential, they devote an entire chapter to how we come to embrace doctrines that are essential or non-essential. Using a two-axis diagram, they demonstrate that a conservative theology does not automatically imply a conservative political party, nor does a liberal theology indicate a liberal political party. Christians can be conservative on some (or all) theology, but vote Democrat. Instead of viewing the options as a simple dichotomy, it’s best to view the nuanced perspectives among both conservatives and liberals as the complex array of options they really are.

The most indicting criticism in the book warns Christians of the danger of living inside an “ideological bubble.” (We will discuss the use of the terms in a moment.) The advent of the Internet has given us access to an ideological bubble of our own choosing, despite the availability of any viewpoint we can imagine. We have an infinite smorgasbord of choice at our fingertips: 24-hour television news, websites, blogs, Facebook groups, YouTube channels. It’s all there for us to pick and choose our tastes. Add this to a second major problem—the seduction of sound bites—and we’ve got a recipe for trouble. Bring these sound bites into the church, and we produce Christians with an appetite not for theological depth but for tasty nuggets of truth: “We want preachers who can give us catchy phrases that capture our imaginations and that move us emotionally; whether or not the catchy phrases are particularly accurate becomes quite secondary in the process” (pg 48). When the Church’s diet of theology is served on a tray of sound bites, its no wonder our political beliefs are so messed up and often divisive.

Hijacked proposes several ways to get back to the essential call to love each other. This is what Jesus expects. Both individuals and local churches have a responsibility to work hard against the tendency to divide, because the more we divide and spend our time on “our side,” the more the Church becomes split into an “us” versus “them” mentality.

Hijacked is short and fairly practical. One of the most exciting parts of the book was the repeated references to the Church being a unique community whose agenda is to serve the Kingdom of God:

• “The church must stand in prophetic tension with Constantinian political systems and never underwrite or accommodate itself to a partisan political world order including American democracy” (pg 22).
• Quoting Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon: “…the main political task of the church is the formation of people who see clearly the cost of discipleship and are willing to pay the price” (pg 30).
• “As followers or Jesus we are not to define nor are we to divide ourselves according to the ideologies and platforms of Caesar” (pg 31).
• “The people of God’s kingdom are meant to be the visible demonstration of heaven’s redemptive purpose on earth Through this community of faith, God is creating  Kingdom culture that is markedly different from the political alliances of earthly kingdoms” (pg 98).
• “As followers of Jesus, we represent an alternative party, the party of the kingdom of God” (pg 101).
• “The church stands in prophetic tension with all earthly political systems and becomes corrupted when used in a supportive role for political ideologies of any flag or color” (pg 106).
• “The community of Christ is called to pursue an alternative path from the political power structures of the world” (pg 107).

A survey of the quotes listed above are share a common tenor with Christian anarchism, in particular resonating with Greg Boyd’s Myth of a Christian Nation. Libertarian Christians would likely feel at home with the above statements and the meanings behind them. When our passions for the Kingdom of God become primary in our social commitments, political alliances will inevitably take a back seat.

After the focus on how the Kingdom of God is an alternative way of life, it was a bit disappointing to see no mention of the community of Christians who believe that to be involved in social justice one doesn’t need to participate in Caesar’s kingdom. With the exception of a brief N.T. Wright quote at the end regarding the Church’s extra-political efforts, there is no mention of the historical view and legitimacy of “conscientious objection” to Caesar.

Related to this absence, discussion about the nature of the State was also lacking. While they acknowledge that our political arena is akin to Caesar’s domain, no comments are given as to why playing this domain is like playing with fire. It would seem that a book dedicated to avoiding the divisive nature of politics would include at least some mention of the legitimate movements away from political engagement (a good resources is Electing Not to Vote, endorsed by Greg Boyd).

Hijacked doesn’t get into the definitions of ideology and ideologue, but I would be amiss if I didn’t say something about the authors’ use of the word. In private exchanges and his former book, Gutenson has an unfavorable opinion toward ideology. It seems to me that his definition of “ideology” is rather vague and perhaps even internally contradictory considering the fact that he wrote a book promoting a particular viewpoint, namely a book about “Kingdom values.” A quick lookup of the definition of ideology seems to point to something much less unpalatable: “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.” If the ethics of Kingdom of God as presented by Jesus isn’t a guiding set of beliefs for the Christian, I’m not sure what is! Furthermore, an ideologue is somebody who “zealously advocates an ideology.” Again, not undesirable. To be fair, it’s likely that Gutenson and Slaughter want Christians who engage in the political arena to be cognizant that their view may indeed be wrong. Gutenson personally said to me that he was not against people acting and voting on their convictions.

Hijacked addresses a problem most of us would admit exists, yet we would all hesitate to admit we are part of the problem. So, let’s admit it: at some level we are all part of the problem. As much as I wish to believe my libertarian ethics, theology, and politics are an alternative “third way” that allows more freely the work of the Kingdom, even I am not exempt from being stubborn at times. It’s no fun being convicted of that, yet if we are all honest, we’ll find ourselves guilty.

Check the book out on Amazon. It’s definitely worth the time.

*The copy I’m citing from was printed for promotional use only, and may or may not correspond to page numbers in the final publication.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Hijacked: Responding to the Partisan Church Divide” Book Review

There are three holidays that cause otherwise sound-in-the-faith evangelical, conservative, and fundamentalist Christians to lose their religion.

I am referring to Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Veterans Day.

One of these holidays doesn’t even have to fall on a Sunday for some churches to go wild with celebration.

Memorial Day, of course, is always observed on a Monday. The other two holidays only fall on a Sunday every seven or so years. But if one of them doesn’t happen to fall on a Sunday, the Sunday before the holiday will do just as well. In some years, like when the Fourth of July or Veterans Day occurs late in the week, the Sunday after the holiday is reserved by some churches for observation.

As if the blind nationalism, hymns to the state, and exaltation of the military that occurs in some churches on these Sundays isn’t bad enough, sometimes the festivities also include the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance, in church, by the congregation, facing the flag on the platform. The Pledge is usually led by the pastor or a boy scout or veteran, sometimes in uniform.

This is not only unfortunate; it is an anti-biblical disgrace.

There are several reasons why no one that treasures liberty, is familiar with American history, and knows the history behind the Pledge (an ad campaign to sell magazines) would waste his time saying the Pledge. I want to focus on one of them.

There are also several reasons why Christians that treasure liberty, are familiar with American history, and know the history behind the Pledge (written by a socialist minister) would waste his time saying the Pledge. Again, I want to focus on one of them.

In 2000, an atheist sued his daughter’s school district because he said that the words "under God" in the Pledge amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. He lost.

After an appeal by the atheist parent, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that the phrase in question was unconstitutional.

After an appeal by the school district, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the father of the child lacked standing to file the lawsuit because his daughter’s mother had sole legal custody of her and that she was not opposed to her daughter reciting the Pledge. The ruling of the appeals court was then reversed.

In 2010, the same federal appeals court upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge in another case, ruling that the phrase does not constitute an establishment of religion.

The idea that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is ludicrous. As stated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in its 2010 ruling:

Not every mention of God or religion by our government or at the government’s direction is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge – its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history – demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase "one Nation under God" does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.

However, just because the phrase "under God" in the Pledge doesn’t violate the Constitution doesn’t mean that it belongs in the Pledge or, more importantly, that Christians should recite the Pledge.

One reason why Christians should not recite the Pledge is a simple one, and one that has nothing to do with patriotism or religion.

The United States is not a nation "under God."

The United States is in fact about as far from being "under God" as any country on the planet.

The United States leads the world in the incarceration rate, the total prison population, the divorce rate, car thefts, rapes, total crimes, illegal drug use, legal drug use, and Internet pornography production.

At least the United States is second to Russia when it comes to abortions.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, "nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion" and "twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion." There are over 1,700 abortion providers in the United States. And even worse, 37 percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28 percent as Catholic.

Only a madman would say that the United States is a nation "under God."

Oh, but the Pledge is just some words, some say, the reciting of which doesn’t really mean anything.

Then why say it? If the Pledge is just some words that don’t really mean anything, then it makes more sense not to say it than to say it.

The Pledge doesn’t say that the United States used to be one nation under God. It doesn’t say that the United States should be one nation under God. It says that the United States is one nation under God.

That is a lie.

Christians are not supposed to lie:

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (Colossians 3:9)

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another (Ephesians 4:25)

Thou shalt not bear false witness (Romans 13:9)

Is it unpatriotic to not say the Pledge? It may be. But it is certainly right, Christian, and biblical not to.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Should Christians cite the Pledge of Allegiance?

To me, it seems ironic to me that they would criticize “neo-liberal thinking” of trying to implement “technical solutions” to economic problems, then essentially propose a new central bank. I can’t think of anything more “technical” than forming a new state apparatus that has monopoly power over money itself. If anything, the statement shows a profound confusion about the nature of economic problems in the world and what must be done to solve them.

Tom Woods has been very busy these past few days writing response articles to this statement, and they are worth reading (especially if you’re not particularly familiar with the internals of the Catholic Church). Here are the links:

Idolatry of the Market at LewRockwell.com

Truth and Charity at Taki’s Magazine

Don’t Mix the Ecclesiastical with the Economical at NPR

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Vatican’s Confused Statement on the Marketplace

But guess what. It’s worse.

CNS News reports that the U.S. State Department says there are now ZERO churches in Afghanistan. Every last one has been destroyed. Razed. Mowed down. Gone.

“The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the State Department’s latest International Religious Freedom Report.” There are no longer any Christian schools either.

Ten years, uncountable thousands upon thousands of Afghani lives, seventeen hundred American lives, and $440 billion later, the United States government – those who said they would bring “freedom” and “justice” to the Middle East – have reaped what they sowed. Instead of bringing peace, they brought death and destruction via the longest prolonged conflict in American history. The new “government” that the American government and military forcibly installed with their puppets is even worse than the last.

How dare we ever say that this American government is motivated by “Christian” virtue! This government exists to pillage and destroy, and for Christians to support such folly is utterly ludicrous. War is antithetical to the Christian way of life; it is nothing more than mass murder executed by a gang of criminals – for that is indeed the nature of the State.

Pray for those few Christians left in Afghanistan, that they may flee from the terror wrought by Bush, Obama, and their subordinates. And if you, follower of Christ, still support this war, shame on you.

What would it take for you to reject war entirely? How about the complete and utter elimination of the church from a country? Would that do it?

Thank you, America, for driving every last vestige of desire for war from me.

Read the full article here.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

There are no more Churches in Afghanistan

I currently go to a non-denominational church (which is actually a denomination in itself).  I was wondering if there is any church that specifically supports libertarian Christian beliefs?

As far as I know, there is no particular denomination that has Christian libertarian positions explicit in their doctrinal statement. However, the common thread of non-violence and anti-statism has been discussed in numerous theological traditions, from Baptists, to Lutherans, all the way to Churches of Christ (the tradition I grew up in). I would actually say that arguably the Churches of Christ and Anabaptist denominations have some of the strongest histories of libertarian leanings. For example, historically the Churches of Christ have held remarkably excellent anti-war positions, especially around the Civil War. Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb, and Alexander Campbell were major leaders in the Stone-Campbell Restorationist movements during that time and made great contributions to the anti-war movement. You can even see some of their writings in Tom Wood’s book, We Who Dared to Say No to War.

Have a question? Submit yours here.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Are there any Christian libertarian denominations?

Churches encourage their veterans to wear their military uniforms. Special recognition is given to those who "served." Prayers are offered on behalf of the troops, not that they would cease fighting foreign wars, but for God to keep them out of harm’s way and protect them. Mention is made of the troops defending our freedoms.

Churches decorate their grounds and the inside of their buildings with U.S. flags. Sometimes it is a few large flags hanging from the ceiling or adorning the walls. Sometimes it is many small flags stuck in the ground near the church entrance. Sometimes it is both. Some congregations are asked to recite the pledge of allegiance.

Churches sing hymns of worship to the state instead of hymns of worship about the person of Christ and his work. Songs like "My Country, ‘Tis of Thee," "America the Beautiful," "We Salute You, Land of Liberty," and "This Is My Country." Some churches go even farther and sing "God Bless the U.S.A." or "God Bless America." Too many churches sing the blasphemous "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

I know these practices are widespread because of the scores of people that have e-mailed me in disgust about what occurred in their churches on the Sunday before Memorial Day.

In most cases it is not even necessary to visit a church on the Sunday preceding Memorial Day to know what goes on inside. Just look at the sign outside of the church. Instead of a verse of Scripture or an announcement of an upcoming event, you are more likely to see some patriotic slogan, often with a Christian theme.

I have personally seen two signs this year that I find particularly offensive, not only to my Christian faith, but to reality:

Pray for the Troops,
God be with them.

and,

The American soldier and Jesus Christ,
one gives his life for your freedom,
the other for your soul.

Yes, we should pray for the troops. The Bible tells us in 1 Timothy 2:1 that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men." But what should we pray? That God would bless the troops while they injure, maim, kill, and destroy property where they have no business being in the first place? That God would be with them while they wage unjust and immoral foreign wars? Since when does wearing a military uniform excuse killing someone you don’t know in his own territory that was no threat to any American until the U.S. military invaded and occupied his country? How about instead praying that the troops come home where they belong or that Christian families stop supplying cannon fodder to the military?

That Christ gave his life for our souls is indisputable, but do American soldiers give their lives for our freedoms? You know, the freedoms we have steadily lost since the troops starting defending our freedoms after 9/11? Has there been in American history any foreign war, military action, CIA covert action, or intervention of any kind in any country that was for the purpose of defending our freedoms mentioned in the Bill of Rights? Of course not. Not one Iraqi or Afghan killed by U.S. forces was ever a threat to our freedoms. The troops don’t defend our freedoms, and neither do they fight "over there" so we don’t have to fight "over here." And I can’t think of anything more blasphemous than mentioning Jesus Christ, the Lord, the Son of God, the Prince of Peace in the same breath as a U.S. soldier who unjustly bombs, maims, kills, and then dies in vain and for a lie.

It is time for Christians to slay the golden calf of the military. Christians should stop joining the military. They should stop encouraging their young men to enlist. They should stop being military chaplains and medics. American churches must be demilitarized.

It is a terrible blight on evangelical Christianity that our churches have sent more soldiers to the Middle East than missionaries. If Christians are so concerned about the threat of Islamofascism, then what better way to confront it than with the Gospel of Christ?

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on May 30th, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Signs of the Times

Featured on LewRockwell.com on September 11, 2010.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
2 Chronicles 7:14

People regularly email me with questions about how to communicate with other Christians about liberty and peace. The greatest conundrum the Christian libertarian has, it seems, is persuading other Christians to stop supporting the immoral wars that governments perpetrate across the globe. It is particularly difficult in the United States, where “supporting the troops” is essentially part of the new orthodoxy in most evangelical Protestant churches. You can publicly criticize a minister that he preaches too long and someone will support you, but say one word criticizing the military (or even the police) and you become anathema.

It is not as though we cannot defend our position adequately; the truth is on our side. We can easily bring forth historical data, ethics, and solid theology to make our case that war is wrong. This is good and right! We must never cease reasoning with those who disagree with us, and we should do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). However, we must admit that a large part of the problem is not merely failure to reason, but also a failure to show Christian compassion toward others. Churches all over forget that war really is hell, and neglect the suffering war causes. This is especially reflected in our public prayers.

In the past, even the Southern Baptists took the Word of God seriously and prayed for those affected by war. But when was the last time you heard a church pray for anyone in the Middle East, for instance, other than soldiers? When was the last time you heard a church pray for an end to war?

Recently, I was moved to step out and try something I have never heard of done before: ask the leaders of my congregation to take the lead in praying for those suffering in war. (In the Church of Christ tradition, the elders are the spiritual leaders of the congregation.) After consulting with some of my close friends, I attended the June 2010 elders’ meeting and presented the following letter to them to address the “Prayer for the Church” that we offer every Sunday morning worship service.

*********************

To the Elders of the University Avenue Church of Christ,

We have noticed an unusual trend over the past few months during our prayers for the church in Sunday morning worship. On multiple occasions, we have heard people pray for men and women in the military, that they receive “special measures of protection” as they fight to “protect our freedoms” and “serve our country.” While we understand the concerns of church members who have friends and family in the armed forces, and while we sincerely hope for their safe return immediately, we find that these kinds of prayers are neglectful of another group – those victims who suffer wrongfully from this war, to whom we are indeed responsible in part for their suffering. Regardless of one’s opinion of these wars, we think that all can agree upon inspection that this practice can and should change to be more inclusive.

For instance, we never hear prayers for our fellow Christians who live in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the US invasion in 2003, Christians who were tolerated in the past have been repeatedly persecuted and frequently even killed by indiscriminate warfare or surging extremist groups, and nearly half of the Christian population of 800,000 in Iraq has either fled the country or died. In March 2010 alone, over 4,000 Christians were displaced from their homes following unrest in the northern city of Mosul. Many more have confined themselves to their homes for their own safety.

Moreover, we rarely, if ever, hear prayers for the innocent people in Iraq that die on a daily basis, either from indiscriminate killing by our own military or civil unrest that results from a country torn apart by war. The lowest estimates of non-combatant deaths in Iraq number greater than 100,000. Unfortunately, over time our sensibilities and attitudes toward this war – which is now the longest prolonged conflict in American history – have become desensitized and lackadaisical, and thus we often forget these innocent people.

We appeal to the elders to lead the way toward recognizing this issue with two simple proposals. First, we propose to include in the bulletin prayer requests under “Family Members in the Military” a mention of the innocent and oppressed in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially our Iraqi and Afghan brothers and sisters in Christ, and for an end to these wars. Second, we propose that the elders take the lead in consistently mentioning the same in prayer with the congregation on Sunday mornings. If the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective, then surely instituting this practice will do good both for these victims and for our own spirits.

We support this appeal with Scripture in two ways. First, if you consider these people as we do, that they are innocent victims and have been wronged by their own leaders, by extremists, and by our own military, then may we pray to God as Jesus taught his disciples: to be “delivered from evil.” If we can pray this for ourselves, surely we can do so for others. But second, if you still consider these people our enemies, then may we do as Jesus said in Matthew 5: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” May this be the beginning of understanding what Jesus said moments before, “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Changing our practice to include praying for the oppressed is not a political statement. In fact, this is not a political issue in the least; on the contrary it is a moral and theological issue. If we are to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then we should take seriously that Jesus came and died to proclaim peace on earth and to liberate the oppressed. We may expect that “wars and rumors of wars” will always exist, but this does not require a condoning or defeatist attitude of such events. Rather, this understanding should make us more sensitive and more compassionate toward those who suffer.

To conclude, war is arguably the most destructive human activity ever devised, and it is an intensely serious moral and theological issue because of its finality for those involved either directly as soldiers or indirectly as innocents. It is right to earnestly pray for our family members participating in war, but let us not become callous to the suffering of others, especially those to whom we are indirectly responsible for their suffering. Therefore, we should let our congregational prayers reflect our concern for them.

In Christ,

Norman Horn [Others at my church signed this letter as well, names withheld for privacy.]

Sources:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,587345,00.html
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33940&Cr=iraq&Cr1
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

*********************

The response of the elders was, to my surprise, extraordinarily positive. We discussed some of the ramifications of them taking this position. Only one had any concern for it being “too political.” In response, I emphasized that the effects of war are apolitical and intensely real, and therefore to ignore what’s going on is potentially even more political than standing up for what is right.

The next Sunday morning service, during the “Prayer for the Church,” the elder assigned to the task prayed for peace and for the innocent affected by war. This has continued for many weeks on end, with both elders and non-elders doing the same. It isn’t a perfect record at this point, but something is changing.

Amen!

Now, I have to admit that I have the ear of the eldership already. I am a part-time minister in this congregation, and thus they could have been generally more receptive of my proposal because it came from me. It could be that if you tried the exact course of action I did, it might not work out so well. But I still contend that anyone could work with their church in an analogous manner to change it even a little toward peace. Here are some ideas that might help you:

1) Start by setting the example yourself. When you are asked to pray in public for the congregation and its concerns, include those oppressed by war with any prayer offered for family and friends in the military. Furthermore, make sure that you are praying for peace in your private life.

2) If and when you engage your congregation more directly, initiate it by making a request that requires no justification at all. Don’t be afraid to just ask! Send one of your church leaders a very simple request, something like this: “When we pray for soldiers in Iraq, could we also pray for the Iraqis who are suffering, especially our Christian brothers and sisters there, and that God would bless our enemies and bring them peace.” You don’t even have to justify such a request. That’s straight out of Scripture, right?

3) Find others to make the same request together. Talk to some of your elders/leaders together. Again, keep it simple, but up the ante a little bit each time.

4) Keep it apolitical. You are not trying to “make people into libertarians” or anything of the sort. This message is first and foremost about the people affected by conflict. Our concern is for them, not for our egos or political views.

5) If at first you don’t succeed, try again. You may not get a good hearing initially, but be patient. Gently keep pushing back. If it becomes necessary, use the letter above as a model to give to your church leaders. Keep in mind, I really think this should be a “letter of last resort” to be used if your leaders refuse to listen to simpler reason. I carefully constructed this with feedback from multiple sources, so that it could easily show the self-evident principles involved. It gives no quarter and I don’t apologize for that, but know your audience and appeal to their sensibilities.

Of course, some in your church will respond negatively to this kind of request. They may ask how you can ask a church to pray for this war, for instance, when there are millions of other things for which we could pray. What about apartheid in South Africa, earthquakes in Haiti, or persecuted Christians in China? Could not the list go on forever if we wanted?

Those critics have a point, but our response should be that there is a fundamental difference between, say, praying for apartheid in South Africa – where we are aware of no national influence (and in my church’s case, have none of our church members as missionaries there) – and these wars. The difference is that this country, the United States, claims responsibility for their country now, and hence we are already involved. It is not “our fault” that Haiti had an earthquake or that Christians in China are being persecuted (though we may pray for them anyway), but it is in part our fault that the United States has torn apart the Middle East. Moreover, churches continue to condone and support such aggression with little thought either to the consequences for the Arab peoples or the internal subconscious changes that this has on our own churches. And what better way to change our own hearts than through the power of prayer? And what better way to start that process than through the leadership of the church?

Imagine what would happen if churches across the United States (and internationally!) were to stop praying for the military alone and to begin including those oppressed by war in their public prayers as well. Don’t you think that God will help make our hearts ever more attuned to the oppressed?

If the Bible says that the prayers of the righteous are effective, and if we believe that prayer affects us as much or more than prayer affects God, then let us never cease to pray for and support those who suffer from the horror of war and let us encourage others to do the same.

Think about some ways that you can be a peaceful voice for peace in your church. Maybe emulating the story above is one way you can make a difference. I truly believe this simple idea can change hearts and minds across the world if, with God’s help, we are brave enough to try.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Matthew 5:9.

A modified version of this text will become a permanent page at LCC as an open letter to all American churches.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to Promote Peace in Your Church

Right click here to download the entire mp3 audio file.

For those with podcast software, there is a special Podcast RSS Feed set up just for you.

If you are using iTunes, click on the following button to subscribe directly:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Podcast: War, Foreign Policy, and the Church (Part 2)

Right click here to download the entire audio file. [~21 minutes, mp3]

For those with podcast software, there is a special Podcast RSS Feed set up just for you.

If you are using iTunes, click on the following button to subscribe directly:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Podcast: War, Foreign Policy, and the Church (Part 1)