Natalie's Narrative

Can an American Christian support U.S. military efforts?

Happy 4th of July to U.S. Americans!  I have struggled with this holiday--and my status as an American in general--since my view of the gospel has transformed into one of peace and preferential treatment of the weak.  Below, I have reposted some of my thoughts from 2006, which I still find applicable.  The original post was titled Weak and Strong.

_________________________

The Verse and Voice daily emails from Sojourners have been pretty good, kind of like a replacement for the now defunct Bruderhof Daily Dig! They have been challenging, as well. Today's email featured a quote from Howard Thurman:

"Too often the price exacted by society for security and respectability is that the Christian movement in its formal expression must be on the side of the strong against the weak. This is a matter of tremendous significance, for it reveals to what extent a religion that was born of a people acquainted with persecution and suffering has become the cornerstone of a civilization and of nations whose very position in modern life has too often been secured by a ruthless use of power applied to weak and defenseless people."

Although I'm sure there are many who would dispute that last part about our “ruthless use of power,” but we HAVE dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilians, and some reports of the civilian death toll in Iraq have been as high as 600,000. Warfare in itself is ruthless, anyway, no matter how noble the cause.

photo © 2008 Heather | more info (via: Wylio)

In any case, I think the quote is getting at something that bothers me: reconciling the fact that I am an American and a Christian. I live in a country that is built on a strong, powerful military, with presence in most parts of the world. The Christian faith, on the other hand, subverts what we think is logical (or is supposed to subvert), since we're following the upside-down logic of the kingdom. Jesus could have evoked his power when he was on the cross, but he didn't.

How, then, do we live as citizens of a country that works a lot like an empire? How do we live in a world where we belong to the above-and-beyond most powerful group, while others, including our fellow Christians, do not have the strength and power that we enjoy?

On the God's Politics blog, Brian McLaren wrote a piece on Monday that is along these lines. He shared a quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer from one of his sermons.

"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear rather than too much. Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong."

McLaren talks about the way that we are viewed by Christians who are from Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Australia, since he has recently toured those areas and has talked with Christian leaders: “They know we are against terrorism, but they don't know if we are against American empire and domination.” McLaren remarks that they hear us defending those who are powerful and strong, rather than the poor and those who are weak. The leaders from these countries are disturbed by our defense of the strong, and McLaren reminds us that we should be too. He wishes that we in the US could see that we can’t serve two masters at once.

A part of my struggle came to light in a conversation the other day. Someone told me that I was ungrateful to the US military veterans who have served in wars in the past. Don’t get me wrong, I went to Girl’s State, where the American Legion taught me flag worship (although since then, I feel as if such reverence is semi-idolatrous and putting things in a place where God should be instead). I’ve also read things like The Greatest Generation, so I’m aware of the sacrifices of prior generations, not to count relatives and friends who have served. However, I still do not think it is justifiable for a Christian to support military efforts, and to promote the interests of a nation instead of the purpose of the church. Like what Thurman, Bonhoeffer, and McLaren said: I don’t think we were meant to favor the strong and not the weak. The American church has lost sight of turning the other cheek and enemy-love because of our love affair with our country and "homeland security."

So the problem is this: it’s not that I’m ungrateful, it’s just that I strive to be a Christian first, andthen an American. I guess I’m just trying to express my disagreement with an issue (or with some people, it’s a way of life), while at the same time be tactful and respectful about it. Does anyone else struggle with this, too?

I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses... he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. II Corinthians 12

Why don't Christians, who have received radical grace, extend it to undocumented immigrants?

photo © 2010 Karl-Ludwig Poggemann | more info (via: Wylio)

 

At the Southern Baptist Convention's recent meeting in Phoenix, the members passed a resolution that supports a path for citizenship for undocumented immigrants:

RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country.

A Christianity Today article highlighted the tensions within evangelicalism when it comes to this issue.  Wiley Drake, one of the opponents to the "amnesty" portion of the resolution, said, “This is amnesty any way you phrase it. Restitution? They don't need restitution. They need to go to work. We win people to Jesus. We get them jobs and we take them back to their country."

The CT article noted a recent Pew Survey: 

Both the amendment and the final SBC resolution reflect a conundrum facing evangelical churches. Along with other evangelical churches, the SBC has supported immigration reform even though many in their pews hold negative views of immigrants.

A February poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that white evangelicals are more likely to see immigrants as a burden than a strength. Pew found that evangelicals are twice as likely to see immigrants today as “a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care” than they are to say immigrants “strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents.” These views were similar—but still more negative—than other religious groups.

I am thankful that leaders from a group like the SBC have decided to speak up about this issue, in the face of apparent opposition from their own congregations.  This signals an exciting turn in the public discourse and opinion about justice for the undocumented population, as well as repairing the broken system.

Via Todd, I came across an article by Andrew Wencl, a member of the SBC who has ministered to undocumented immigrants.  I don't agree with everything in Wencl's article.  I don't find undocumented people to be the "sinners" that Wencl paints them to be, and I think that an emphasis on justice shouldn't be driven solely by the need to evangelize this population.  However, I appreciate a contradiction that he points out in this debate, which applies to all Christians, not just the SBC:

Some complained that the SBC resolution was advocating for amnesty. But a path to legal status (which does not mean citizenship) does not constitute amnesty, especially when you include “restitutionary measures,” which could take any number of forms. Compassion does not constitute amnesty. Not applying the stiffest penalty allowed by law does not constitute amnesty. I think many people are just miffed that illegal immigrants could “get off light,” as though they have never experienced grace themselves.  (emphasis added)

That last sentence hit the nail on the head.  Christians place a lot of emphasis on Romans 5:6-8, that though filthy, unrighteous sinners, Christ still died for us.  And haven't we as Christians been repeatedly told that we don't deserve the grace that has been extended to us, in our dark, rotting sin?  Isn't this grace supposed to be radical and upside-down?  

It's a shame, then, that American Christians can't muster up that same grace for such a marginalized and exploited community in our midst.  We, who have experienced a radical forgiveness and who preach this forgiveness on a daily basis, have a hard time with "amnesty."  Some may find a distinction between these types of grace: one has cosmic, theological significance, and the other is a nations' rightful set of laws.  However, I find that those who make that distinction put their American citizenship before their kingdom citizenship.  When your country's laws offend the grace that is at the very heart of the gospel, shouldn't you rethink them, rather than defend them?

Although a sad contradiction, the fact that the SBC has recognized the injustice of the situation is promising.