The Wars of America: Christian Views

In 1981, eight professional Christian historians wrote The Wars of America: Christian Views, a scholarly book, a readable book, that will enlighten and shake up your  understanding of American history.

It is not easy to apply biblical principles such as oppression, justice and shalom to modern society.  They easily get tangled with existing ideologies or co-opted by politicians.  Nowhere is this more difficult than in the area of war.  Do American Christians support wars, fight in wars, for the right reasons?  Were these wars justified in terms of biblical principles?

Fortunately, eight professional Christian historians have volunteered to teach us.  Each historian is an expert on the war they describe, analyze and evaluate.  Seven of the eight subscribe to the just war theory; only one is a pacifist.  None believe that wars should be fought as crusades.

"In general, Christians have advanced three attitudes about war and peace: pacifism, the just war, and the crusade.  The early church . . . was pacifist. . . . After the fourth century, when the church became closely associated with the state [Constantine], Christians took over theory extant in Roman culture, the just war [Augustine]. . . . The third position . . . the crusade, emerged in the Middle Ages.  A crusade was to be fought under the authority of the church [or later the state when fighting for a 'righteous' cause]."

"The way in which a nation wages war reveals a great deal about its basic values. . . . To examine a nation's experience of war, and its response to it, is to learn something fundamental about a nation's values and its social order."  Jefferson was appalled by Europe's tendency toward "eternal war" and wanted the U.S. to be a nation of "peace and fraternity with mankind."  Sadly, it didn't turn out that way.

George Marsden on The American Revolution

"Christians have often been in the forefront in turning their 'just wars' into crusades.  These modern crusades, however, have not been ones in which the church dominates the world; rather the nation has set the agenda and Christians have supplied the flags and crosses.  The American Revolution is a pivotal instance for understanding how modern nations have transformed supposed 'just wars' into secular crusades.  It is pivotal for considering other wars of America, since the patterns of nationalism and civil religion established at the time of the Revolution became important elements of the mythology that determined American's behavior on subsequent wars."

Marsden, respected historian of American religious history, continues:

"One of the aspects of the revolutionaries' stance that is most puzzling is how they came apparently to believe that theirs was one of those extreme and exceptional instances when revolution, . . . was justified. . . . their claim that they faced a case of extreme tyranny seems extravagant. . . . the rebelling colonists nonetheless appeared to have been dead wrong in concluding that without armed rebellion absolute tyranny was inevitable."

The Introduction by Ronald Wells

Unless war is fought according to just war principles, it is oppression on a massive scale, often motivated by ethnocentrism and/or nationalism.  But the public propaganda covers the ethnocentrism and oppression by declaring our cause is righteous and the enemy's cause is evil.  The false prophets did much the same in the OT by declaring 'shalom, shalom,' in the midst of massive idolatry and oppression.  The fundamental question raised in this book is whether Christians made their decisions regarding war based on biblical principles or whether they gullibly followed national national leaders into war, accepting their values and reasoning.

Thomas Jefferson asserted that these United States would not be like the nations of Europe which he called "nations of eternal war."  But history shows that we also became a nation of war.  Why is this so?  We believed that we were a unique, chosen nation with a God-given destiny.  As a free and just democracy, we would be God's light to other nations

"The spiritual pride of the United States consisted in acting innocently upon the pretense of its special calling despite the fact that it was almost constantly at war, either with Indians at home or with other nations or peoples on this continent or abroad."

We have not consistently practiced what we preached---or did we?  Tocqueville, the perceptive French observer of America in the early 1800s, personally witnessed the brutal removal of the Choctaw Indians from Mississippi.  He noted the American rationalization of this oppression and wryly commented: "It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of America."  (Democracy in America)

George Marsden's chapter titled "An American Revolution: Partisanship, Just Wars, and Crusades."

At the time of the American Revolution, there was great fear [exaggerated fear] of being dominated by political and/or religious tyranny.  One of the reason freedom/liberty was so highly prized was that it was achieved only by hard fought victories in Europe.  The colonists did not want to be returned to either religious or political tyranny.  Small steps in that direction were perceived to be giant steps.  Fear distorted their perceptions of reality.

As an historian, Marsden is quite certain that the level of tyranny did not justify a violent revolution---a civil war.  Contrary to what is commonly believed, the American Revolution was not necessary, not justified.  But most American Christians at the time were convinced that the revolution was justified and so many even turned it into a righteous crusade.  The cynic in me, Lowell Noble, believes that an American rich, white, male elite wanted to replace the British elite.

More of Noble's ideas; none of the eight Christian historians have gone as far as I have in their critique of America though Marsden comes close, I believe.  Was the American government ever a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people?"  Probably not, in spite of Lincoln's eloquent expression.  Our revered founding fathers, many of whom were slave owners, never abolished slavery.  Slave owners are tyrants, are they  not?

Our founding fathers were a rich, white, male, deistic elite who stole land from Indians and who took Indian lives, who stole labor and liberty from black slaves, who made the poor and women second-class citizens, who were exceptionally ethnocentric and exceptionally oppressive---direct violations of Luke 4:18-30.  Instead of a democracy, we got a plutocracy; the British tyrants were replaced by American tyrants.  Today, America has a government of corporations/Big Banks/ Wall Street, by corporations/Big Banks/Wall Street, and for corporations/Big Banks/Wall Street.  From dictatorial tyrants to democratic tyrants?

Now more from Marsden:

"Yet the American revolutionaries had taken a good cause, the virtues of which they had overestimated because of their partisanship and their political preconceptions, and they had vastly inflated its importance by sanctifying it with biblical imagery.  Thus the good cause . . . became an idol.

"Perhaps the most important outcome of this process was that in it a new religion was born.  This new religion is the now-famous American civil religion in which the state is an object of worship, but the imagery used to describe its sacredness is borrowed from Christianity.  Church and state in the Western world since the time of Constantine had been intimately connected.  Indeed it has been this close association of religion and politics that has been one of the greatest obstacles to a genuine Christian critique of the political order, specifically of its military virtues.  Now in the new American situation, even with the disestablishment of the church, the religious-political intimacy was maintained by applying sacred rhetoric to describe the status and mission of the secular government.  This civil religion . . . has continued to shape, and indeed to distort American visions of her own justice in subsequent wars."

Ralph Beebe, "The War of 1812."

We learned from Gorge Marsden that American civil religion was created to tie informally the cause of church and state together.  This sanctifying of the purposes of the state were used again and again to justify future wars---even wars of imperialism, aggression and oppression.  This same phenomenon occurred in 1812---an unnecessary war of materialism and imperialism.  This was an "In God is our trust" war:

"America was a new nation with an ironically ambivalent self-image that stressed its freedom from the old world's propensity for war, while at the same time the nation pursued a strongly materialistic 'success' ethic that caused its people to engage in pursuits that were certain to lead to conflict."

Jefferson strongly condemned the approaching war which seemed to be designed to secure the immense profits in reexport trade with Europe.  In the eyes of Britain, this violated our neutrality in the European wars.
With the British attack on the Chesapeake, previous reason and restraint were thrown to the wind.  Now it was a matter of "God and Country" for many American Christians.  Beebe concludes that the war of 1812 falls far short of just war standards.

Ronald Wells, "The Mexican-American War"

There was no justification for this tragic war; it was a war of American imperialism, ethnocentrism and oppression falsely justified under Manifest Destiny.  Abraham Lincoln was against the Mexican war.

"Over the years Mexicans had become increasingly aware that many Americans looked upon Mexicans as inferior beings.  This had frightening implications, for Americans had respect for neither the rights nor the culture of those whom they considered inferior.  They had been merciless in their treatment of the Indian and had reduced blacks to a brutal form of servitude.  Mexicans were perceptive enough to recognize that a similar fate threatened them should they fall under American domination."

Those clergy and churches that had already approved of the idea of Manifest Destiny supported this unjust war.

Ronald Rietveld, "The American Civil War."

Both the North and South thought they were fighting a just war, but Lincoln concluded the nation was under God's judgment.  The unity of the country was shattered largely over the issue of slavery, an issue our founding fathers had left unresolved.  This sand in our foundation, our failure to extend liberty and justice for all almost led to the collapse of the nation.  Not even the churches could avoid splitting over the issue of slavery.

For Southerners, slavery was righteous, blessed, a Christianizing force.
For Northerners, slavery was wrong, a curse, an evil, a sin in the sight of God and humans.

What did the North and South have in common; both were deeply racist.  The Civil War did not solve the racism problem; the values behind the system of oppression were not eliminated.  Therefore, a new system of oppression was quickly created---segregation and sharecropping.

Since freedom was not followed by justice, one could argue that the civil war dead died in vain.

Augustus Cerillo, Jr., "The Spanish-American War."

A contradiction: "pretentious views of the purity and innocence of our national motives, actions, and goals and the actual harsh consequences of the exercise of our power."  A war that began to liberate Cuba from the oppressive domination by Spain soon developed into "a war of American conquest."  The president who declared in his inaugural address: "We want no wars of conquest; we must avoid the temptation of territorial aggression," soon embarked on wars of conquest and territorial aggression.

"The US, so morally repulsed by Spain's treatment of her colonial subjects, was forced to suppress in brutal fashion a Filipino rebellion against American imperial rule."

We began to spread Manifest Destiny beyond our shores.  Much of this expansion was driven by economic motives and materialism---the perceived need for new markets abroad.

"America's efforts to expand trade and investment abroad were free from the constraints of the biblical norms of equity, justice, and preference for the poor.  By fusing the gospel, racism, and nationalism, evangelical leaders at home contributed to the inordinate amount of national pride that pervaded American thought by giving a sort of priestly blessing."

Richard Pierard, "World War II."

Was the "Day of Infamy"---the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor---preceded by 50 years of infamy by the US against Japan?  Did we extend the concept of Manifest Destiny too far into Asia thus threatening Japan?  Admiral Perry sailed his fleet into Japan and forced Japan to open itself up to the outside world; to the Japanese, this was an act of intimidation and humiliation.

Another troubling problem.  Hitler started bombing civilians and then we started doing the same, first in Germany and then in Japan.  We firebombed Dresden; then we dropped two atomic bombs on cities, on civilians.  There were military targets nearby.  Targeting civilians violates just war principles.

From the Afterword

"Given the prevailing ideology, Americans could not help but think that their wars were 'just,' precisely because their historic role in the world was 'just.'"

"To ask how Christians might have acted in particular wars is to ask how Christians in our day might act in future wars."

"[American] Christian participants, far from being more detached and somewhat immune from the dangers of partisanship, seem more often to be particularly prone to them---especially when they have the Bible in hand.  With supporting texts, not only are they likely to perceive their partisan self-interest is just, but they are likely to inflate their cause, seeing the conflict as a struggle between the absolute righteousness of God and Satanic aberration."

PS

The U.S. often in alliance with the French has waged continuous economic, political and sometimes military war with Haiti.