The Unholy Alliance Between Poverty and War
At the start of our local Fourth of July fireworks extravaganza the National Anthem was played. As the final bars of the song belted out, "... and the home of the brave," several F-16 fighter jets rocketed past just overhead, kicking in their after burners in a display of Air Force might. The crowd roared in exultation. At that moment, I was overcome with a sadness which was hard to shake all through the evening. While I am sure the crowd was not celebrating the weaponry of the aircraft, it was strange to me that the sight of war planes which have been responsible for so many military and civilian deaths would elicit cheering.
Poverty and war co-exist in an unholy alliance. War excites poverty and poverty excites war. The impoverishment of the Rhineland in
In the current global recession, poverty and war are among the few growth industries. Arms manufacturers and those who make war planes are doing booming business these days. The colossal
I'm not one who puts much stock in comparisons which suggest that the amount we have spent on war in the past few years could feed the world six times over, as if we could simply shift money spent on weapons (or fireworks for that matter) to poverty alleviation. While it would be beautiful, realistically money just doesn't move from one place to another like that. Our military expenditures are motivated by fear - sometimes real, sometimes imagined - and you don't free up that kind of money by calculating how much bread you can buy with the cost of an F-16 (though buying bread for the poor might eliminate the need for the F-16 in cases where poverty is fueling hatred). Money simply doesn't shift like that.
I suppose the thing that saddened me was not so much the cost of the F-16s flying overhead as it was the fact that these elaborate and destructive weapons that have played a part in spawning such desperate poverty all over the world would be used as symbols in celebration. The necessity of a military, if such thing is necessary at all, is a necessary evil and should be mourned not celebrated. The sight of such things ought to bring on full-scale grief because they indicate to us that all is not right in this world.
P.S. I eventually shut the comment feature off because I feel as though the dialogue was heading in a direction not intended by the blog post. Comments need to stay on topic and contributed in the spirit of humility and desire to learn together.
Disclaimer: These blogs are the words of the writers and do not represent InterVarsity or Urbana. The same is true of any comments which may be posted about any blog entries. Submitted comments may or may not be posted within the blog, at the bloggers' discretion.
Most Americans, having been almost entirely insulated from the externally inflicted dangers of the fall, have a very poor understanding of the necessity of Wrath as a second order effect of love. Hence, Romans 13 is something of non sequitur in our world. If I could be so bold, I would challenge you to reflect upon the story of Lt. Gen. Romeo Dalliare, commander of the UN Mission in Rwanda during the time of the genocide. Despite the tragedies that placed him in that unenviable position, that man was a hero, and I will honor his bravery and the thousands of lives he saved while the rest of the West either changed the channel or indulged in ineffectual vicarious pity. This is the world of the fall, and no profession is exempt; I will choose to rejoice in the successes of each as they each fight in their own way to right wrongs.
(As for the heart of your argument, I agree with your principles but having seen if firsthand, I have to find fault with your implementation: Reconstruction teams are probably the most important thing happening in our military foreign policy presently, but like all other things worth defending, they must be vigilantly defended if they are to succeed. This is equally true on the macroscopic level; a distinction between security and development is a false dichtomy.)
Perhaps there is a place to mourn war without mourning the existence of the military as we might mourn cancer without mourning the existence of hospitals.
I also liked your point about the use of a military for reconstruction and the rebuilding of infrastructure.
There is still something in me that refuses to allow a weapon to become a symbol for reconstruction or defending the powerless.
My great luxury is that the F-16 does not awaken trauma. For children living the the Gaza strip such a fly over might send them into horrific fright. F-16s are well used by the Israeli military and some have been linked with incredible civilian destruction in Gaza.
Why doesn't the sight of the Constitution or a voice over a loudspeaker proclaiming, "all humans are created equal," or "guilty until proven innocent," produce the same kind of cheering and revery that a weapon produces? There is a certain sensory piece to the display of sound and power that stirs us up, but I think it taps into more than that.
I also think there tends to be a reluctance to admit that the US military and our foriegn policy has often operated out of extreme self interest sometimes at great cost to others. Our use of force (openly in our military or clandestinly in the CIA) is sometimes whitewashed in altruistic language when the truth is that there is at least some motivation in our foriegn policy for increasing the power of the powerful.
Let us be honest enough to admit that our power has been used wrongly at times and let us use symbols which are primarily used for destruction.
All this is not to say that I do not appreciate your points and have been challenged to think more deeply by them. Thanks.
Dave addressed the primary issue, the sinful nature in humanity as a result of the fall. Even if the money would be taken from all luxury items and the militaries of every nation to create a utopian world, there will still be those that will exploit the weak, steal from their neighbor, and simply want "more" than everyone else. There is evil in the heart of human beings.
Part of my story is that I was led to the military after serving in missions work in a short term capacity in Croatia during the war in Bosnia. In fallen human societies, there is little to protect the individual from a group, as seen in say Psalm 10. It is the setting in Psalms that it is the wicked, plural, against the psalmist, an individual. This is why the community was so important in the Old Testament as a place of safety and assistance. It is also why I think Romans 13 that Dave mentioned is so important. The governor bears the sword as an agent of God to protect those who do what is right. Are human governors subject to the fall? Absolutely! But I believe that they will have a great degree of accountability as a leader before God.
Abraham Lincoln is recorded as saying, "Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God’s blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practice —saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, we should worry earnestly if we are on God’s side." That is why it is important to pray for our elected leaders faithfully. They order the military to battle in this day and time.
Here's a related thought. Some of my pacifist friends point to the church fathers to indicate that Christians should not serve in the military, without acknowledging that to serve in the Roman military from the time of Nero Caesar to Constantine, there was an oath required to Caesar as divine, and an offering was required to his shrine once a year by every soldier. So it was not possible to be a Christian with integrity in the military in that period.
However, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter and Paul were all killed by soldiers doing their 'job.' Yet none of them denounced the military profession as recorded in Scripture. Instead, soldiers and martial language was used as examples of faith and models for the Christian life. Jesus held up a soldier as an example of faith(Luke 7). Who was one of the people to recognize Jesus as divine -the centurion at the foot of the cross after His death (Matthew 27:54), who was the first Gentile convert-Cornelius, a soldier (Acts 10)? Sorry for the aside, but it seems important to go back to Scripture and see what it says and how soldiers are portrayed there.
As I see it, part of the issue is how one views the military. Is it a nameless, faceless entity that exists solely to further our national interests, or is it my cousin and I, the guy down the street, a family member that believes that our family and friends are worth protecting from the evil of this world and will commit themselves to a lifestyle of sacrifice to protect their families, homes, communities, and writ large, the nation in which they live? As an impersonal force, it is easy to generalize and look at the results of the bombs. But if the service-members are persons who are created in the image of God with names and faces who often times love Jesus, or come to hear about Jesus in the military. For many, their circumstances didn't allow opportunities for a college education, and in doing their job and trying to stay alive, they have to use their training. They will remember the faces of those killed, both friend and foe, for the rest of their lives and have to live with that. And for some, Christians are stingy with the grace of God when it comes to soldiers. Where is the Gospel for them? Who do you (in general, not directed at any one person,) think realizes the humanity of those killed in war? Armchair commentators or those who live through the destruction that war brings?
[I also want to throw in the book to consider, On Killing by Dave Grossman - an ordained minister and career military member. He offers the illustration that there are three types of people in the world: the sheep (innocents), the wolves (those intent on preying on the sheep), and the sheepdogs (those called to use force to resist evil, or by their presence try to deter the wolves from attacking.)]
The weapons that you were grieved by are the displays of power that are intended to keep my friends and I from going being ordered onto a battlefield. The military calls it force projection. If intimidation of evil will keep those desperate for power/material riches/ideological tyranny at bay from destroying our families and communities, I will wish it were not so, but will cheer with the rest of the crowd, while shedding a tear of my own for those that aren't with their families because our Lord has not yet returned to judge the nations. The Kingdom of God is now, and not yet. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.
Christ have mercy!
1. The logical corollary to your thesis is that we take police off the street. The military is a necessary concomitant of a nation's BIBLICAL charter in Romans. Government is assigned by G-d to protect the weakest amongst us from the bullies of the world, just as the police are assigned the same task within our borders. I thank G-d for the F-16. You're mixing up your theology, my friend. The Reformed theologian would remind us of the doctrine of the depravity of man. That's why we have war materiel -- because there is evil in the world. As long as there are those who eschew the need for a Savior, I will own a pistol to protect my family, and I will support my government in it's building of F-16s.
On another note, I fault you greatly for your comments about the Palestinians. Have you ever been there? Have you lived in an Arab land? I have, and I also read my Bible and history. The PA (Palestinian Authority) is not the victim. It and its people are the bullies. Remember when they cheered in Gaza City on 9/11? Remember when Palestinian terrorists killed children in a school bus and crippled children with missiles deliberately aimed toward civilian areas?
In Israel, people of all religions, in most cases, are free to worship as they wish. In the PA, Christians are persecuted, murdered, and driven out of the PA controlled areas. That doesn't happen in Israel.
When was the last time that Israel declared war on Arabs? Do you know how hard it is for Israel to protect itself when the Arabs use children, schools, hospitals, and mosques for protection? Do you see that happen in Israel?
Let's get over this liberal (and I also mean theologically liberal) idea that Israel is the Goliath and the Palestinians are the victims. No, the Palestinians are symbolically the Goliaths, and Israel -- the David -- WILL win.
G-d said to Abraham, "Those who bless you I will bless, and those who curse you I will curse." Be very careful when you assign the victim role to the Palestinians. You are liable to get on G-d's bad side, as well as show your ignorance of history.
God does not take pleasure in death, even the death of the wicked (Ez 33:11). The concept of Shalom is a powerful force throught Scripture and peace is mentioned far more than war. Bloodshed is abhored by God from the very beginning when Cain slew Able, and even the man after God's heart (David) was so stained by bloodshed and war that God refused to let him build the Temple. God "hates those who love violence." Ps 11:5 and Jesus (the Prince of Peace) lifts up and blesses the peacemakers.
I could go on here about the "works of the flesh" which include strife and anger and emnity and the "fruit of the spirit" which includes peace, patience, kindness, etc. But suffice it to say I still cannot celebrate weapons of warfare like the F16, which, because of God's love of peace and hatred of violence, will one day at his command be beaten into farm machinery (Is 2:4, Mic. 4:3).
All this says nothing about the use of force to restrain evil, which, even as an "almost pacifist," I concede is necessary (I guess that is what prevents me from being a pure pacifist). All I am saying here is that violence, warfare and weapons designed to take the life of people who are made in God's image ought not to be celebrated but grieved. We're too creative and too much like our life-giving Creator to find weaponry as the best expression of our enthusiasm.
Golda Meir said, "I don't hate them because they kill our children; I hate them because they force us to kill theirs." As long as political peaceniks like you confuse your theology with your politics, the Biblical approach to the world's problems will continue to languish and appear to be squishy and luke-warm, instead of the vital and ONLY answer to all the dilemmas of mankind. And without the Gospel, the world's peoples will continue to see their children die.
Go back to Romans, the constitution of our New Testament beliefs, and relearn what are supposed to be your Biblical ideals. I didn't invent G-d's stand on the utilization of the secular authorities, G-d did, and you'll find it in Romans. The police and armies of the world will be unleashed against all those who refuse to submit to G-d's gospel. And that's a HOLY move on their part. The only way to prevent that Biblically authorized violence is to give the world an opportunity to submit the the King of the Universe thru His Way in the Scriptures.
One caveat on my thesis...I fully realize that much death is also the direct result of non-believers who, like Hitler, are also unleashing destruction on the world. But to fight that kind of evil, the secular forces that are in submission to the Biblical principles of Romans will also result in more death.
Sad. What are you doing today to prevent his ongoing evil?