Embedded in Wars

I find myself involved in two wars at the moment. Through my ramped up research into my Dad's service in World War II I am following the 10th Armored Division leading up to and through the Battle of the Bulge. I have also recently been reading the recent book on the story of Hue 1968 and the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War. A number of years ago (well, many number of years ago, now) a colleague expressed surprise that I read war novels and have often been interested in war studies. "Aren't you a pacifist?" was his question.

Well, nothing is ever black and white, of course. History is often the story of conflict that led seemingly obviously to war. In reading and researching I feel that we can often get a better understanding of our world and hopefully find ways to make war less and less common.

World War II and Vietnam are both watershed moments in our American history. I grew up with World War II being recent enough to be current events. My Dad and many of my friends fathers were veterans. It was more than a watershed- it was a defining moment in many ways, positive and negative. I am also of the Vietnam era. I did not go to war, but the impact of the divisions in our nation as a result of that war are still reverberating. They form the roots of half of the reactions we are seeing today- the civil rights movement being the other half.

In any case a couple of things have stood out as I read through these two wars. This is not an in-depth understanding. These are just things that seem so obvious and still important.

First was the people involved. The soldiers and Marines, the families back home, the local people whose world was being turned into a wasteland. The deep fear and terror that often gripped them is indescribable. The courage is beyond reproach. The horrors of war far worse than any movie has ever been able to portray. Thinking specifically of the soldiers, the daily grind, at times boring and often so horrific that there was no time left to think- just react.

Deep gratitude and humbling awe is what I feel as I read about these battles.

The other thing that jumped off the pages of both wars was, inevitably, the lack of awareness at times of the leaders up the chain of command. They refused to believe, for example, that the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong were able to mount such an offensive. They ordered units into suicide missions because they simply didn't believe the enemy could do what the intelligence and ground reports were telling them was happening. Don't confuse me with the facts. General Westmoreland in 1968 was the classic. But the information that Patton's G2 units were passing back about the possibility of what became the Battle of the Bulge- were also ignored. At  least Patton had the war sense to believe it.

The others believed their own propaganda. Those between Patton and Eisenhower felt they were watching a retreat and not a building up of troops. The Germans and the the North Vietnamese, by the way, also believed their propaganda. It was nothing to push the Americans out of France; the Vietnamese people only needed to see a win like Hue and they would rise up against the foreigners. No army or nation is immune to seeing the world through its own lens of belief about itself.

These are lessons we must not lose:

• The importance of the people on the ground- their insight, courage and willingness, and
• Being wary of easy answers that simply echo what we already believe.

Yet I fear they will happen again and again.

Continuing to Reflect and Respond

Those who preach a message of hate, anxiety, or fear are teaching false doctrines. That's a paraphrase of what our pastor said yesterday morning in his homily. I would add that those who preach vengeance and war as "Christian" responses are also preaching false doctrines. War may be inevitable in many situations, but it is never a Christian response in my opinion. A nation may need to go to war in different circumstances, but as far as I'm concerned Christians become people of prayer to minimize the casualties and the repercussions of war on those involved. Which, by the nature of our citizenship, includes us as well.

But a look around Facebook, the Internet, or 24/7 news will show that to be a person of peace in the midst of such violent times is downright a minority opinion. So is acceptance of those who are different. So is the willingness to call our own Christian history into question as a historic role model for what we see happening today.

One of my friends on FB drew upon the Crusades as a possible way of seeing what we might be called to do against ISIS. Of course it wasn't just ISIS that is invoked as the enemy. It is Islam. Which they imply is far worse than Christianity. When I point out the historic inaccuracy of such views, I become one of those liberals trying to excuse the terrorists instead of condemning.

No, I say. I condemn terrorism.

• Islamist terrorism in Paris or Beirut; 
• Christian terrorism in Northern Ireland, the KKK in the American south or against abortion clinics and abortion providers; 
• Tribal terrorism in central Africa; 
• Ethnic terrorism in Eastern Europe.

Terrorism is terrorism. End of statement. It is always abhorrent and horrific and aims at innocent people. The terrorists of any type see no one as innocent. If you are not with them, you are supporting the evil of their enemies.

The Crusades, some say, were an appropriate Christian response to Muslim oppression and persecution of Christians. I have a number of responses to that:

• The world of the Crusades is not the world we live in. For example:
• Nation-states as we understand them today did not exist. When they did in embryonic form in Western Europe, there was a higher power than the state government- the Church.
• When the Church called for the Crusades it was a call to a war of aggression and the gain of territory and wealth. Sure it was couched in the language of kicking the "infidels" out of the Holy Land, but it was still a war of power.
• When some Crusaders entered areas under the hegemony of the Eastern Orthodox-style churches, slaughters of locals sometimes occurred because these couldn't be "real" Christians. They weren't "western."
• How did the Crusades recruit? They promised the Crusaders that they would get a quicker entry into heaven as a result of their fighting. (Note: This led to what were called "indulgences" and the later protest against that by Martin Luther.)

Any of this sound familiar? The church may not have promised whatever number of virgins, but they did promise entry into God's kingdom as a payment. Many fell into line quite quickly for any of a number of reasons- escape poverty, escape jail sentences, get a family member out of Purgatory, hopes to get rich, a desire to be powerful when feeling powerless.

Others cry out- "Why don't national Muslim leaders speak out? Why don't they condemn the attacks?"

A not very in-depth Google search will find many, many examples of such anti-terrorism statements. What do people want them to do, go fight ISIS with guns in Syria to show they are opposed to the terrorists? Even international Christian leaders such as the Pope have been unable to stop Christian violence by their supporters- and many believe the Pope has unlimited power over Catholics. The National Council of Churches makes statements condemning racism and terrorism, but they are dismissed by those who disagree with them. Yet, it is expected that western Muslim leaders- a significant minority in this country- and within world Islam- will make condemnations that make some sort of a difference.

ISIS and their supporters will only laugh and put targets on the names of those condemning them. We are expecting "western values" to make a difference with a group of terrorists who are out to DESTROY western values. Anyone, even other Muslims, supporting what can be seen as western values will be suspect.

Yes, to have western Muslim leaders speak out has important reasons

• Call American Muslims to resist recruiting
• Remind American Muslims of the possibilities they have in the "west"
• Remind us all that ISIS et al. are the reason many refugees left their homes to come here
• Take a stand for peace
• Ease our Euro-centric American fears of Muslims.

What then are we to do? Where is this going?

First, I think we need to stop hiding our own history behind our self-righteousness. We have been here before in history and it wasn't pretty. It isn't pretty now and won't get any better as long as we believe we are blameless in the past. Rewriting - revising our history - to justify anger and vengeance is not helpful.

Second, we need to find more common ground within the country. We need each other. Name-calling doesn't work on the grade-school playground; it works even less in the political arena. It only further separates us. We don't need that!

What might be some of the common ground? How about:

• Being clear who the "enemy" is- radical extremists Muslims are responsible. Let's name that and NOT demonize all of Islam. 
• Stop "spin" to make everything Obama's fault or Bush's fault or God knows what else. That gets us as far as does name-calling.
• Find ways to increase dialogue with Muslims in the United States. Most of us know very few Muslims personally. Let's change that.
•  Admit that we are in a war. Pope Francis has said we have been fighting World War III as a piecemeal war. I believe he is right. But a war of this type may very well give us some possibilities we may not have had before to bring disparate nations and sides together. I don't give a damn how it started- we can't change that. We can look for ways to bring about a change.
• As a pacifist I have serious problems with war. It is never the best solution. It may be the only solution at some point, but that is not a reason to celebrate war. As a country we need to find ways to wage this war with as much of an eye to peace as we can. War will always lead to difficult and awful decisions.
• How does a pacifist support a war? With great difficulty; it is never an easy choice. 
• A pacifist needs to always be there in the midst of the discussion reminding  the nation of its humanity and its need to remain humane. 
• A Christian pacifist (which has never, NEVER been a contradiction) will remind all, themselves included, that we are all (on both sides of the conflict) created in the image of the Creator. 
• The deaths of civilians and innocent people (so called, collateral damage) are never acceptable and when it happens, confession and repentance is essential.
• Pacifists are not unpatriotic. We love our country and will always work hard to keep her strong and committed to our historic values. We may not take up arms and may often be seen challenging common wisdom as well as a warrior mentality, but we are not un-American. We will do what we can do to maintain our freedoms and hopes as a nation.

This is a difficult time. The government of the past two administrations as led us deeper into a war-mode. One did this by it's saber-rattling, regime-change, and general lack of insight. The other has attempted to downplay what is happening with groups like ISIS. Both have continued the American tradition that goes way back in history of poor intelligence often caused by the intelligence community giving those in power the news they want.

Unfortunately I don't see anything better happening no matter who gets elected. It is a time for new insights, new tactics, new understandings. I don't know what those new things are, but we are not living in the world of World War II or even Vietnam. This is new and dangerous. New insights and direction are needed.

So I pray. Not out of fear or anxiety, but out of the need to remain settled and centered in the ways of God. I also pray that I am not being a prophet- that these things will not come to pass, that we will not deepen the war-mentality and fall deeper into a new morass of unwinnable war. I pray that our values as a nation will not be lost in fear and a desire to have a perfect life.

Let me end with words of a hymn used in worship yesterday. These words form a prayer of hope in these days of growing war...

O God of every nation,
of every race and land,
redeem the whole creation
with your almighty hand;
where hate and fear divide us
and bitter threats are hurled,
in love and mercy guide us
and heal our strife-torn world.

From search for wealth and power
and scorn of truth and right,
from trust in bombs that shower
destruction through the night,
from pride of race and nation
and blindness to your way,
deliver every nation,
eternal God, we pray!

Lord, strengthen all who labor
that we may find release
from fear of rattling saber,
from dread of war's increase;
when hope and courage falter,
your still small voice be heard;
with faith that none can alter,
your servants undergird.

Keep bright in us the vision
of days when war shall cease,
when hatred and division
give way to love and peace,
till dawns the morning glorious
when truth and justice reign
and Christ shall rule victorious
o'er all the world's domain.

Words: William Watkins Reid, Jr.
Words © 1958, Renewed 1986 by The Hymn Society (admin. by Hope Publishing Co., Carol Stream, IL 60188).
All rights reserved.

Calendar of Saints: Paul Jones (2)

Twice a week I post a quote from saints from the Episcopal Calendar of Saints that week. They are to be meditative and mindful, playful and thought inducing. I hope they are helpful in your spiritual journeys.

Paul Jones
Bishop, Pacifist
September 4

He was forced to resign as Bishop of Utah in April 1918 because of his outspoken opposition to World War I. Although in 1929 he was chosen as temporary bishop of Southern Ohio while the next incumbent was being selected, he never again held a permanent diocese. In 1933, presiding bishop James DeWolf Perry restored Jones's seat, but not his vote, in the House of Bishops.

Jones spent the rest of his life advocating for black civil rights, social reform and economic justice. He served as a chaplain at Antioch College and was instrumental in founding the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Episcopal Peace Fellowship. Just prior to his death, he helped resettle Jews displaced by the Nazis and advocated a more understanding US relationship with Japan.

Calendar of Saints: Bishop Paul Jones (1)

Twice a week I post a quote from saints from the Episcopal Calendar of Saints that week. They are to be meditative and mindful, playful and thought inducing. I hope they are helpful in your spiritual journeys.


Paul Jones
Bishop, Pacifist
September 4

Paul Jones was born in Pennsylvania in 1880. He attended Yale University and the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was ordained and served a mission church in Logan, Utah. In 1914 he was made Bishop of the Missionary District of Utah.

He was an outspoken pacifist, and when World War I began in 1914, he spoke against it. As the war progressed, and when the United States entered the war in 1917, many Americans were vehement in holding that pursuing the war was a moral duty, and opposition to the war was immoral. In the spring of 1918, yielding to pressure, Bishop Jones resigned as Bishop of Utah.

-Link

A Quick Thought

After seeing Zero Dark Thirty yesterday (an excellent movie), I had a simple response.

I don't know if the director Kathryn Bigelow is pro- or anti- torture. I don't know how loose and easy she played with the real story and whether torture played a part in finding bin Laden or not. I do know this.

Watching the torture scenes convinced me that torture (and revenge, which is what torture is ultimately about!) turns everyone involved in animals, less-than-human. Everyone, including the "good guys."

Which is the same message I got from Tarantino's Django Unchained, by the way. In spite of all the "good guy" bloodshed of the "bad guys" blood, revenge is awful when carried to its extreme.

I suppose there are those who will disagree with me. But my Christian beliefs have a hard time reconciling with such violence.

On Ethics, Pacifism and Bonhoeffer

Some of the discussions around the death of bin Laden last week got me to thinking about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian/pastor who during World War II participated in a plot to kill Hitler. Back in the early 70s when I was first introduced to Bonhoeffer's writing I was also struggling with the "practical" applications of my pacifist tendencies. At the time I was introduced to an example that a theology professor said Bonhoeffer used.

If a truck were barreling out of control down a street toward a child or group of children and the only way to stop it from its deadly mission was to kill the driver, would you?

Bonhoeffer's ethic says yes. That's the way it was explained to me in 1971 as part of a discussion of pacifism and ethics at a church camp in the midst of the Vietnam War. I don't remember if the speaker was advocating a move away from peaceful protest or not, but it was a striking moment for this 20-something pacifist.

All that came back to me quite forcefully last week as I discovered Christians debating and responding to the death of bin Laden with ambivalence and concern. Not so much about his death, but the response to it. As I reflected on it myself I said that the apparent triumph of good over evil in bin Laden's death does not call for celebration, but relief. We had no choice; we are grateful that he is no longer a threat; but we need to be cautious that our sense of victory doesn't overcome our humanity.

We are also filled with sadness over the ongoing tragedies of wars of all kinds and violence of all styles. Even justified violence is still violence and makes us less than we can truly be. I am glad for Obama and the defeat of bin Laden. But I do not rejoice at death. Not that kind of death. Even when it is necessary.

So I wanted to figure out a little bit of where Bonhoeffer was. I went Googling and found some thoughts.

First, from the BBC:

In Ethics, Bonhoeffer wrestles with the essential problem: how can a Christian, essentially a pacifist, justify murder? His argument can be summarised thus:

• Responsible action is how Christians act in accordance with the will of God.
• The demand for responsible action - that is, acting in accordance with God's will - is one that no Christian can ignore.
• Christians are, therefore, faced with a dilemma: when assaulted by evil, they must oppose it through direct action. They have no other option. Any failure to act is simply to condone evil.

What a difficult position, but one that must be addressed. Is there a time and place when the failure to act against evil would in and of itself be evil? Is there a point when pacifism may actually be wrong?

Over at the blog Ten-Minute Theology, I found this bit of insight:

[Bonhoeffer] also takes on a famous example from another German intellectual titan, Kant. Imagine someone intends to kill the friend that you are hiding in your house. One day that person barges in and demands to know if the friend is hiding there. Kant had argued that in the interest of truthfulness, the ethical act is to answer in the honest affirmative. Bonhoeffer passionately disagrees, thinking this is a monstrous distortion of what it means to act ethically. The problem with the Kantian line of thinking, he argues, is that it reduces the ethical to an unchanging list of right and wrong behaviors, instead of recognizing that

Ethical discourse cannot be conducted in a vacuum, in the abstract, but only in a concrete context. Ethical discourse, therefore, is not a system of propositions which are correct in themselves, a system which is available for anyone to apply at any time and in any place, but it is inseparably linked with particular persons, times, and places.

The key word for Bonhoeffer, which he stresses repeatedly, is concrete. An action is not ethical according to some timeless principle, but only in a specific given situation. This is because life is lived in the here and now, in the world of given circumstances, and not in the ideal world of mental reflection. Life is lived, in other words, in human society, with all the messiness that that entails.

I came away from this brief research with an uneasy feeling. Perhaps at the heart of it is the question of how do we deal with real-world situations. Conscientious objectors were often asked the hypothetical question, not unlike Bonhoeffer's- "What would you do if your family was being attacked? Would you fight, even kill, the attacker?

None of us know what we would do. But here, with the death of bin Laden we have for us in the United States a real world example. Watching President Obama on TV it was abundantly clear that he believed, beyond any shadow of doubt, that he had done the right thing. It had to be done. Even with my pacifism I have to agree. Sometime we are left no option as Bonhoeffer so clearly argued.

Yes, I feel conflicted. Yes, it is much too much of a paradox for me to deal with in any rational way. 

There was massive evil that needed to be confronted because, as Bonhoeffer would have said, we want a safer and better world to leave our children. A last-resort situation may have left us no other concrete options.

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

Then as a PS to my wanderings and ramblings I came across this: The modern man of peace, the Dalai Lama was recently reported on NPR to have said:

As a human being, Bin Laden may have deserved compassion and even forgiveness, the Dalai Lama said in answer to a question about the assassination of the Al Qaeda leader. But, he said, "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. ... If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures."
--NPR

A Strange and Ambivalent Day

As I went to work this morning the American flag flying by the front door seemed brighter, lighter, more free. It was not just the westerly breeze. There was a sense of relief and closure that in the end, Osama bin Laden could not escape the "justice" of his own deeds.

We were just getting into bed last evening when our daughter called to tell us that there was going to be a news statement from Obama that bin Laden was dead. We got up and sat and watched. I was impressed by his fortitude and strength of conviction. He was highly presidential as he told us and the world that bin Laden had finally met his match.

An ending in so many ways to what began on 9/11/01. The mastermind of that horrific day is gone. Good riddance. No one else will suffer as a result of his actions. There was a sense of accomplishment in that. It has not been easy. He has become an icon of evil right there with Hitler and Stalin and Idi Amin. In the end good has triumphed over evil. Again.

But again the ambivalence. The celebration of someone's death- even with the sense of relief that it brought- somehow seemed out-of-focus. Mourning may have been appropriate- first in memory of those who lost their lives 10 years ago thanks to him and second for what his actions have led us to have to do. Did we have a choice? As a nation, I don't think so. Even as a pacifist I recognize that times and situations can cause us to HAVE to go against our morals and values and do things like this.

But that doesn't mean we have to like it and celebrate it as if it was a good thing. Bin Laden is gone- yes. But again our innocence has been trapped in the vortex of violence. A winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is announcing his decision to attack and kill bin Laden. No, I don't believe he had a choice. Not as President. Pacifists don't (and won't) get elected President. But I am still saddened by it, even as I am relieved that bin Laden is gone.

No, I will not celebrate. I will react with sadness over the ongoing tragedies of wars of all kinds and violence of all styles. Even justified violence is still violence and makes us less than we can truly be. I am glad for Obama and the defeat of bin Laden. But I do not rejoice at death. Not that kind of death. Even when it is necessary.

Lord have mercy on us that we do not become more violent in our reactions but learn the ways of peace as best we can. When we fail- or are forced by circumstances to react in non-peace-filled ways- forgive us our sins as we forgive the sins of others.

God, bless us in our humanness and failings as much as in our love and care. Show us a better way- and bring your peace.

An Ambivalent Pacifist- Huh?

Well, this war is now at 7 years. It remains an active war though people have said that things may be changing for the better. The elections came off well. The process of becoming a democracy appears to be moving in the right direction. The people of Iraq, in general, are living some kind of better life than they were 7 years ago (although that admittedly is an arguable statement to some.)

Do these apparent signs of progress support the war's existence in the first place? Do these possible gains say that the lies and false pretenses of the road into the war are excusable? Does the democratization of Iraq give the okay to the un-democratic, painful, divisive and illegal actions during the war within our own nation?

If all's well that ends well, do the ends justify the means?

That's a question that will be debated by historians, scholars, and politicians for many years to come. It is possible that Iraq will become the Vietnam of this generation. Ethicists will say one thing - military strategists another; conservatives will celebrate - liberals will remain uneasy. Everyone will have some kind of opinion.

As a pacifist I have many concerns about war- any war. I am disturbed by what war does to young men and women on both sides of the fight. I am saddened to my soul that innocent people by the thousands (non-combatants) die, lose their homes and families or at best(?!) live in terror. I am angered that I am lied to in order to achieve some unknown goal of vengeance or profit. I am embarrassed that all this is done in my name- from death to torture.

As a follower of Jesus I cannot under any circumstance say that war is good. It can never be good. At best it is a necessary evil when all else fails. As a follower of Jesus I have to be concerned about the people on the other side since I am commanded to love my neighbor- after all even the most evil can love their friends. As a follower of Jesus I am called by the Prince of Peace to proclaim the possibility of- and work diligently for- peace.

When war becomes reality we must all recognize the awful things it gets us to do and support. When war becomes reality we must all see that we are being tempted into death and destruction. When war becomes reality we must work for the resumption of peace within us and around us. Caring for the soldiers' families and the soldiers themselves is essential. Caring for the wounded on both sides is required. Keeping our nation AND our opponents in prayer is a non-negotiable. Overcoming hatred and prejudice wrought by war is an important calling.

I know and am more than painfully aware of all the arguments on both sides of the pacifism issue. Each one of us has to come to terms with all of these in our own lives and keep our own spirit and soul focused on life. Even when death is around us, life must always be the goal, the mission, the promise. No matter what is happening I believe we must keep the choice given to Moses in our awareness:

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.
Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.
(Deuteronomy 30:19; NIV)

Gaining Insight

I know that over the years folk singer and activist Pete Seeger has been criticized for his seemingly uncritical support of the then Soviet Union. He was roundly chastised for never speaking out against the excesses and then torture and atrocities of the Staling regime. As an old-guard leftist Seeger came in for many challenges.

Ron Radosh, in a special to the New York Sun, mentioned that he had recently called Seeger to task after a documentary on his life. He said at the time that while Seeger had written many laudable songs on social issues, even in other countries, he never wrote one about the Gulags and the death lists of Stalin. Recently, then he received a letter from Seeger. Radosh then wrote:

I almost fell off the chair when I read Mr. Seeger's words: "I think you're right - I should have asked to see the gulags when I was in [the] USSR." For years, Mr. Seeger continued, he had been trying to get people to realize that any social change had to be nonviolent, in the fashion sought by Martin Luther King Jr. Mr. Seeger had hoped, he explained, that both Khrushchev and later Gorbachev would "open things up." He acknowledged that he underestimated, and perhaps still does, "how the majority of the human race has faith in violence."
--New York Sun

I applaud Seeger for his words- and Radosh for the willingness to post what Seeger said in his own column. Both have showed in this a willingness to talk that is often lost in too much political rhetoric. I for one am glad that Seeger can say these things now. Pete is one of my heroes. He has been a tireless advocate for what he saw as right and true and needed for a better world. I have often disagreed with his extreme leftist, even communist stance and support of the Soviet state's dictatorship. But I have seen him stand up in music and life to do what is right. (Plus I like his music!)

But the last quote in the article amazes me- and perhaps gives a clue into why Seeger continues to work as he does. He has "underestimated how the majority of the human race has faith in violence." As a Christian pacifist myself I find that remarkable. I have seen over and over in my life the devastating truth of what Pete underestimates. Perhaps it is a hopefulness built on his own desire to make the human experience less warlike. But it surely does ignore- or play down- the depths of the human soul from which violence can spring.

Whether you believe that the Genesis stories are exact accounts of actual events or "creation stories" explaining the events that all can see, it is not a surprise that Cain and Abel, the world that brought about Noah's Ark, or the impetus for the Tower of Babel make up most of the first 11 chapters. It is the deepest sadness of the human story writ large- jealousy, hatred, greed, death. We are not immune.

As Stanley Hauerwas once said in a slightly different form, I am a pacifist so I can be reminded of what I should do when I am tempted to do the opposite. I don't know whether Pete Seeger has learned the profound potential for violence behind human nature, but I applaud that he has made some statements that challenge his own past support of such violence, if only by his silence.

One of the most dangerous things about our human political, philosophical and religious approaches is that we so easily adopt blind acceptance of things that may or may not be as true as we think they are. What Seeger fell into with the Soviet Union we may just as easily fall into with our American nationalism or Christian triumphalism or atheistic "superiority feelings." Any completely blind acceptance of a human interpretation of such things can easily lead us into places we better not go.

Doubt and honest reflection and critical thinking and analysis are requirements for our world to survive. Perhaps, with each such step of honest reflection, any of us can move to a closer walk with what is truly beyond us but which we can move closer to in honesty.