Are Evangelical Christians Warmongers?

[cooterhein]

There's a couple of things in the article that aren't factually accurate, and the predictions at the end of it are hyperbolic. There is some basis for what he's saying, but there's also some things I can't agree with.

The biggest inaccuracy that jumped out at me was the blanket statement about how Christians have historically adhered to the Natural Law principle of self-defense and that conscientious pacifism was always the exception and not the rule. This has been true for most of Christianity's history, but it hasn't always been true, and it's changed depending on how different governments have operated and how Christians have interacted with them. Going back to the first four-plus centuries of Christianity, it wasn't a legalized religion in the Roman Empire. Christianity was marginalized; Christians were the outliers. For that portion of Christianity's history, conscientious pacifism was very much the rule rather than the exception. Christians were near-universal in abstaining from serving as Roman soldiers- that was one of the biggest things that made Christians different from everyone else. They were citizens of the Kingdom, and that meant more to them than Roman citizenship- especially in an empire where Christianity was illegal and its military operations were seldom, if ever, in the best interest of Christianity. It was a matter of trust- Christians didn't trust the Roman empire to the extent that they could be in the military and take orders from that military's leadership without compromising their religious beliefs.

Of course, that all changed when Christianity became legal- and in relatively short order, it became the only legal religion. That's when Christians in the empire (and then what was formerly the Western part of the empire) generally became ok with military service, albeit in somewhat different ways depending on the place and time. The way it worked out in the Byzantine Empire was always a bit different from how it was in the West, and depending on the place and time, the line between a country's war and the Church's war might get blurred to one extent or another (more often in the West than the East, of course). A lot of that variation had to do with the changing nature and role of the papacy and the rest of the Magisterium, along with its changing relationships with different types of governments.

This is more specific to American Evangelicals of the 21st century, though. Some of what this man says is true, albeit overstated. Evangelical Christians in America do tend to lean more to the hawkish side (although the true mongers are a vocal few) and they do tend to associate patriotism with being pro-war while we're at war (although that does make sense, in a way). He's also right when he says Evangelical Americans generally aren't fazed by bombings, targeted killings, puppet dictatorships, or even the secret black ops that civilians don't know anything about. But there's a reason for that, and it's not quite as sinister as Chuck Baldwin makes it out to be. It is worthy of some raised eyebrows, but it's not....what does he call it....a devilish new world order that is of Satan. It's certainly not that.

It's a matter of trust. Evangelicals trust the US military to do make consistently good decisions, both from a more objective standpoint and from a specifically Evangelical perspective. That trust is necessary and good in some sense, although I doubt that Chuck and I can agree on that. It can also go a little too far, but again, it seems that I see a flaw that may be corrected in time while Baldwin sees something that looks entirely un-Christian and in need of fundamental, comprehensive, far-reaching alteration. I don't see that.

In a challenging era of war and diplomacy that involves a rapidly changing landscape of players and challenges, the US government and the US military are always hard at work and they're always making decisions that can be either good or bad- but far more often, they're extremely mixed, fraught with unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences, and impossible to assess without the benefit of hindsight. The truth is, Evangelicals in the US tend to trust these efforts a little too much. We do have to trust our leaders to carry these things out to some extent, and military/intelligence operations often can't be completely transparent. But Evangelicals in the US do have a tendency to think that all, or nearly all, of these major decisions are good ones. At times, they may also be too optimistic with regard to how those decisions and actions will be judged in the future. And when the future comes, most of us weren't paying enough attention to remember what it was we should have been looking at.

If I can quote Pres. Obama for a moment here, though, let me be clear. I completely disagree with the overly pessimistic assessment of the US military as a tool of Satan and its Evangelical supporters as the facilitators of the ruination of our country. (Hey, that has a certain ring to it....does anyone ever quote things for un-truth? It's morbid, but I somehow like how bad that is). The truth is, we do need to trust our leaders (elected and otherwise) to make really tough decisions all the time. They will usually make them with the benefit of expertise and intel that we don't have, and that's the way it's got to be. I don't think Chuck Baldwin sees that. However....

Often, US Evangelicals too readily assume that these major military decisions over the past 10 years have been very good ones. You know what I mean- it's assumed without ever checking to see if they really were good decisions. And even more often, they're liable to demonize anyone who calls that into question. My proposed solution is that US Evangelicals continue to support the US military and be appreciative of it, but also be better educated on some of the intricacies of foreign affairs and be prepared to interact with them in ways that try to assess whether a course of action is good, bad, or mixed in some way. We need to be open to the possibility that such an assessment might yield mixed results, and we need to demonstrate more of a tendency to go through this kind of process in the first place. Transparency is not always a realistic goal in these kinds of situations, but accountability is something that can realistically be improved. We still need to trust these leaders....quite a lot, actually. And they are worthy of that trust. But we'd be better off if that trust was a little less blind.

[Guest yod]

I've read some of Baldwin's opinions before and wondered if he was a christian.

Don't like the guy and didn't read this one....

But the charge is only partially true. Pat Robertson and John Hagee have said things that would have started a war, had they been President. In principle they may be right that military action is an unavoidable course when dealing with thug, rogue nations.

Really only time will tell. What if we do nothing and Iran ends up nuking Europe or Israel? Will we wish we had done something sooner? What could we do? Land invasion of a country that hasn't been successfully invaded since the Persians 3,000 years ago?

IMO, brutal thugs only understand brutal violence. When we don't confront them forcefully (not necessarily speaking about war) then we are giving tacit approval and they will be stronger when do finally have to face them. No one wants bloodshed...but there would be less of it if we catch it early.

Like, what if we had not waited until Hitler invaded Poland? How many millions of lives could have been saved, though it may have cost thousands?