C3/CCC Sermon Transcript for November 18, 2007 The link is a video of photographs of war scenes from Kosovo, set to James Blunt’s song, “No Bravery”. Well, how do you make sense of that? How do you find space in your mind and heart to include that depth of sadness? What can I say? What can we do? How can we continue our lives knowing that tragedy such as this exists around the world? And, we are indeed a part of it. James Blunt, who wrote that song, wrote it after his experience serving with British forces in Kosovo. The “He” that he speaks of through that song, I can only assume is war itself. War has a face, war has a history. It is the result of human decision and indecision, various causes and of course war has victims. The casualties of war are people; people with lives and families, hopes and dreams. Children are the ultimate innocent victims of war. With every child that dies innocently in war, a piece of our humanity dies along with them. The miracle of resurrection is that our consciousness somehow expands because of our awareness of sadness and tragedy. If we open our hearts to feeling the sadness, it can be a resource for us, to ensure that those lives lost are not lost in vain. Indeed, our lives lived well will be the closest thing to a purpose in their deaths. Pacifism or Just War? I want to spend some time speaking about various perspectives on war. It seems to me that there are two general perspectives. The first is a pure pacifist perspective; that war is immoral in any given context. It is immoral and only ever leads to destruction. The other perspective might be called the “Just War” perspective. That is, when certain strict conditions are met, then war, as a last resort, is justifiable. “Just War” indicates that the conditions for going to war are met but also that war will be conducted in a just manner. All of us hold one of those perspectives; pacifist or just war. For my part, I would say that under certain circumstances, as a last resort, I could see a place for war. I could imagine circumstances under which I would serve in a war. WW2 may have been one such circumstance. However, along with over 60% of Americans, I do not in any way see the war in Iraq as being a just war; neither in its inception, nor in the way it has been conducted. What is your perspective on war, and the war in Iraq in particular? Where do your values around war come from? Many people would cite the teaching of Jesus to justify a particular perspective and the words usually called on are the words “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” Or else, these words are quoted, to “love your enemies.” I don’t see this as a valid argument, because when Jesus said that those who live by the sword die by the sword, I believe he meant that’s the reality of making that choice. If you make the choice to go to war, whether justified or not, the reality is that people will die. However it still may be a necessary choice. Jesus was suggesting that the reality of war is death. And when Jesus said to love your enemies, I believe he was speaking those words in the broad context of the Sermon on the Mount, which was Jesus’ attempt to put a broad ethic on life. What is the most loving action that will benefit the greatest number of people, looked at from the broadest possible perspective, in any given circumstance? When you discern that action, do it. That is the loving thing to do. Once again, I don’t believe it is valid to look to Jesus to justify a pacifist perspective. Pacifism is a valid perspective; I just don’t think Jesus outlines the case for pacifism, nor for Just War. We can’t look to the words of Jesus for that type of black and white opinion. Just War and Early Christians However, what is clear is that the whole notion of Just War grew out of the Christian tradition. The very early Christians were all pacifists, believing the words of Jesus were clear, and unambiguous. For the first three centuries Christians held the pacifist principle very dearly. But in the third and fourth centuries after Jesus, when the early church colluded with Rome, and Rome institutionalized Christianity as the state religion, then the dilemma was felt more clearly. The barbarians were invading from every side. The Christian leaders, who were now the Roman rulers, were faced with a dilemma. Did they stay true to their pacifist principles or did they defend themselves? They chose to defend themselves. Out of this defense was formulated the theoretical circumstances for a Just War. Now, we need to also understand that the notion of a Just War was wrapped up in superstitious religious values. In other words, for someone who held a superstitious Christian understanding to go to war and kill another person was to risk committing a mortal sin. Their actions needed to be justified before they went so that their salvation wouldn’t be threatened. So just war theory was formulated in the context of a superstitious worldview to justify a religious worldview. When the early Christians chose to collude with Rome and to defend themselves against the barbarians a lot more was at stake than just a particular interpretation of the words of Jesus. Something more essential was at stake. It is illustrated clearly with this example: When the emperor Augustus was born, his birth was heralded as good news to all the world. This was Rome’s way of saying, “Our form of peace and freedom is good news to all the world.” When Jesus was born, you’ll remember the Gospel writers’ heralded Jesus birth as “good news to all people.” It is a subtle distinction, but is very important. Whereas for Rome the world was its oyster, to Jesus and the early Christians, all people were their interest. When poor and oppressed peasants heard that phrase, “good news for all people,” they knew that it included them. It also includes innocent children who are lost in war. It includes those in our society who are the most vulnerable, the minority groups, those who have the least power in society; they are all included in this grand inclusive vision of Jesus. When the early Christians decided to collude with Rome, they placed under threat this very notion of inclusion. Where Jesus before had been the great liberator, now he became the evangelist. He became Rome’s evangelist, the evangelist for the growth and prosperity of the empire. And the essence of the life and the teaching of Jesus was lost. And it’s been by and large lost ever since. To this day Jesus is used as the evangelist for souls, rather than liberator from oppression, savior for an afterlife, rather than liberator for this life, and yet when you go back to the origins of the faith, Jesus was the liberator and his concern was this life. Empires, Then and Now There are some very frightening similarities between the Roman Empire and America as it is positioned today. Some would say that America has become an empire in the tradition of Rome. The relationship between Saddam Hussein and America has been compared with the relationship between Rome and any number of nation-states that Rome had. Rome established clients in other places to continue the mission of Rome, and as long as they were helpful and productive in furthering the kingdom that was the empire, they would be resourced to do that job. But at the point that they became unmanageable, when power went to their heads, Rome would act swiftly to bring them down. If Rome didn’t have enough of its own troops, they would hire private mercenaries to bring down the clients. Doesn’t that story sound familiar? This country has resourced people like Saddam Hussein because they have been useful to an American agenda. But at the point where Saddam Hussein became unmanageable, America acted swiftly to bring him down. When there were not enough troops to do the job, then private contractors, or mercenaries, were employed. The similarities between Rome and America are frightening, and we must consider them. We need to take them to heart and come back to the essence of Jesus’ teachings, which was inclusion, good news and liberty for all people. I think that there are three dangers, at least, in the privatization of the military. There are many more, but it would take all day to go through them, so let me outline just three. Peace Before Profit! 1. In a privatized system, profit comes before people. Profit comes before even peace. There is currently a bill before congress to pass another $155 billion on spending for the war in Iraq in the next year. That’s the sort of figure I can’t get my head around; so let me bring it closer to home. That $150 billion will be made up of state taxes. What that means for our county of Ottawa, just in the next year, is that $116 million of our taxes will go towards the war in Iraq. That’s a lot of money. At the same time we are going to be talking about closing down library services, education services, health services, to finance the war in Iraq that now over 60% of Americans say should never have happened. Some amount of that money will be spent paying for private contractors in Iraq and in other places. That means that these private contractors and the companies that employ them have a lot to gain by continuing the war, and there is very little to motivate them to want to end the war. It seems that one of the dangers of privatization is that profit comes before peace. Many of you have heard the tragic story of the four contractors who were killed in Fallujah in 2004. It was their first week in employment under Blackwater. They had signed a contract that said that they would be transported in armored cars through Fallujah. Blackwater then removed the word “armored” from the contract. So these four contractors were left like lambs to the slaughter in an unarmored car and were killed by small fire. It was the type of small fire that might not have killed them if they had been in armored cars, and all so that Blackwater could save $1.5 million. The story gets worse. When the families sought reparations from Blackwater, they were given none, nothing was given to them, and then Blackwater turned on them and filed a lawsuit against the families, saying that the families were breaching the contracts of the dead employees. Can you believe that this has arisen in a democratic country? A private company is taking public tax dollars and seeking profit over peace, and who are they accountable to? It seems to be the definition of irony to me that someone could return from Iraq as a private contractor with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and then have to battle a private health system that refuses to pay up because it also is trying to maximize profit. We don’t even know the level of despair and depression that contractors are bringing back with them. If resources are in scant supply for returning troops, it hasn’t even been thought of for returning contractors. War is Personal 2. The second danger is when war is de-personalized. No matter whether you agree with any given war or not, no matter what your level of resistance or opposition, in some sense we are all in this together. In some sense the war in Iraq has happened, and we will support the troops. War is personal because it is people who go to war. It’s people we know who go to war. But do we know the contractors? Do we know what they look like? Do we know if they share the vision for a more liberated world? Do we know what happens to them when they come home? Do we know how many of them have died? Are they even counted in casualty lists? President Eisenhower worked very hard to avoid this type of de-personalization of war. My understanding is that Eisenhower presided over a peaceful presidency at a time when many wars could have festered. There were a number of potentially explosive situations the President had to confront-the closing of the Suez Canal, the defeat of the French in Vietnam, and the communist takeover of Hungary, to name but three. Given the climate of fear the country was under, Eisenhower could have very well played on that fear to send American troops into battle in any of those places. Was it because he had first-hand experience of war as a General in World War 2 that he paused? Is that what made him reluctant, because he had seen the effects, devastation, the tragedy of war? Truly for him war was a last resort. Eisenhower warned against taking the industrial military complex, intended not to be used, but as a safeguard, and turning it into a weapon for particular agendas. The democratic process should theoretically protect a country from these sorts of agendas. But how can the democratic process protect a country if private companies can conduct wars under the radar of public accountability? War and Democracy 3. Another danger is the harming of the democratic process, because in some sense the people of a nation decide about war. In some sense the leaders of countries hear the people and decide whether to go to war. Now that itself has been put at threat in this country over the war in Iraq, which always had a questionable level of support. But how’s the democratic process upheld if corporations make choices about war? How is the democratic process upheld when there is no accountability on the employees of these corporations? The Hebrew prophets and Jesus after them had a mighty vision. They expressed that vision as happening one day in the future. One day all nations will stand together as one. One day, swords will be beaten into plowshares. The very instruments of war will be turned to the good, the growth of all people. Not just people, because plowshares are also used to make the land productive. When swords are beaten into plowshares it is for the cosmic good. It’s for the good of all. Swords into Plowshares I don’t know whether the prophets and Jesus had a specific day in mind when this would come about or whether it was a rhetorical device, but I want to suggest that the day has arrived. This is the day that we will turn swords into plowshares. This is the day where we will turn the instruments of war into the instruments that work for the good of all people. Make it this day. The poet, Archibold MacLeish, wrote a poem called The Young Dead Soldiers. These are some of its lines: We were young. We have died. Remember us. No matter what your perspective on war, no matter what your perspective on the war in Iraq, no matter what your level of resistance, let us make meaning out of the tragedy that has ensued. Let us make meaning out of the loss of lives by living well and peacefully. The final scene in the movie Saving Private Ryan is very powerful. It takes place in the present day as an aging James Ryan returns to Omaha Beach and to the scene of the battles of his youth with his wife and children and grandchildren. He walks through the immense cemetery of Crosses and Stars of David, seeing acres and acres of the graves of fellow soldiers who did not get to live the life he did. He turns to his wife and says, "Tell me I've lived a good life." Tell me I’ve lived a good life. Tell me there is some meaning in all this death and destruction. The meaning that we make out of death begins with our very thoughts, because with our thoughts we create the world around us. With our consciousness we create a sense of connection with others. So let us use our thoughts as instruments for peace, because these thoughts become our words. And let us use our words as instruments for peace, because these words will become our actions. And let us use our actions as instruments for peace, because these actions will become our habits. And let us use habits as instruments for peace, because these habits will become our character. And let us use our character as an instrument for peace, because our character will become our destiny. And so the prophecy will be fulfilled. close window | ^ top | home |