MLK in LA: The Political Casualties of War

I wrote an op-ed piece again in January 2017 for the MLK holiday.  It is published by truthout.org.  I invite response and discussion on this blog.  In part the essay says:

The use of war in international relations is one of the contested issues in American politics.  Will a new US administration in 2017 scrap the negotiated agreement with Iran to halt its nuclear development program in favor of a military attack?  Will reductions in nuclear weapons be reversed in preference for a new round of weapons development?

As the pendulum swings in a politically polarized and disillusioned electorate, many Americans yearn for a reliable and firm foundation for governance of the nation.  Each January we have an opportunity to remember the prophetic wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and consider his words and actions as a beacon across our conflicted landscape. 

Back to Blogging in 2016

After several years of silence, I am again turning to this channel to discuss important issues around religion and war.  I finished a PhD program in 2015 with a dissertation on: "Psychology, Theology, and Ideology Shape Decisions on War and Peace: A Study of Billy Graham, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Vietnam War."

I recently wrote an op-ed on "King and War," which will be appearing at truthout.org.  I will be inviting readers to go to this blog for discussion of King and war.  A small portion of the op-ed is given here:

King had been criticized for speaking out on foreign policy: “Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say.  Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask?  And when I hear them . . . I am greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling.  Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.”  King linked civil rights at home with international peace – an inherent and intimate connection, alarmingly evident also in 2016.

How has war affected your family?

My father, Earl Koehn, was a conscientious objector during World War II and served in several Civilian Public Service camps during a span of about four years. My grandfather on my mother’s side, David Duerksen, was drafted into the army during World War I, but he was a Christian pacifist and refused to fight. My great grandparents on both sides of my family migrated from Russia to central Kansas in 1875, when there was growing pressure for men in the Mennonite colonies in Russia to participate in the military. They were recruited as wheat farmers by the Santa Fe railroad to settle the frontier, grow wheat, and provide raw materials to be shipped by rail. These lands had recently been won in wars against the Native Americans. Several generations earlier in the 1780s, my ancestors were recruited from Holland and Poland to Russia to by Catherine the Great, to grow wheat and settle lands that she had recently won in a war with the Turks. They were promised complete religious freedom and exemption from military service for all time.

This brief sketch of family history shows that my family was affected by war by trying to stay out of it – by preserving a Mennonite understanding of Christian discipleship that did not allow the killing of enemies. They were also affected by war in that they (probably unknowingly) settled on land in Russia and the United States that had recently been won through war. Thus they were the unwitting beneficiaries of the immoral practice of war, which they deplored.

How has war affected your family?

Military Families Lose Faith in Iraq War

As the American death toll in Iraq has continued to climb and as sectarian violence continues to cast doubt on the possibility of democracy in Iraq, I have asked for the last two years: “How long with the evangelical Christian families from the heartland and the South continue to be willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters to this fruitless war?

A glimpse of an answer was published on December 7 in the Chicago Tribune – “Poll: Military families losing faith.” A survey that covered active-duty service members, veterans, and their families shows that a majority has concluded that the invasion of Iraq was not worth it. “Nearly 6 out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bushes’ job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does, the poll shows.”

Seven out of ten military families favor a withdrawal within the coming year or “right away.”

One mother of an Iraq War veteran who was seriously injured in Iraq last year said, “I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don’t think our president is even sensitive at all to what it’s like to have a child serving over there.”

When veterans and their family say this war is not worth it, America will soon be electing politicians who will bring the troops home.

What Would Jesus Do?

One of the most profound teachings of Jesus is recorded in Matthew’s collection in the sermon on the mount: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.” (5:43-45)

In a parallel passage Luke adds these words from Jesus, “But love your enemies, do good, and lend expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.”

The revolutionary theological content here is that God makes the sun to shine on the evil, sends rain on the unrighteous, and is kind to the wicked. I suspect that this was unbelievable to most of Jesus hearers. They knew from their scriptures and from the priests and prophets that God punishes the evil and the wicked, taking away their possessions, their land, and their lives.

I suggest several steps for all persons who wish to find meaning and orientation in the traditions of Jesus of Nazareth:

• Become familiar with the convictions and the debates in the historical Jesus scholarship over the last fifty years.
• Use this informed understanding of Jesus to evaluate, critique, re-interpret, relativize, and reject parts of scripture that do not support the life and teachings of Jesus.
• Use contemporary knowledge and analysis to understand human well-being and human suffering; take non-violent actions to support that which enhances human well-being and minimizes human suffering.

I suspect that understanding of the historical Jesus and understandings of contemporary human experience will validate each other most of the time.

This approach to biblical interpretation and biblical ethics will involve struggle and humility. I personally warm up to Jesus teachings about God and love of enemies. I am less inclined to embrace his teachings on possessions and wealth. We all have room to grow.

Responding to Violence in the Bible

What do we do when the Bible supports beliefs that we judge today to be very dangerous to human health and survival? I think several approaches have been used.

First of all, some would contend that the points that I raised in an earlier posting are not troubling at all. This is indeed how Gods works in the world: God does have a chosen people, who gets land. God blesses this chosen people and destroys its enemies. God punishes those who are evil and blesses those who are good. This is right and just. This is the moral order that God has created.

But those of us who are troubled by the biblical beliefs that I have identified take a number of other approaches:

• God in the Bible is depicted as jealous, vindictive, and violent, but the biblical God was still an improvement over the gods of other near-eastern cultures; the Hebrews were leaning in the right direction.
• The jealous, vindictive, and violent God is not the only image in scripture; we simply need to put more emphasis on those passages that depict God as compassionate, just, and concerned about universal humanity.
• The name of God was abused by biblical people, but the prophets are included in scripture as a corrective to these abuses.
• The jealous, vindictive, and violent language about God in scripture is not historically literal; it is poetry that is suggestive of theological concerns that do not call for killing human beings.
• The jealous, vindictive, and violent images of God can be seen in actuality as being projections of human propensity to be jealous, vindictive, and violent. They do not instruct us in reality about the nature of God, but they point out the parts of our own nature that we tend to hide and deny.

My own preference for evaluating violent images of God in scripture is taken up by Jack Nelson-Palmeyer in "Jesus Against Christianity." It is also in line with that approach to scripture taken up by many early Anabaptists. We need to get to know the historical Jesus: his character, beliefs, actions, and teachings. He shows us a compassionate God who sustains the just and the unjust, loves the righteous and the sinners, forgives all who repent, and loves rather than kills enemies.