Science in Christian Perspective
.
Christianity and the Military Establishment*
WILLIAM W. CUTHBERTSON
Department of History
William Jewell College Liberty, Missouri
From: JASA 22 (March 1970): 18-21.
Opposition to Militarism
The threats posed to the individual Christian and to American society
by the gains
of militarism suggest the outlines of a rationale on which opposition to that
system might be based. An interesting sidelight is the condemnation of war as
policy by the British House of Commons in 1936; ". . . this House affirms
its profound belief in the futility of war, {and] views with grave concern the
world-wide preparations for war."1 Much of American activity
during the Cold
War may very well he adjudged as having been useless by men in the future, for
in spite of prodigious spending and the massive power of American
military forces,
communism has not been prevented from extending its influence or control over
great areas of Europe and Asia. The opponents of militarism need not
follow along
with the Tolstoyites who have renounced every use for force by man on
man. Instead,
the Western humanist may plead, as did his Greek predecessors, for
rational action.
He may question whether war waged under modern conditions is reasonable at all.
The ordinary citizen of the United States may take a pragmatic
approach and insist
that militarism will not bring him the satisfaction of his desires as
a free individual
in the free society. The ancient aspiration for justice under moral
law can hardly
be realized through militarism. Have not warring nations often
destroyed as much
as they have preserved? As one observer has noted: "Even if the end of the
adventure were peace and freedom for all, the story would have been
long and bloody
enough to make of this final meaning a rather belated consolation."2 The
Christian, dedicated to compassion and love for all men, will question a system
organized for the task of slaughter.
Militarism vs. Humanism
The course of action of the military-industrial complex in the United
States seems
to be leading almost inevitably toward thermonuclear war. The
humanist will oppose
this trend for humanity's sake. The early humanists re-emphasized in
Western society
the intrinsic value of every man. Each individual was of immeasurable worth for
each person shared in humanity, a sovereignty not to be assaulted by the
state, nor by the church, nor by another man. The consistent humanist
cannot admit
any ultimate demand by the state on man. Militarism and humanism are essential
opposites for the martial ideology dehumanizes man. Militarism treats man as an
object, the state's property, and places the enemy on the level of animals to
be exterminated. The Christian humanist, in his most lucid moments, has always
understood the universality of his religion and that his vocation must not be
limited by national boundaries nor false calls to patriotic duty. The Christian
is bound to suspect the national Military Establishment which asks
him to obliterate
one who is divinely loved without being morally certain that this action toward
his human counterpart is unavoidable. The basic dilemma of the Christian at war
will always be how to love one's enemy and kill him too.
In an interview with Mike Wallace of CBS News, Meadlo said he and
other American
soldiers killed scores of South Vietnamese civilians-old men, women, children
and even babies-by shooting them during an Army raid on a village at Song My in
March, 1968. "They didn't put up any fight or anything,"
Meadlo recalled.
"The women huddled against their children and took it. They brought their
kids real close to their stomachs and hugged them and put their
bodies over them
trying to save them."
"Why did you do such a thing?" Wallace asked.
"Why did I do it?" Mendlo replied. "Because
I felt like I was ordered to do it. And it seemed
like I realized . . . at the time, 1 felt like 1 was doing the right
thing."
Portion of an interview with Paul Meadlo conducted by Mike Wallace,
and reported
by Loafs Cossels, United Press International Religion Writer.
The military-industrial complex in this country apparently has used and plans
to use the ordinary citizen as a tool to create a monument to
national self-glorification,
the triumph of "democracy" and "capitalism" over other economic and political systems. The military speaks of the
"duty"
of American boys to die for the nation's ideals-to die before they have had a
chance to distinguish between the verbalization of ideals and those
actually practiced
by the military-industrial complex. The military has sought for
constant renewals
of the draft and periodically called for universal military training.
"Duty"
becomes not an inner compulsion but the bowing to the superior force
of the state.
American boys become objects to be honed for warfare. They are taught to kill
an enemy they may never see, a foe visualized only as a stereotype implanted by
the propaganda of the military-industrial complex and not a fellow
creature with
warm blood, human loves, and simple hopes and fears. No action could
be more uncharacteristic
of the divine Son of God whom Christians claim to imitate than this
depersonalization
of one's relation to his fellow man.
Next War the Last
All of this suggests that militarism poses a threat to civilization
and that the
long-continued jostling for the high seats of power by nations armed
with thermonuclear
weapons assures more than ever that the next conflict will most likely be the
last war. Almost any modern war, even without the use of those
terrible weapons,
would be worse than the evils it was designed to ward off, but a
nuclear contest
will only destroy what man has labored so mightily to create, his civilization.
The unthinking mouth the slogan, "Better dead than Red,"
not realizing
that war and militarism may be more destructive of their goals than communism.
There is a fate worse than deathlife without meaning. As Professor Hoffman so
ably sums it up in his study of war;
The social scientist can hardly fail to see history as a graveyard of men, buried after having killed and been killed for an incredible number of causes. Retrospectively, it is hard to find a meaning here-and easy to lament with so many poets the absurdity of the whole story.3
Thermonuclear war is not likely to usher in a period of utopian peace for the
victor, but it may very well preclude the possibility of history
having any further
meaning.
Threat to Democracy
The Christian citizen will discover that the garrison state destroys
his ability
to function as a free individual in a free society. He has already found that
as militarism has grown in America there has been a reciprocal reduction in his
ability to take a meaningful part in the government. Basic decisions come not
as a result of consensus, but are imposed from above by a power elite. When the
militarists are finished, only a hollow mockery of democracy will remain. Civil
rights will be unprotected by tradition or a yellowing scrap of paper and raw
power will prevail. The free citizen ought to oppose militarism in order that
he may retain his freedom to act-to go here or there without an official pass,
to enter whatever vocation he wishes without permission, to assume or
refuse employment
without a government penalty. Americans have generally enjoyed the freedom to
act but certainly will lose this liberty in a militaristic,
totalitarian society.
The individual of sensitive mind eagerly longs for freedom of
expression and the
right to become his best possible self without restrictions or
encumbrances except
those to which he has freely assented. Perhaps no man living with other men can
attain this ideal but it can be more nearly achieved in a free society than in
a militarized state. Basic to the free individual is the right to
freedom of thought,
but how can he think if his mind is constantly barraged with propaganda? If the
press is prohibited from functioning freely, if sources of
information are distorted,
if access to some types of information is prohibited, if free experimentation
and the exchange of ideas is forbidden, there is no freedom of
thought. The militaristic
state restricts a man in these ways and many more as well. The free individual
finds himself compelled to stand
against any person or system which would treat his mind as a magnetic tape to
he programmed at will.
For Conscience Sake
The evangelical Christian finds a rationale for opposing militarism
in his faith-he
opposes it for conscience's sake. Contrary to the assertion of Ernst Troeltsch
that the state and all questions relating to it were ignored by
Jesus, the state
was a part of the mundane scene and was so affirmed in the Messiah's teachings.
Followers of the Way were not urged to ignore the present age but to redeem it.
There is no loophole here whereby the citizen may escape the obligations of the
Christian ethic by positing a separate civil ethic. A dual standard of morality
with one code to guide the Christian's action in the religious area and another
code for the secular realm has been proposed, but the evangelical
Christian must
insist on one consistent ethical norm for all men in all conditions. Scholars
have uniformily agreed that the Jews did not compartmentalize life into secular
and sacred divisions. Men were to live their whole lives before Cod according
to his will revealed in commandments and instructions. This characteristic of
Jewish thought was basic to the thinking of Jesus also. The Christian citizen,
thus, must resolve any apparent conflicts between the demands of the state and
his duty toward Cod within the bounds of one ethical system-that of
Jesus of Nazareth.
Medina . . spoke deliberately and emphatically in the . . news conference...I
moved to that location with my command element.
As I approached the VC with weapon, the helicopter that had been
marking the location
began to move back . . . . as I approached I seen that it was a woman. She had
already been wounded. I did not see any weapon. I turned around and started to
walk away. As I turned around I saw movement out of the corner of my
eye. My first
thought was, 'boy, you've had it, you're dead,' if she did have a weapon or did
have a hand grenade.
1 instinctively, from Army training, turned
around and fired two shots and I assume that I did kill her...
Report of Fred S. Hoffman, AP Military Writer, on
the testimony of Capt. Ernest Medina on the My Lai offair, December 5, 1969.
Romans 13
Those who believe that war may be justified have often quoted the
verses in Romans
13 which begin "Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities."
This Pauline statement in no way endorses the unbridled use of force
by the state.
Indeed, it comes immediately after a passage in which the apostle exhorts his
readers to live a life of non-violence, blessing their persecutors, seeking no
vengeance, feeding their enemies, and overcoming evil with good (Rom.
12: 14-21)
The statement of Jesus that one ought to "Render therefore to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's" is quoted also to imply the heavy obligation
of the Christian citizen to the state. This single, rather oracular statement
is less convincing than the fact that Jesus refused to concern himself with the
national aspirations of the Jews. His energies were devoted to the Kingdom of
Cod, a spiritual realm. He chose for himself the role of a spiritual leader and
refused resolutely to become a military messiah, even though there
were Old Testament
precedents. If the "Caesar" statement does indicate an obligation to
the state, that debt should not be thronght to have the same absolute character
as the debt to Cod. The Christian sees his first and highest duty to
Cod, as did
Jesus. Therefore, one may never in the name of serving Caesar act contrary to
the ethical principles of Christ. One might add concerning the
passage in Romans
that Paul admittedly put more stress than did Jesus on obeying the
civil authorities,
perhaps because he feared that unnecessary violations of the law might stir up
persecutions worse than the local ones already being experienced by Christians.
Never did the apostle imply that one's allegiance to the state
justified an immoral
act.
Pacifism
The American Christian, living in a country moving toward militarism
and engaged
in periodic wars abroad, is faced with a pressing question: "Is
the Christian
ever justified in using force, and may he with a clear conscience
become a participant?"
Here is not the place for an extended discussion of pacifism, a
subject upon which
so many words have already been penned. This writer has found the most thorough
and concise discussion of the relevant Biblical passages to be that
of the English
theologian C. H. C. Macgregor in his volume The New Testament Basis
of Pacifism.
This lucid little book makes the point that a Christian does not need to, and
perhaps cannot, stand on an absolute
prohibition of the use of force between men or groups
of men. Professor Macgregor maintains, instead, that the Christian's choice is
"between moral and nonmoral use of force" in many situations. There
is an absolute ban on war because it transgresses the New Testament ethic.4 After
a thorough examination of the Scriptures, Macgregor concludes that the Gospels,
with two doubtful exceptions, show Jesus consistently living by the principle
of non-resistance. If Christ's life is one that is well-pleasing to
the Heavenly
Father, must the Christian not seriously consider the possibility
that lie himself
is to forego the use of force and also shun war?
The Christian Perspective
The history of the early church indicates that it understood the life
of the Way
to be one of peace. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall he called
sons of God." (Mt. 5:9). For nearly two centuries the church was
almost wholly
pacifist. Scholars can find no examples of Christians becoming soldiers after
baptism until about 170 A.D. The early church fathersJustin Martyr, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Ongen-insisted that Christians were pacifists. Origen,
writing perhaps as late as 230 .n., declared: "We Christians no
longer take
up sword against nation nor do we learn to make war any more, having
become children
of peace, for the sake of Jesus who is our leader. "
Yet, in spite of the consistent witness of the early church, the question still
remains: may a war be justified on certain occasions and under
certain circumstances? Perhaps so, if war, as a means, and the end which it seeks
do not transgress
the ethics of Christ. Another relevant question, however, is:
"Does not war
always contradict the goals of the Kingdom, and the redemption of man, and does
not modern total war inevitably involve every participant in immoral
means?"
One noted scholar recently concluded: "In modern total war, where murder
without risks, slaughter in anonymity, and the denial of the humanity
of the foe
prevail, the sacrifices of conscience which national loyalty demands
have reached
a new high."' It is perhaps too high.
The evangelical Christian, however far he may wish to walk with the humanists,
knows that there is a higher reason for him to question the whole
idea of modern
war toward which the militarists are leading him. The heart of the
New Testament
ethic is the injunction to love. Christians are instructed to love
God, one another,
their neighbor, and their enemy. Loving one's enemy is not an optional matter:
"But I
say to you, love your enemies so that you may he
sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 5:44-45). There is a
lengthy passage
in Matthew (5:38-48) which sets forth the Christian way of meeting evil. It is
the
way of non-violence and love for the adversary. One is to overcome evil not by
greater evil but by good. Perhaps such actions in the face of an armed foe are
foolishness. It led the Galilean to the cross, but it was the redemptive way.
If force is to be used, surely it must not be for punitive measures or merely
to save our own lives. Rather, it must have redemption as its end.
Given the ambiguities
of the international situation and the awful efficiency of modern devices for
killing, and faced with the threat that man may end his history with
a final and
fiery act of sin, it seems crystal-clear that the Christian ought to
expend every
possible effort to resist those pressures which militate for the use of force
in international affairs. If a thermonuclear debacle is avoided, we
may have time
to go about our Father's business.
REFERENCES
l Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates (Commons), CCC-VITI
(1936), 208.
2Hotfmann, The State of War, p. 261.
3Loc. cit.
4C. H.
C. Macgregor,
The New Testament Basis of Pacifism (New York: Fellowship of
Reconciliation, 1947)
p. 11.
5Contra Cetsuaz, V. p. 33.
5Hoffmann, The State of War, pp.
262-263.
*Reprinted from Protest and Politics: Christianity and Contem
porary Affairs, R. C. Clouse, it. D. Linder and R. V.
Pierand, Editors, Attic Press, Greenwood S. C. (1968).