The Fallacy of Veteran Veneration by Evangelicals

https://www.evangelical-times.org/are-nonconformists-hypocrites-on-remembrance-sunday/

*You may not be able to read the entire article without a subscription. The Evangelical Times has restricted a lot of its content in recent years.

In the linked article, Mike Judge of Manchester writes:

"Remembrance Sunday is not about endorsing every decision of government, nor about glorifying war. It is about acknowledging sacrifice — the high price paid by those who laid down their lives in the service of others. That principle, of self-giving love, resonates deeply with the gospel we proclaim. “Greater love hath no man than this,” said our Lord, “that a man lay down his life for his friends."

But this begs the question - did those who put on uniforms and take up arms make a sacrifice for any kind of ideals or values compatible with Christianity?

Did they 'sacrifice' for the life of Christians and the sustaining of the Church?

Christians must answer with an unqualified 'no'.

They fought for nations, their prestige, their treasure, and out of a false (and idolatrous) commitment to flag, crown, or whatever else. This system of thought justifies an ethic that allows them to take up arms and kill - and then calls it good because the state has sanctioned it. The notion that they fought to defend their families is all too often little more than propaganda.

World War II is the one relatively modern war in which some can 'dig in' and try and make a case for moral rectitude, but even this collapses upon closer examination. This is not to say the Axis powers were justified - not at all. But Christians should not have been involved. A full examination of the history and events will reveal this with abundant clarity.

But with previous wars and certainly all the subsequent ones, no viable case can be made. All wars are (to a greater or lesser degree) built on lies and manipulation of narratives. From the absurdity of Crimea, to the endless wars for Empire in the 19th century, to the Boer War, WWI, and everything after - no case can be made.

We reject the notion that these men who took up arms and killed others somehow 'sacrificed' for us or benefitted us. When I say 'us', I mean Christians. Let us be careful not to confuse Christian status and identity with nation. This muddled thinking is at the core of the problem. And sadly by the 19th century, British Nonconformity began to seriously lose its way. The repeal of the Test and Corporations Acts in 1828 was in all actuality a disaster for nonconformity, for it brought them back into mainstream British culture - with other legislation to follow over subsequent decades. While the vain and misguided dreams of the Puritan Commonwealth were dead and buried, Nonconformity began (bit by bit) to embrace the Establishment and the Empire - even while so many were ensconced within the Liberal and later Labour parties.

As Christians, we reject notions of national loyalty, identity, and bourgeois concepts of citizenship (and associated 'duty'), and while we may prefer to live in Britain, Canada, or America versus Uzbekistan, China, or Sudan, this does not mean that these Western societies are somehow Christian. In fact the comfort these secure and affluent nations provide presents a clear and present danger - one that Mr. Judge has fallen into. That danger is one of seduction and corrupted thinking - which results in confused loyalty and polluted ethics. And how often are the 'bad' nations of the world dealing with the fallout of previous Western imperial intervention? All too often I'm afraid. You can't understand modern China otherwise - or Sudan for that matter. And these are but two examples. A full list would require pages.

And for the record, the apostle Paul's appeals to citizenship are practical and occasional, not ideological. Never does Paul call on Christians to embrace the 'duties' of citizenship. Quite the opposite as he and the other apostles repeatedly contrast Christian citizenship in Zion with that of the world - Caesar and the Gentiles. Christ's call to render unto Caesar is placed in a dichotomy with service unto God. Contrary to popular thinking, they are not complimentary. Both can exist but there's a tension and never shall the twain meet - and woe to those who conflate them.

Celebrating soldiers gives them affirmation - what they were doing was right and moral. It was not. They fought Turks, Nazis, Argentines, and Iraqis because their state called on them to do so - and didn't fight Russians or Soviets because their state told them not to - that is until later when everything changed again, and so did the propaganda.

And yet they would reject the idea that Christians in say Argentina or Iraq might feel morally justified to take up arms and kill Englishmen. The fact that many Nazi footsoldiers believed their ideology was compatible with Christianity is a warning to us all - especially those who mistakenly think the British and American Empires are somehow moral or Christian. They may have not killed as many within the span of twelve years (as the Nazis did from 1933-1945), but the overall toll of death and suffering (over the course of decades and centuries) is nevertheless staggering and grotesque - and far in excess of the Nazi regime.

Flag-waving veterans that want to celebrate their affiliations and deeds should not be affirmed, but pitied and called to repentance. Those Christians who celebrate them are deeply confused and need to go back to square one. They have misread and misapplied New Testament teaching and are clearly unqualified to serve in ecclesiastical office.

Judge's gross misuse of John 15 (which blasphemously attempts to equate soldiers dying for a flag with the sacrifice of the Messiah) reminded me of another example in a local paper. Matthew 24 was quoted - there will be wars and rumours of wars.

And therefore, since wars will ever be with us in this age, we need to remember and celebrate veterans. That's quite a leap in logic - a non sequitur on a massive scale!

The lessons we should draw are in fact the very opposite - since wars are characteristic of this age, we shouldn't be troubled. In other words the last thing we should do is get caught up in war fever. Remember there would have been no WWII, no Blitz, no atomic bombs, if it hadn't been for the hysteria and utter stupidity of 1914. But clearly this was judgment - the self-destruction of Christendom. So be it - but this is hardly a call for Christians to set aside New Testament teachings and take up arms - or celebrate those who did. And it's certainly no reason to try and twist history and Scripture to justify it all. I'm sure Judge likes to wear his poppy, wave the Union Jack, and feel like he's part of the British mainstream - maybe even feeling a sense of ownership and triumph. But he's wrong and deluded (and even twisted) if he thinks the Tommy's fighting for the British Empire were emulating Christ. Frankly, the very notion is both absurd and sick. The same of course is true in the American context.

When churches mark Veteran's Day or Remembrance Sunday, the response is simple - either don't go, or walk out.

We pray for kings and those in authority but the 'compassion' Judge calls for is for those who have suffered in a context of repentance. They may have lost limbs and now realize it was for naught. I do feel compassion for such but not for those who have lost limbs and think they deserve special honour and treatment. Some are burdened by guilt for harming others. That's good. It is not compassion to simply tell them it was right or just. It wasn't. That would be a lie. They need to feel guilt, repent, and be right with God. And as such, they will set aside the honours, and with Paul admit that all such worldly attainments and accolades are but dung.

Any Christian 'ministry' worth its salt would work among the troops convincing them to end their enlistments, drop their commissions, and leave the armed forces. We are not impressed by Judge's praise of the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Scripture Readers Association (SASRA). Such organisations in fact undermine the gospel.

Judge is wrong about such thanksgiving - he thinks it's not bowing to the state. But it is buying into the lies of the state. Soldiers that went to Iraq followed Tony Blair and were deceived. They did not sacrifice for the people of the UK and certainly not the Church. What for then? For a false sense of duty that they need to repent of. For honour? There's no honour in any of it. Because it was right? Hardly. Using that argument, we might say it would be 'right' for the former nations of the Empire to invade the UK and overthrow it. They could make a case that such an action would be just. Should such sacrifices of those soldiers who (for argument's sake) marched through the countryside of Kent and down the streets of London be celebrated for their sacrifices in order to right the wrongs done to them by the British Crown? Should the Christians in their lands rejoice with thanksgiving and remembrance of their slaughter of British citizens and the casting down of the British throne? The logic and frankly the morality (if it can be called that) is the same. And after all - the British started it.

Judge insists Remembrance Sunday celebrations (in Church) are not compromise. He thinks it's speaking 'gospel truth' to the nation.

Hardly. That's not the gospel. That's just the affirmation of British identity and effectively revelling in past 'glories'. It is to confuse the Church's identity and calling. No, to reject Remembrance Sunday is to preach the gospel to the nation - and to rebuke it, just as this piece is a rebuke of Judge and the larger 'Evangelical' project he is associated with.

Let us proclaim the gospel and the Kingdom but not get lost in the fog of divided loyalty and culture war.