Jesus Supporting the Troops? God of War Vs. Religion of Peace: The Teachings of Jesus, Christianity & the Politics of War

The Teachings of Jesus, Christianity & the Politics of War

"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." - Matthew 5:9, 'Sermon on the Mount'

My first thought as I noticed this sign outside a church on the outskirts of Springerville, Arizona on the way to my last campsite just across the New Mexico border was the absolute paradox of such contradictory statements on the very same sign: 'Jesus First' and 'We Support Our Troops'... I mean why on earth would the proclaimed 'Prince of Peace' support those fighting in violent wars, let alone wars that have nothing to do with self defense and everything to do with profit, geopolitical control, putting Israel first, and theft of foreign natural resources? And secondly I wondered how churches and their congregations with this mentality could be entirely ignorant of the original Christian church which rejected violence in all forms for three whole centuries before war began to be accepted within Christian churches and communities.

As I passed the church and sign several times during my recent week and a half stay in NM in the northern Gila National Forest, on trips into this small Arizona town which is yet the largest town around by far; I kept thinking about this paradox and was reminded that for so many American Christians on the conservative right, this idea of a patriotic Jesus supporting our troops and American wars somehow being God's wars is a common theme and accepted as the gospel truth. Eventually I decided I was just going to have to make a post on this topic, and snapped a photo of the sign.

As the Christmas season is now upon us, the focus of many Americans will turn towards this 'Prince of Peace' and stories of his birth in a manger, attending church services that remind us all to remember the 'reason for the season' as pastors speak of the savior's birth heralding in an age of 'peace on earth and goodwill towards men.' Oh the irony, that for many churches peace on earth is only the subject of sermons at Christmas time; while for the course of the rest of the year duty towards country, its wars, and our troops that both kill and die abroad is advocated in the name of Jesus and as the 'will of God'.

One need only look at the long and bloody history of the Catholic Church to see Christianity's long support of 'holy wars' and the politics of killing in the name of religion - from the many holy wars waged throughout the Crusades to the execution of thousands of 'heretics' for mere thought crimes ; while in America today it seems to be millions of Evangelicals forming a political-religious movement whose advocacy of 'holy' war is at the core of the last 20 years of endless war abroad.

And while it indeed appears that killing and waging war in the name of the gods or of one God goes all the way back to the beginnings of religion, this is absolutely not the case with Christianity. Many Christians in America today might be completely shocked to discover the truth that for nearly three centuries in the early Church, for the first three hundred years of the new religion it was entirely unlawful for a Christian to even serve in the military! At the beginning of the third century, one of the early 'church fathers' Hippolytus describes this long-held Christian tradition of absolute nonviolence and informs us of the clear prohibition against Christians serving in the army:

A soldier, being inferior in rank to God, must not kill anyone. If ordered to, he must not carry out the order, nor may he take an oath (sacramentum) to do so. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed from the church.

Anyone bearing the power of the sword, or any city magistrate, who wears purple, let him cease from wearing it at once or be dismissed from the church.

Any catechumen or believer who wishes to become a soldier must be dismissed from the church because they have despised God. - source

This stance was widespread at this time in history throughout all of early Christianity as many other quotes from both the early church leaders and its Roman enemies make clear.

Not until Augustine's 'Just War Theory' was written in the fourth century (and not fully accepted until even later) did the early Christians consider there to be any such thing as a 'just war'; for such a notion as a just war was obviously entirely foreign to their religion and must have been a laughable idea to those disciples who were adherents to the teachings of the Master who came to show humanity the Way of Peace. Until the days of Constantine when Rome's politics of war corrupted the original teachings, it was clear to all followers of Jesus that the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' applied in both times of peace and war, to civilians and soldiers alike.

According to the gospels, this precedent had already been set - before Jesus even began teaching across Palestine - by his forerunner and initiator John the Baptist, for we are told that when the soldiers came to John asking what they should do, he responded by admonishing them to "do violence to no man." And how can a soldier do no violence when that is his very job; and how can one who believes it wrong to kill another make it his profession to become a trained killer, for that is exactly what a soldier is?

In this exact same spirit of pacifism, Jesus himself made his stance against war quite clear when he was arrested, commanding his disciples who drew their swords to defend him from his assailants: "Put down your swords, for whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword." He was simply living out the pacifist way which he had already taught:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. - Matthew 5:38-39

How insane to think that peace could be brought about by war, and that violence could be brought to an end with violence! Returning violence with violence only begets more violence, and taking revenge on those who have wronged us only continues to fuel this viscous cycle of violence. It must have been just as clear to those early Christians 2,000 years ago as it was to Ghandi, who stated that, much in the spirit of the words of Jesus above, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

For me, the contradiction of claiming to put Jesus first while also advertising one's wholesale support of the troops is self-evident, as my study of the teachings of Jesus and the history of his earliest followers was one of the biggest reasons I eventually became pacifist embracing the complete rejection of all violence everywhere including even for self-defense. I don't deny other's their right to self-defense, only personally reject all forms of violence and believe that violence in any form only begets more violence; while at the same time acknowledging that most who would deny others' their right to self-defense (particularly governments) only do so because they wish to carry out violence and oppression against those people. Being well-acquainted with the teachings of Jesus found in the four gospels of the Christian Bible as well as in many of the non-canonical gospels (those not in the Bible), it seems quite apparent to me that this pacifist view enjoining absolute nonviolence upon humanity was undeniably the path taught by the great spiritual Teacher known as Jesus (more accurately Yeshua).

This also appears obvious and quite self-evident to many peace activists and followers of Jesus such as the late renowned Russian author Leo Tolstoy and his Eastern contemporary Ghandi in India, to the more recent American pacifist Martin Luther King, Jr.; not to mention the early Christians for three whole centuries! If it wasn't already convincing enough that Jesus was a pacifist by his sayings already quoted here, the following admonition also found within the 'Sermon on the Mount' should make it obvious why those like Tolstoy, the Anababtists during the Protestant Reformation and the entire church of Christianity for its first 300 years (among so many others) took such a strong and absolute pacifist stance - that of absolute nonviolence.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. - Matthew 5:43-45

It should be pointed out that the very slogan, 'We Support Our Troops', is on its own without the accompanied political connotations absolutely meaningless. For if those who chant this political slogan truly supported our troops, wouldn't they support the immediate end to the perpetual war abroad that continues to kill the troops with so many of those who return home alive only turning around and killing themselves? Yet it is apparent that the slogan's underlying political meaning is this, that 'we support your wars', for the wars are neither in defense of the American people nor in the best interest of the troops, and yet those who chant this slogan stand behind the war!

So how is it that so many in churches today are embracing the patriotic/nationalistic/militaristic slogan of supporting the troops, while the very One these same Christians claim to be putting 'first' harshly denounced all violence, while the entire religion of Christianity for 300 years practiced this pacifism by rejecting not only war but even service in the military? I think the answer in reality has nothing to do with Jesus, but is rather both religious and political.

For it is indeed generally understood that by saying one supports the troops that they are politically in support of America's wars abroad whether or not that is in the best interests of the troops themselves. But if America's wars abroad are not in the best interest of this country nor the American people, then why are they being waged at all and our troops being sacrificed? For the profit of the elite in the Military Industrial Complex, yes; to enrich weapons manufacturers', for the benefit of Big Oil and other corporations which profit off the natural resources looted from the countries invaded, and the bankers who invest and profit off war.

But this is surely not why millions of religious fundamentalists across America support war. No, it is for political reasons, support of political ideology which equates supporting the troops in any war as a patriotic duty, typically seen more on the right than the left (but not always). And this political stance can even be covered for by religious arguments like the 'moral necessity' of always supporting government (and consequently its wars) whether one personally agrees with the war or not, and by denying that Jesus was not a pacifist in contradiction of his own words the legacy of his initial followers for the first 300 years of the religion built in his name, along with argument that God isn't against all killing, just murder (and that excludes killing in a war).

An example of this common explanation for why those who claim to support peace should actually support a nation at war along with the troops trained to fight in those wars follows from a popular Christian apologetic organization called GotQuestions, in response to the question, What does the Bible say about war?:

Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.”

That may or may not be the case, but regardless Jesus clearly demonstrated in the Sermon on the Mount that the command not to kill did not go far enough in his eyes; for to him those who were angry with their brother without a just cause had already committed murder in their hearts. And as we have seen, the history of the Christian Church shows that the original tradition passed down through his disciples was that Jesus prohibited them from killing in any instance and enjoined upon them absolute nonviolence, as seen in his command not to resist an evil person. Obviously if it is 'wrong' to resist evil personally, then it is much more 'wrong' to resist evil on the world stage in the form of war which kills countless more innocents along with the so-called 'guilty' parties which the war is being waged against.

After using many arguments that God often supports war - from the very Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus himself contradicts on multiple occasions in the Sermon on the Mount - the explanation continues:

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves?

One, stating that Jesus is not a pacifist without citing a single teaching of his doesn't prove anything. Second, the last question demonstrates an ignorance of history, for the Civil War was not fought to keep or to free slaves but over taxation and State's Rights, while Lincoln himself declared he did not want to free the slaves. Third, regarding Hitler, we have no idea how many more millions would have been killed if the US had not waged war on Germany, but we do know just how many millions were in fact killed in that war and it was very, very many - some 15 million - and the blood is on the hands of Germany as much as everyone else involved including America, because German lives have no less value than American lives or British lives or Japanese lives or Soviet lives, and millions of lives were taken in all sides of that war.

Of all wars, the two world wars should serve as real life illustrations as to exactly why war itself is the real evil, rather than one side or another. And so it is admitted that war is both "terrible" and caused by "sin":

War is a terrible thing. Some wars are more “just” than others, but war is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18).

So then one would naturally conclude war itself is evil, right, just like Jesus did? Not according to this theological argument:

At the same time, Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “There is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:17). The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to conflicts, and praying for a minimum of casualties among civilians on both sides (Philippians 4:6-7).

So it is wrong not to support the government waging war to take a stand for peace, while the most important thing to do during a war is the pray for the safety of "our military" and minimum casualties on both sides, but not the safety of the 'enemy' military or a minimum of casualties to their soldiers. This is the exact type of tribal and patriotic divisive hatred Jesus was speaking to when he admonished his listeners to love their enemies and do good to them rather than hating them. If you love your enemies, you can't possibly go to war against them, let alone drop bombs on them! He called for prayer for our enemies, while Evangelicals call on us to pray for our own military. It isn't hard to see that the Church has traded the teachings of Jesus for a political argument in defense of the military establishment and the State.

But there is a much deeper religious reason why so many Christians so fervently support war particularly in the Middle East, and that is support for Israel. After all, if we really get to the root of the so-called 'war on terror' being waged for the past 19 years, the monetary profit for the Military Industrial Complex is only a benefit; the real reason all these wars are being waged is for Israel. America's wars are Israel's wars, and that's the way the Christian Zionists want it to be.

They teach that those who bless Israel are blessed by God and those who stand against Israel stand against God, whether or not Israel's actions are justifiable. They may tell us not to support certain actions taken by Israel, but then turn around and insist we absolutely must still support Israel. In other words, they have made the State of Israel their god, and convinced a large number of fundamentalist Christians that it is their highest religious duty to support Israel above anything and everything else. This, I believe, is the root of the issue, and likely the major cause behind the seemingly blind support of the US military in its war efforts abroad by the Evangelical right in this country.

After all,

Evangelical Christians make up the biggest pro-Israel bloc in the US. Support for Israel is stronger among American evangelicals than it is even among American Jews. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 82 percent of white evangelicals think God gave Israel to the Jewish people. Less than half as many Jewish Americans or Catholic Americans agree.

And according to a Bloomberg poll, almost 60 percent of evangelicals say the US should support Israel even if its interests diverge with American interests. - PRI

In other words, the majority of evangelicals are 'Israel First' Christian Zionists, not 'Jesus First' pacifists or even 'America First' patriots, and this is why they so strongly support our troops, because our troops are fighting Israel's wars. This is particularly true and more obvious than ever under the Trump Administration, who has got to be hands down the most Zionist president this country has ever had.

But in the end, whether or not Christian support of war and the honor of the violent vocation of our soldiers is due to a blind support of Israel as "God's Chosen" nation or blind support of government as "instituted by God" (or both), the result is the same: Rejection of the clear pacifist teachings of Christ found in the Bible and supported by the actual historical practice and total commitment to absolute nonviolence by the early Christian Church before being 'Romanized', in order to legitimize the violence of war.

And so long as violence continues to be defended as legitimate, the vicious cycle of violence is bound to continue; with men continuing to use religion as a principle means of defending their choice to defend violence.