A Nation at War...still

The front page of the Star Tribune headlines that 2,000 Minnesotans are at attention for deployment. My wife and I have known about this for some time. A year ago this month I was somewhere on my way home from a yearlong peacekeeping mission to Kosovo with the United States Army. It is uncertain where another year into the future will have me. I try not to put my hopes on any one scenario. Until it happens, and sometimes even while it is happening, deployments are about as predictable as the weather. That being said, many of my friends have been packing their bags for months now.

I am proud of my military service and I will be proud to serve again if so called. I am also a Christian. Depending upon whom I talk to these two things, being a Christian and being proud to serve in an armed force, go together like Pizza and cheese or like oil and water. What follows is an honest attempt to discover this soldier's heart. It is an unrefined place that has, despite that fact, chosen definite loyalties. But are they conflicting loyalties? Maybe.

Stanley Hauerwas would think so. Hauerwas is one of America's premiere theologians/ethicists. He is one of my role models in Christian Thought. He is also a pacifist. Incidentally, if you are a pacifist or are uncertain whether you are then you should at least be familiar with Stanley Hauerwas. I have never met a more convincing pacifism. I admire him for it. No one brings to life the Christian story like he does.

Hauerwas argues, simply stated here, that Christians do not live in some in-between time that separates the initiation of the Kingdom of God and some further establishment of it. Rather, when Jesus assumed the throne at his ascension, the Kingdom of God was firmly, fully and eternally established. It is consequently the believers' job, the church's job, to witness to that fact. We are to operate as if we are what we are--members of an eternal peaceable kingdom. Believers are not to be nationalists. They are to be witnesses to an eternal and invisible kingdom that is not of this world. Any participation in governmental structures is simply to serve these ends. This seems to make some government jobs sticky scenarios for Christians if not off-limits.

War, for Hauerwas, is simply one of two things--or a combination of them both. 1) War is an effort to obtain what we do not have (James 4:1-2); 2) War is an effort to secure what we love. Both of these elements involve a level of both greed and fear. Both of these elements are efforts to secure on earth what has already been secured for Christians in heaven. Heaven, or the eternal peaceable kingdom, is the reality that must grip and unite believers. Christians are to live life with an eschatological focus. In other words, the 'end' of our story defines how we live today. This 'end' is all ready present. It is the peaceable kingdom to which we witness. It is the church. It is our ethic. It is that which makes the world, the world, and the church, the church. It is that which is ruled by Jesus--right now. Christians are to live out of their eternal security--keeping in mind their whole story as believers, not just their earthy story; and Christians consequently have no need to secure their earthly fears and wants. Such efforts do not witness to their secured citizenship in God's kingdom.

Just War theories, on the other hand, assume that we do live in an in-between time. The peaceable kingdom does not fully emerge until the earth passes away. Until then, Christians must attempt to figure out how to participate (or not) in the inevitable war nature of earth. If one agrees with this 'in-between time' assumption (which I do not) then one must wrestle with what qualifications for war are 'just.' This is often a very nationalistic and arbitrary process which occasionally--if not frequently--draws on Scripture's war metaphor, human life values, and Israeli history without adequately dealing with Hauerwas's position. Hauerwas, reversely, can articulate and defend a Just War position better than most adherents and arguers.

Herein lies my affliction. I am a soldier--willing to kill. I also agree with Hauerwas's story of the church--witnesses of that which has already come. I apparently am conflicted. This may be more than apparent; it may be that I am actually at odds with my self. Is there a way to be loyal to both kingdoms? What makes the United States right all of the time? It is not. It is a nation that has to do exactly what Hauerwas said. It has to obtain what it does not have and it must protect what it loves--it owes as much to those whom it serves and to those whom find residence within its sovereignty. To what degree it must do these things is up for much debate, but what is not debatable is that it must do these things at least to some degree (a great degree) in order to exist as a nation. In fact, without securing what we don't have and what we love we would not be this nation at all--we would be nationals of some other nation which did instead.

For me it is not about whether or not the United States is right. No one in our government is ever going to give me enough facts so that I can properly asses the situation in Iraq. For those who are not principally pacifists, where one falls on the debate over Iraq is not about who is right or who is wrong as much as it is about how much one trusts what they know about the war. Our information is closely connected with our sources. There are people in my neighborhood who would wonder what George Bush was hiding if he declared that the sky was blue and that grass is green and that cows mooed. They do not trust his administration; they do not trust his motives. There are many who feel the same way about the media--with the exception of Fox News of course.

The nation and its people retain the privilege of debating whether or not Iraq is a Just War by positioning their cases upon whom and what they trust and whom and what they do not. A soldier has given up that privilege long ago. A soldier does not decide anything but how to execute that task that has been assigned to her. The amount of freedom in that decision making process often depends upon the task at hand and the rank of the soldier. A soldier's trust is pre-committed and directly depends little upon current public debates of right and wrong. A United States soldier's trust is based, rather, upon a faithful loyalty to the democratic voice of the people as put forth by their representatives.

It is ultimately my life, and the lives of those we take, which I have submitted to this democratic process--to the United States. This is a sobering thought. In my sobriety (and possibly looking for relief) I wonder whether or not Hauerwas is right. Must a true witness of a peaceable kingdom never take a life or give her life for a simply earthly cause? To what extent can one live in an earthly nation and not be a part of it? How much do the people of the church want the best of both worlds--freedom to practice religion here and in heaven? These are tough questions. I don't have an answer for them.

Many of the military's new recruits shown on the covers of the nation's newspapers, just as in today's Star Tribune, are a special breed. It used to be that recruits would join for college money or for some financial/job security. While that may still be the case in some desperate circumstances, the fact that we are at war means that recruits must have a more life-giving relationship with their decision than what they can receive for college. Many see the decision as an opportunity to serve their communities. Maybe Minnesota has the nation’s highest recruiting record--at 85% of their projected goals--during this wartime effort simply because we have a large number of youth who are looking for purpose. That purpose is to give back to the nation that has given to them.

I suppose that I share in this purpose. As far as we know, Jesus did not tell the centurion to abandon his position (Luke 7:1-10). He did not encourage members of an eternal kingdom to stop funding war efforts by ceasing to pay taxes (Mark 12:13-17). These may be feeble attempts to justify a decision that I have already made and loyalties that I have already chosen. However, I am comforted that my story does not end here--not on this earth. I am also sure that there are other ways to witness to an eternal and peaceable kingdom even while serving a secular nation as a soldier. Since this is my circumstance I am unwaveringly committed to my service.

Whether we like it or not, every part of our daily life here on earth is built upon the lives of those who have fought before us on behalf of secular nations just like this one. It is up to us to figure out how to honor, acknowledge and respect that terrible truth. Although Christians may be nomads on earth, they cannot escape benefiting from those who have died to preserve each nation’s way of life.

I do have one request. If there are Christians who are serving a secular nation with their lives then the rest of us can find it in our time to serve that same secular nation in ways which our faith allows. If the parable of the good Samaritan is at all a witness of the eternal kingdom then we need look no further than our own neighborhood.