Does War Imagery Work for You?

Bill Sergott kicked off the comments to yesterday's post on Greg Boyd's God at War with this observation:

I have had an ongoing love/hate relationship with warfare and battle language associated with Christianity. On the one hand, it is very off-putting when dealing with secular liberals or anyone who practices non-violence as a life discipline. On the other hand, it is very helpful for understanding the casualties and loss of life.

I guess, for me, I have seen people in the Church historically take the battle from being against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms to being personified and against particular individuals that the Christians deem to be immoral or pagan. In other words, judgmental Christians lose sight of the unseen enemy and look for a flesh and blood enemy. Then, labels like Antichrist get thrown around. That is not helpful.

Bill closes with thoughtful observations about the kind of war-talk he finds helpful.  But how does "war" as a metaphor/spiritual reality sit with you?  Are you helped or motivated by that kind of talk?

In my case, I totally am--assuming it's not in service of "culture war," in which case, with Bill, I'm out.  But keeping the war-talk focused on spiritual enemies, I'm there.  And yet I know many people for whom talk of war is profoundly distasteful and seems very much apart from the character of Jesus that appeals to them.

How do you respond to talk of "spiritual war"...or any other type of war that gets talked about in faith settings?

Comments

[Ellen]

I just read this book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Cosmic-War-Globalization/dp/1400066727 talking about the danger of describing world events and people (ie terrorists) in terms of a cosmic battle between good and evil. He quotes several polls finding Evangelical Christians far more supportive of going to war in the Middle East than the rest of the general public. I felt some tension as I read the book. Thinking in cosmic terms can be helpful in a -my enemy isn't the jerk who cut me off in traffic, but the devil who is constantly trying to ruin everything- kind of way. But that same imagery can be very dangerous when assigned to groups- us vs. them.

[Holly]

If I have a problem with battle imagery, it's not because it's violent, but because it just feels so tiring. For me, it places extra weight on even the smallest of decisions, in an unhelpful way. (Have I played into the enemy's hands by not paying more attention to my roommate? Was that order of fries a defeat? These are things I've really wrestled with! It gets legalistic almost immediately for me.) On the other hand, I sometimes enjoy thinking that even the smallest things can be victories, even if I don't have anything material to show for them. I like that there's value in making a phone call I was afraid to make or signing up for lessons that push me beyond my comfort zone, even if neither of those things brings any kind of "success."

In my mind, this relates to the dualism we were discussing around the post about Richard Rohr and Catholic mysicism a few weeks ago. Judging everything as good or bad, victory or defeat, spiritual enemy or casualty of war, isn't necessarily wrong, but may often be too simplistic to be accurate.

Perhaps it's simply a matter of what works -- a perspective worth holding if it motivates and inspires you, and if it doesn't, then it's OK to focus on a different perspective.

[Brent]

I think the battle imagery is really hard to do without. That's b/c it isn't just imagery. I think it is significant that Paul uses it all over the place, even though he is very conscious of the fact that the Christian movement must be a movement of peace only. It is, I think, an effort to put that language in its proper context.

This is why for me Ephesians 6:12 is the second most important verse in the Bible. (the first for me is John 14:9-10, just to head off the obvious question).

[Crispin]

From Lord of the RIngs:
Theoden: I will not risk open war.
Aragorn: Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not.

I think whether or not we like the imagery of war (in the spiritual sense) it is a reality.

[Brent]

One more thing:

If we accept that the Christian movement is an obligatorily non-violent movement (as I believe it is), doesn't this also require the language of war? Can we talk about non-violent resistance without also talking about violent resistance? I'm not sure.

I know there has been some work on this (or at talk about it) in the post-modern community. I seem to recall McLaren once making the case that we should abandon the metaphor of 'Kingdom' as it is presently unrelateable to modern culture (or so he claims - personally I don't think he gives modern culture enough credit). But my question in response to these points is always, what's the alternative? If not war language, then what language?

[bsergott]

It's interesting, because when you look at the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., he seems to get it. He talks continuously in war language about pushing back systemic evil and injustice using non-violent approaches. I agree with Brent that it is not an optional language that simply falls into the realm of imagery. It is reality. We are at war.

Where I struggle is when it becomes focused on individual people or when it is used as an excuse for Christians to join forces and fortress themselves against the world. Look at some of the home-school associations or some of the extremely fundamentalist Christian groups and read their rhetoric. They are all about a protecting of families from the world and even about overthrowing the current forces that be to create a utopic, Christian nation-state. I fail to see how the Gospel and even its warfare language would lead to such conclusions. God has no interest in having His followers stockpile weapons and prepare for the Christian coup.

That is why I believe that we need to rethink the way we use and apply that language. I am not in favor of throwing it away, because, if anything, I believe we haven't focused on it enough. Rather, I want to somehow redeem the warfare language so that it becomes about our true mission and calling: taking ground for the Kingdom one life at a time with life-transforming love.

[Vinceation]

awesome (and appropriate) reference

[Rich]

Dittos on :
"

"awesome (and appropriate) reference"

excellent.
I raise my Guinness to you sir..If I had one

[Dave T.]

A word for war is in the NASB text 5 times before Rev. and 11 times there. In Rev., it looks like forces against God wage complicated efforts at war (therefore the accurate war-vocabulary picture being painted by the author), but He wages war with but a word. The vocabulary needs to be used to describe the futility of the world when it picks a fight with The Almighty. And as Bill S. points out, war-talk is an MLK thing. Get to know the person and his message and you can understand his language. Whether MLK or not, if you can't see past the language, you'll never get to know the person or his message.

In my meditations I was struck how in Peter, Jude and John there is a saintly absolute resistance to judging others, even in the midst of serious spiritual battle. Judgment is war, and these authors know it's dangerous ground to tread. I am profoundly challenged by such thoughts.

All that being said, among y'all, I have thought to resist the use of war vocabulary assuming it'll marginalize my communication among so many whom I've assumed just won't stomach it. But Bill and Brent appear to understand it's useful under certain conditions. I am very impressed.

Knowing that war is all-out unconditional annihilation of enemy resistance, and not namby-pamby accommodation, I'd only use the words and metaphors of war with great care - and remember that the words and metaphors of love also deserve the same gravity and weight, and not any namby-pambying. Shalom.

[Hiromu]

I'm definitely tracking with how many of the comments are characterizing the language of 'war' as not just a metaphor but a spiritual reality. I've experienced situations in which anything less than 'battling' seemed inadequate to describe all that they entailed.

That said, I wonder if this is also something that is particularly culture-bound in the American context. As a non-American, one of the things that have consistently struck me since I've come here is how seemingly saturated this society is with all things military.

From pop culture to baseball games, it's been jarring for me to see how much the military's presence in everyday life seems to be normalized here. Granted, this might have much to do with that fact that I come from a country that was thoroughly destroyed in WWII and subsequently renounced war in its constitution. And I'm sure that there are many other countries where the military also has high profile. But I think it's still likely that, for better or worse (I guess I tend to think the latter), this is a very military-oriented society.

So I'm all for redeeming the language of war. But I think the problems/risks associated with such language has deeper roots here than just the fundamentalism. It's also likely to have particular resonance when a non-American hears it coming from an American Christian.

[Jai]

I thought Bill's comments were right on. I couldn't say it any better so I'll regurgitate it;

Bill said,
"I guess, for me, I have seen people in the Church historically take the battle from being against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms to being personified and against particular individuals that the Christians deem to be immoral or pagan. In other words, judgmental Christians lose sight of the unseen enemy and look for a flesh and blood enemy. Then, labels like Antichrist get thrown around. That is not helpful".

The war words need to used very carefully i believe.

[Holly]

I often think of God and His truth as a multi-faceted gem, and we each need to cling to different facets of that gem in order to counter our own deficiencies. This isn't because some facets are more true or important than others, but because we're too limited to take it all in at once. I think there are a few issues here -- whether we accept spiritual war as real, whether we set that part of theology aside (either in our own hearts or in conversation) because it's uncomfortable, and whether the language and focus "work" for us in our daily lives. Most folks here seem on the same page regarding the first –the reality of a spiritual war -- and I’d be with you. The second, our comfort level with the Bible’s language and whether/how we use it ourselves, is something each person is working through. But the third --whether the imagery of war “works” for us on a practical level in our daily lives -- is a different matter. If you pray, or try to love others, or choose to act with integrity when it would be easy to fudge it, does it make a difference whether you did so because you were focused on dealing blows to evil powers, focused on knowing Jesus by imitating Him, or focused on the joy set before you – or does it simply matter that you DID it, and that your motivation was Godward? In the spiritual war, is the enemy dealt an equally heavy blow either way?

[brian]

Like this comment.