One might wish that Evangelical leaders would be a little more familiar with history. If so, they might raise an eyebrow at the sabre-rattling of politicians and be a little more cynical of their motivations. Make no mistake, many are motivated by nationalist interests vis-a-vis Atlanticism or the EU. Others are simply in line to profit from military expansion and militarism.
You would think that Evangelicals in Sweden who have had decades to reflect on their country's part in the Cold War and the various scandals and intrigues would be a little leery of the present narrative spearheaded by Washington and NATO. It's clear that the Swedish representative in this article has both bought into the narratives of the Western war party and is also tainted by (what seems to be) some Dispensational thinking. But even this is muddled for if it was truly understood, such 'end times' events (if that's how they are understood) should not create angst, nor a dilemma for Swedish Christians as the obvious response would be stay out of it - and to certainly not resist that which is prophetically inevitable. Once again patriotic and nationalist commitments (a religion in itself) rivals Christian thinking and muddles it. Throw in some bad theology regarding 'end times' and you have a real mess.
The Spanish historian in question seems to think expansionism is something Russia is guilty of - wilfully (it would seem) ignoring that NATO has expanded aggressively since the 1990's. Further there are voices connected to NATO and the Atlantic Empire that speak of regime change in Moscow and the dividing up of the country - and the appropriation of its vast resources. You might excuse Moscow for thinking this sounds like a re-casting and repeat of German strategies that resulted in Operation Barbarossa in 1941 - a conflict that resulted in the death of more than 25 million Soviet citizens.
But this absurd we're told. NATO is a defensive alliance. So it claims, but the reality is that Western leaders helped to foment the break-up of Yugoslavia and then carved out Kosovo - an unprecedented move without historical basis. The US (and NATO) also supported Salafist fighters in Bosnia - and the US supported Chechens out of Georgia, and then sought to bring Georgia into NATO as well.
Then in 2011, NATO engaged in a massive regime change operation in Libya, working again with Islamist fighters. This caused a chaotic chain reaction that destabilized North Africa and led to various spin-off wars. And a fighter network was created that then played a critical role in the early stages of the Syrian Civil War. The US also has been exposed as playing a critical role in the Maidan uprising in 2014 - basically a coup d'etat in Kyiv. Since then, NATO has militarily backed Ukraine and this only increased when Putin invaded in 2022 - a move that has backfired as he did not succeed in ousting the pro-Western, pro-NATO regime.
NATO is a not a defensive alliance. Further it's missile systems are described as defensive but this is a matter of perspective. From the standpoint of the nation at which they are directed - these are aggressive placements, expressions of militarism.
The Spanish Evangelical historian in question is clearly inept, unqualified, or simply biased in motivation with allegiances other than to the Kingdom of Christ - which is a Kingdom of Truth and therefore hostile to all governments and beast powers. This hostility does not translate into rebellion nor does it result in allegiance or support - which are the opinions being expressed.
I found the invocation of an American shield of protection with a confused and distorted use of Luke 17 - to be both highly dubious and disturbing.
Ignoring US/NATO weapons pointed at Russia or the historically rooted fears of that nation, we are instead exhorted to pony up and support new taxes to pay for weapons. And somehow this is to support peace. No one is talking about pacifism here. There will be no peace in this present evil age but Christians should not be aligning with states who do not stand for truth but for their interests and their own aggrandizement. The only naivete on display is found with these Spanish Evangelicals who seem incapable of doing anything other than parroting media lines and sound-bytes given to them by their government leaders and corrupt theologians.
They speak of justice. Do they think modern Spanish society just in terms of God's Truth? Do they think Spain has dealt with its own past? They think justice is toppling Putin or breaking the Russian state? Justice would mean not only the breaking of NATO, the EU, and Washington but for the leaders of these states and institutions to be in the dock at the ICC. Anything less is farcical.
Clearly the Spanish Evangelical Alliance represents an ideology divorced from New Testament thinking.
The French Evangelical voice in the article also turns to Scripture twisting - once again in Luke to provide some strange and distorted justification for NATO militarization. He worries about the French way of life and wonders if their children will be conscripted? What a strange but revealing set of statements. What's important? A high standard of living - he wouldn't want to lose that. But the thought of refusing to send their children to die in a wicked and pointless war - that doesn't enter his mind. He hopes it doesn't happen but indicates that he'll send his sons to die for this cause - or so it would seem.
If this is the state of Evangelical thinking and ethics in France then God help them. After a perversion of Romans 12 (applied to statecraft and calculations for war) - ignoring the contrast of Kingdom ethics with that of the state in the following chapter, we're pointed to - you guessed it, Thomas Aquinas and Constantinian Just War Theory.
We are further fed the lie that “The notion of self-defence predominates in New Testament culture” - and just where might we find that or his suggestion that patriotic attachment is something that Christians should cultivate, let alone the absurdity that French values are somehow compatible with those of the Kingdom?
Billy Graham's Lausanne Movement has certainly been effective. His efforts have within just a couple of generations shifted Evangelical thinking, completely corrupting it and spawning the kind of confused and ethically deformed thinking on full display here. It's truly appalling.
These fools do not seem to realize that as they support war and the warfare state they are not praying for peace or supporting the pathways to it. Pray for peace, work for it but you cannot do this while you support the flourishing of the arms industry and national militaries - with the bodies of your own children no less. Christians cannot support these institutions and they certainly cannot be part of them. Evangelicalism is able to hide behind notions like vocation and the invocation of Kuyperian spheres in order to justify what is little more than compromise, corruption, divided loyalties and just plain worldliness.
The Portuguese voice was the only example of encouragement in this article. I'm not sure where she stands or if in another venue she might advocate for more political action. And, if her words are read carefully it could be there. That said, her focus on Churchly functions and action and reticence to look overtly (let alone primarily) to state and military solutions was encouraging.
Unfortunately such actions and calls to cooperation are incompatible with the other voices in this article. The Evangelical voice from Portugal offered the only occasion for some optimism. The rest of the positions represented mark a clear departure from Biblical thinking and need to be called out and condemned. Once again, I cannot help but think of Graham and the Lausanne Movement and on a larger level the pernicious influence of American Evangelicalism, Dominion Theology, as well as the influence of men like Francis Schaeffer.
The Evangelical attitude in Europe is generally speaking not as Right-wing as one might find in the United States but it has changed over the past thirty years or so - and considerably. Further, there are examples of more extremist thought gaining traction as seen in the United Kingdom, Italy, and of course Hungary. In these cases, though the theology is much worse, on the question of Russia, Ukraine, and NATO there is (ironically) a little more balance - but this is no cause for comfort. The motivations are not genuinely Biblical but rather are rooted in larger culture war concerns or Right-wing narratives regarding geopolitics and misunderstandings regarding the nature of globalisation. The latter is potentially pernicious but not was these groups typically understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.