Faith, Folly and Battle Fatigue

In 1966, a young university student by the name of John Kerry enlisted in the United States Navy, with the knowledge that he would almost certainly be sent to Vietnam. You will recall that from the mid 1960’s to the early 1970’s, U.S. forces were engaged in a bitter conflict in Southeast Asia, a war that Canada perhaps wisely chose not to fight.

Kerry didn’t have to do it. As long as he remained in school, a student deferment would keep him out of the armed forces. That’s how a lot of Americans managed to avoid that war; it was largely a poor man’s war; those who could not afford university were drafted into the service. Besides, the Kerrys were a family of considerable financial means. One could always arrange for a draft-age son to serve his time as a weekend soldier in the National Guard; it’s amazing what a well-placed campaign contribution will get you. So Kerry could have easily avoided combat in Vietnam. But he chose to go. It was an act of considerable courage. Whatever you might have thought about the Vietnam War at the time - and I was marching in the streets in opposition to the War while Lieutenant Kerry was guiding his swift boat up the Bay Hap River - whatever you might have thought about that war, one has to recognize the acts of courage and sacrifice and service on the part of those who fought it. He served courageously in Southeast Asia, and then - when he became convinced that the war had been a huge mistake - he spoke out courageously against it in the halls of Congress. The Book of Ecclesiastes says that there is “a time for war, and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8). But whether it be wartime or peacetime, it is always a time for courage, and sacrifice, and service.

John Kerry is a Christian. His commitment to a life of service, which continues to this day in the U.S. Senate, his commitment to a life of service is rooted in his faith. Okay, he made the mistake when he was running for President four years ago of saying that Ecclesiastes is in the New Testament, rather than the Old; but hey, at least he knew it was in the Bible!

For a Christian, a key doctrine of faith is the Kingdom of God; or, as Matthew prefers, the Kingdom of Heaven (see today’s Gospel lesson, Matthew 25:1-13). The Kingdom can be thought of as the ideal social order of love, justice, joy and peace. It is the model society upon which so many social reforms have been based. All of our efforts within western civilization to transform the world into a more just and peaceful and life-affirming place have been based to some degree on the Kingdom of Heaven which Jesus proclaimed. Think of the hymn Jerusalem. “And was Jerusalem builded here among these dark satanic mills?” The hymn comes from the darkest days of the industrial revolution in England. The reference to Jerusalem is a symbolic reference to the Kingdom. It was the Kingdom which inspired the social reforms that addressed some of the injustices of industrial England. Think of the first two decades of the 20th century, when progressive Christians were pushing for social reforms such as legislation that would enforce health and safety regulations in the work place. It was the Kingdom which inspired those reforms. Think of progressive legislation around health care or the Canada Pension or government investments to ensure a prosperous economy; legislation which was advocated by the likes of a Baptist preacher named Douglas and the son of a Methodist minister named Pearson. It was the Kingdom which inspired those reforms The Kingdom of Heaven is the goal toward which we are always striving. It will never be fully realized in history. It is the ideal possibility which can be at best only approximated in history. Because, despite our best efforts, the reforms which we manage to implement are always tarnished by the self-interest of those who make policy and by the compromises which necessarily arise out of the conflict of those interests. Reform always falls short of its goal; something that President-elect Obama and his supporters will have to remember in the coming years.

Our efforts to change the world always fall short of the Kingdom. It can only be approximated in history. Therefore, the Kingdom is always in conflict with the conditions on the ground. Sometimes, out of that conflict, there emerges a cause worth fighting for. When a small clique of aristocrats and church officials held too much power in Upper Canada, farmers and reformers took up arms and challenged the Family Compact; it was a cause worth fighting for. When wealthy land owners seceded from the United States, and then started a civil war, in order to maintain their slave-based aristocracy; it was a cause worth fighting for. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia, annexed Austria and invaded Poland; it was a cause worth fighting for.

But not only then. When India struggled under the burden of British colonial rule and Gandhi launched his campaigns of non-violent resistance, it was a cause worth fighting for. When African-Americans demanded their civil rights and they were met by fire hoses and police dogs and murder in the middle of the night, it was a cause worth fighting for. When the government of Saskatchewan said that there will be health insurance for all the people and the doctors said, “Don’t you dare, or we’re going to go on strike,” it was a cause worth fighting for. When the Kingdom conflicts with conditions on the ground, it’s time to fight. Some battles are violent and some battles are non-violent - there’s a time for war and a time for peace - but in both wartime and peacetime, the Kingdom is a cause worth fighting for.

Righteous conflicts are rooted in faith. But other conflicts are rooted in folly. The notion of the Kingdom of God and its various spin-offs are too easily identified with the narrow self-interests of nations and the pet projects of foolish leaders. Throughout its history, the United States has identified the Kingdom with its own particular interests and goals. Karl Marx developed a secular form of the Kingdom, and the Kremlin identified it with the interests and goals of the Soviet Union. Hitler embraced a demonic form of the Kingdom and identified it with the interests and goals of Germany. Some conflicts are rooted in folly. When then State Senator Obama announced his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, he said that he was not against all wars, just dumb wars. I mean, think of the folly of the Americans imagining that when they marched into Iraq, they would be greeted as liberators! They had the same arrogant assumption when they marched into Upper Canada in 1812. You’d think that they would’ve learned a thing or two since then. Maybe this week, in a defining moment of that nation’s history, they finally have.

There are smart wars and there are dumb wars. There are righteous conflicts and there are foolish conflicts. Fights emerge out of both faith and folly. But once a fight has been joined, by wary of battle fatigue. When a cause is just, you have to stick with it. Because victory in a righteous cause never comes easily. We have to stand on guard against battle fatigue. Particularly in this age of instant gratification, this era which has an incredibly low tolerance level for pain, we have to stand on guard against battle fatigue. We’re so use to simply changing the channel as soon as we get tired of something. But you can’t just pick up the remote when you grow weary in the struggle for the Kingdom.

I’m confused about the War in Afghanistan. That the Taliban contains elements of the demonic, I am not in doubt. That the Taliban must never regain power in Kabul, that much is clear. But history has not been kind to the forces who have invaded Afghanistan. The British and the Soviets and others have all failed in that harsh environment. So I’m confused about how Canada should proceed there past 2011, especially if other nations divert their resources from Iraq to Afghanistan in an attempt to defeat the real terrorists. Maybe we should stay longer and participate in a truly international effort. Or maybe not. Like I said, I’m confused about the righteousness of that fight. But I’m appalled at the swiftness with which battle fatigue has afflicted much of the Canadian public. It’s one thing to oppose a war from the start. It’s another thing to initially support it with much fanfare, but then very quickly become tired of it as soon as people start to die. Either a cause is just and you see it through to the end, or it’s folly and you don’t get involved in the first place. I mean, on the one hand, even a single casualty is one death too many; but on the other hand, if you’re going to support the launch of an armed conflict, you have to be ready as families and communities and a nation to take casualties. Both the pacifist position and the just war tradition are rooted in biblical faith. But to push the just war position initially, only to start sounding like a pacifist as soon as things get painful; that‘s got nothing to do with the life of faith. If we withdraw from Afghanistan only because we’re tired of the pain and it’s politically expedient, that’s not an act of courage, it’s an act of cowardice. There may be good reasons to withdraw from Afghanistan, but battle fatigue isn’t one of them. If Canadians had had such a low pain threshold during World War II, we would’ve withdrawn our troops when we were not even halfway up the boot of Italy!

Even Gandhi - the greatest pacifist of the last century - even Gandhi said that it’s better to fight with a weapon out of courage than to refuse to fight out of fear.

There’s a time for war and a time for peace. Some conflicts are waged with weapons, and others are fought with our wits. Perhaps the next great conflict is the struggle against global warming. Maybe this fight can become what William James called “the moral equivalent of war.” Unlike past wars, where nation lifted up sword against nation, the battle against global warming is a fight which can become an occasion for international cooperation. It’s in the interests of all nations to bring down the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ensure that the planet remains healthy and economically viable and full of life for generations to come. It’s a war in which we can all be engaged. The whole world is simultaneously both the front lines and the home front. Combat strategies include driving less, walking more, using public transit, supporting public policies which favour wind and solar and hydro-electric power; improving the insulation in our homes and installing high-efficiency furnaces if we haven’t already done these things; cutting back on bottled water and making sure that we recycle the bottles that we do use because it takes a lot of carbon-based chemicals to manufacture and transport those convenient little containers. These are among the things that we can do.

Some causes are worth fighting for. There is a time for war and time for peace. And now is the time to fight against carbon-based interests around the world and transform this planet into a garden of delight. It will involve courage and sacrifice, perhaps on a level not seen in this country since the Second World War. That might be a stretch for a city that can’t even be bothered with separating plastic lids from paper coffee cups for recycling. But courage and sacrifice and service are all part of the journey toward the Kingdom of God. As people of faith, that’s the direction in which we’re called to go. Amen.


Text: Ecclesiastes 3:8b
Preached by Bruce D. Ervin
Remembrance Sunday
9 November 2008