Military Language - promoting violence?

a reflection on theological language by the Revd.Dr.Charles Sherlock

How do you respond when asked to sing this? (The tune is a rousing march, emphasising 'arise!')

  We live, we live, his breath is in us,
  Arise, a mighty army, we arise!

It makes a neat switch from Ezekiel's vision (Ezekiel 37) to the congregation as an army. This 'army' is then invited to 'march upon the land' in a contemporary version of Joshua's conquests.
Military language has been used in liturgy for a very, very long time. Miriam led Israel in singing to celebrate the Lord's victory over Egypt:

  Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously!
  Horse and rider he has thrown into the sea. (Exodus 15:21, expanded in 1a-18).[1]

Such imagery expresses vividly the sense of deliverance into freedom which undergirded Israel's faith. Christians of every variety delight to celebrate the power of God, particularly in lifting up the downcast and rescuing those oppressed by sin, guilt or injustice. Military imagery is prevalent in baptismal rites, and in hymns it is widely employed to express this sense of celebration. Many contemporary choruses sing of fighting the devil and evil, and as exorcism has come back into fashion, so has the language of 'spiritual warfare'.[2] Many still use terms such as 'soul-winning', 'crusades', or 'prayer warriors'. And liberation theologians (including many feminists) use the terms of revolutionary conflict: 'struggle', 'overcoming' and the like.

That said, there is growing caution using military imagery to speak of God, especially in public worship.[3] Brian Wren points out that the earliest Christians were a persecuted minority, and pacifists. Thus the use of battle imagery carried many less perils than it does for us. He asks,
 
Can we draw on the experience of World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, Iran's human waves, or the IRA's urban slayings, to describe the Christian life? And if so, how?[4]

Language shapes and forms our world - a claim demonstrated in the debate over 'inclusive' language.[5] Those who promote 'language which includes' argue that military metaphors deepen the considerable latent violence behind patriarchalism. Some contend that the use of any 'domination' language furthers the legitimation of violence in domestic and social life. Such sensitivities lie behind the current 'Decade to overcome violence', in the service of which this paper has been prepared. And so we ask: to what extent does the use of military imagery in public worship reinforce a culture of violence?

The Context of Worship

It is instructive to tabulate the metaphors used by people in a setting where spiritual instruction is being given. Metaphors, especially those used off the cuff, tell us lot about one's psyche and attitudes. Phrases such as "overcome", "put down", "pin to the wall", "spiritual power play", "go for the jugular" - all of which I have heard - indicate an adoption of the "militaristic mind".

Few would advocate the deliberate use of such language. Yet words which are unexceptional in themselves can function in tension with their surface meaning, producing a 'dissonance' between their 'primary' and 'secondary' reference. Language can thus be 'socially dysfunctional', functioning in contrast with its originally intended use.
Further, language in public worship does more than make mere statements: it expresses commitments, evokes emotions, and enacts things (blessings, greetings, dismissals, even excommunications).[6]

Powerful imagery builds further on this, giving voice to, and shaping, subconscious attitudes. Thus 'shepherd', while having little relation to the everyday life of most moderns, is widely used of God, notably at funerals (via Psalm 23). And what of the continued predominance of 'king' and 'lord' imagery, in both 'traditional' and 'revivalist' circles? In few Western societies today does either image occur, and where they do may carry negative connotations outside the churches. What sort of impact is made on one's social perspective when such imagery is used to speak of the person central to Christian identity, the risen Jesus?

Two levels of theological reflection are going on in liturgy. The 'primary' level happens in one's unconscious self, the inchoate 'godly ruts' formed through years of usage. Here lie emotional responses, the aesthetic senses, and subconscious taboos, with elements of light, ignorance, purity, deep commitment and love of God, personal theological hobby-horses, bits of folk-religion, and semi-superstitious notions. It is at this level that most of us operate, unless jarred by something extraneous - which is generally necessary!

What may be termed the 'secondary' level is conscious reflection upon spiritual experience. This level involves the rational processes of reflection upon faith, with both helpful and difficult aspects. Such reflection is neither 'better' nor 'less' than primary theologising but is necessary, lest we slip into mere formalism or superstition. Yet if all theology is at the 'secondary' level, we are only active as merely rational beings (or think we are). Ideally, 'primary' and 'secondary' theologizing form and correct one another, reflecting our personalities and (sub-)cultures.

With military imagery, this difference is often marked. Take for example this well-known hymn:
 
  Onward Christians soldiers, marching as to war,
  With the Cross of Jesus going on before.

The imagery is not unscriptural. It speaks of Christians 'marching as to war', with the cross, symbol of suffering love, as our banner. At the 'secondary' level, then, the words do not of themselves encourage military activity, but serve to express and encourage disciplined devotion. Yet the Cross 'going on before' also picks up the Crusaders' usage of it on their banners: at the 'primary' level the hymn has functioned to inspire congregations to give moral and spiritual support to war. More commonly, it can forward a triumphalist "go get 'em" attitude to mission. [7]
'
O God, our help in ages past' is a fine metrical version of Psalm 100. The allusions to military imagery are few, and passive ('guard', 'defence'). Yet it has become identified with British nationalism, and can inspire racist attitudes when sung by Anglo-Saxons defensive about Pakistanis or Greeks or Italians in 'their' suburb. The 'our help' takes on connotations of divine support for a particular racial group, rather than the people of God of all races and nationalities.
Likewise, the Advent hymn 'Mine eyes have seen the glory', can lend religious support for American nationalism. The tune is 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic', though the reference is to a very different 'battle' and 'republic' than today's USA: its origin lies in the slavery struggle.
The language used in worship undoubtedly reinforces social, national and cultural attitudes: imagery which is easily adaptable to misuse or misunderstanding needs particular care. As regards military imagery, the technology of war has left little room for individual heroism, the area traditionally claimed as one of the positive benefits aspects of the warrior cult. The growing violence of our society lends further reason for caution about imagery which might encourage thoughtless use of force.

Before rejecting all military imagery, however, it is important to consider its scriptural usage.

Military Imagery in the Scriptures

Military imagery is prominent at the Exodus, and continues in Israel's victory songs, e.g. Judges 5, and in many psalms. War-imagery of war was carried from the battle-field to the Tabernacle and Temple via the Ark, symbol of God's presence in both guidance and war:
Whenever the ark set out, Moses said,

  Arise, O Lord, let your enemies be scattered.
  Let those who hate you flee before you!' (Numbers 10:35)

This shout, a fragment of early poetry, taken up in Psalm 68, is indicative of the way in which war-traditions were taken up into the cult.[8]  Celebrating the Lord's victories takes a focal place in the Temple: cf Psalms 93 and 98.

These songs do not encourage war-making, however. Rather, they function primarily to encourage Israel to trust the Lord for deliverance. At the Exodus, Moses commands Israel, 'fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord ... the Lord will fight for you, and you only have to be still' (Exodus 14:13-14). In the conquest narratives, trust in the 'mighty arm' of the Lord is what which predominates (cf Joshua 6). Under the monarchy, 'horses and chariots' are the symbol of not trusting the Lord in foreign policy (cf Deut 17:16-17, 2 Sam 8:4, 1 Kings 4:16-28). Military victories there certainly were: but they are not seen as human achievements, lest faith be placed in force of arms (cf 1 Sam 14:6, 17:47, Ps 33:16-17).

The Lord did give Israel victory, but could also give them defeat (see Psalm 44, and especially Numbers 15). God is no mere battle-deity, but the Lord of all, including warfare.[9] This two-sidedness in the relationship between God and war became a dominant prophetic theme: Isaiah encouraged Hezekiah to trust the Lord for Jerusalem's rescue (Isaiah 36-39), yet also depicted Assyria coming as the rod of the Lord's anger, to conquer Israel (10:27b-34). The same prophet could look to a time when 'they shall beat their swords into plowshares' (2:4) and 'they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain' (11:9). The age will arrive when the implements of war will be burned: the time of the 'Prince of Peace' (9:5-6).

The ministry of Jesus is seen by Christians as the arrival of this 'new age'. He speaks and enacts the 'peace' which God intends for all people (cf John 14:27). Jesus did not avoid conflict, either with the Pharisees or with the crowds - yet he refused the use of violence, turning the other cheek to those who insulted him, accepting an unjust death. His words had the force of divine authority: but by the silence maintained at his trial he refused to use even this power to save himself.

This brief survey has sought to show that military imagery is very much part of the Christian heritage in scripture. It was never a simple affirmation of the glory of war, or the unqualified might of the Lord, but forms a realistic demonstration of the cosmic sovereignty of God, whose purpose is the establishment of peace, shalom. Ultimately this purpose requires a renewed heavens and earth, yet it sets the standard for our own endeavours in the present, and remains the hope of Christians. There is thus a strong bias towards the imagery of peace in the scriptural message, which takes up the power of military imagery, but transforms it in the service of divine peace.

Military metaphors are used very carefully in the early church. Only in two texts is Christ's work described using such imagery (Col 2:14-15, Heb 2:14-15), with no triumphalist overtones: they emphasise Christ's victory through suffering, a 'victory' obtained over death and sin, not humans (cf 1 Cor 15:54-57). The ascended Son of Humanity is portrayed in warrior terms in Revelation (1:12-16), but the typical picture of Jesus in this book is as the Lion who turns out to be a slain Lamb (cf 5:5-6, 12:11, 13:9 etc). There is thus little use of military imagery in relation to Christ or salvation.[10] He is portrayed as the Judge, but never as the Conqueror, of those opposed to him.

The commonest NT use of military metaphors is the description of the Christian life as like that of a soldier (Eph 6:10-20, 2 Cor 6:7, 10:4, 1 Tim 1:18, 6:12). Yet these texts concern our need for protection, and the right and fair use of the gospel message (the 'sword of the Spirit' - and note 2 Cor 2:14). The imagery is mixed with that of the athlete (cf 1 Cor  9:25-26), emphasizing the importance of self-discipline. (NB: early Christians took no part in either the games nor the army, since both involved homage to other than God in Christ. Neither were 'innocent' metaphors for them.) Military imagery is associated with suffering rather than triumph (cf Phil 1:30, Rom 8:36-37): God's power is known in weakness. The resulting ethic is no mere stoic virtue, but expresses concretely the cross-centred ministry of Christ (2 Cor 12:9; cf 1 Cor 2:5).

Military imagery in the scriptures does not encourage a warlike spirit, even in a 'spiritual' sense. Rather, it encourages the people of God to look to the Lord, not force of human arms, for genuine peace. We are called by this imagery to an active sense of purposeful self-discipline, not a passive fatalist acceptance. We are to be always ready to communicate the gospel of peace. Such imagery is used to celebrate the victory of Christ, through suffering, over sin and death. And it is employed to prepare Christians for the suffering involved in discipleship.

Military language in Australian contexts

One feature of the Australian military myth is that war is commemorated largely in terms of defeats. We mark Anzac Day, and mark National Vietnam Veterans' Day on the date of the Australian defeat at Long Tan. Can the power of this anti-triumphal myth be harnessed so as to transmit the scriptures' paradoxical use of military imagery, to further peace-making?

On the other hand, religion is seen as 'the woman's business' by many Australian males. This goes along with the image of masculinity as strong, forceful, defined by brawn more than brain - our society reflects such 'masculine' assumptions in many ways. Domestic violence is not only prevalent, but accepted as 'normal' in many circles, while the attitudes shown to indigenous peoples, convicts, small farmers, Chinese, migrants, Asian immigrants, Pacific refugees, asylum seekers express the desire to suppress those who differ, or make them conform.

Considerable ambivalence surrounds military imagery used in worship in Australian contexts. Hymns which evoke memories of the World Wars can reinforce anti-German / Italian / Japanese feelings, for example. Yet the prospects of using war-imagery to convey the idea of victory through suffering are real (cf the national Vietnam war experience). Such imagery, however, can easily 'dysfunction', further confirming assumptions or stereotypes about others which promote racism, envy, verbal or psychological assault, or physical violence.

How do we respond?

Some Tentative Principles

1  Military imagery should be watched, but not wholly abandoned

Brian Wren calls for a moratorium on the use of all war imagery until the militaristic tenor of our times alters. There are many situations where I would support such a call, for example in charismatic meetings! Yet to do so hands over military imagery to those who use it to foster unhelpful attitudes, whether deliberately or unintentionally. Excluding all military imagery could mean making mainstream faith look pale and wan to enthusiasts seeking certainties through concrete planning. It is precisely because its war imagery flourishes amongst those who seem to have little sensitivity to its effects that it needs to be watched.
And abandonment means cutting the people of God off from a rich lode of biblical ore. Without the psalms of triumph, the songs of Miriam and Deborah, the stories of Jael and Esther, of David's victory over Goliath, let alone the proclamation of Christ's Paschal victory, we deny people godly vehicles to celebrate triumphs in life. We also make it far harder to deal adequately with the realities of violence. For most of us violence impinges unexpectedly, suddenly, abruptly, on life, for example in a car accident. If Christian pastors have not laid foundations which relate the tragedy of evil and the power of God, we have left a dangerous vacuum.
Yet having decided to retain some military imagery, how is it to be used? The following points seek to supply tentative answers, starting with a negative principle encapsulating the greatest dangers.

2  Military imagery must not be used against an (implied) enemy

The vast preponderance of biblical military imagery is not directed against someone or something, but for some cause - trust in the Lord, rather than human force, as noted above. Jesus' own struggle was not so much against sin, humans, Satan, death or demons as for the will of God. Christ could cast out demons, raise the dead, rebuke soldiers and religious leaders 'with a word': plentiful resources of power was not the issue. The hard thing was the 'setting his face to Jerusalem': all the divine might was necessary for him to identify with us even to death, a cursed death on a cross.
The 'natural' use of military language, however, assumes having an enemy. It is easy to whip up enthusiasm, or promote commitment, by identifying a common enemy to unite against (cf 1984). Many popular works urge Christians concerned about the devil to 'know your enemy', 'attack the powers of Satan' and so on: there is little worse spiritual advice! We are to 'renounce the world, the flesh and the devil', but as a consequence of 'turning to Christ' and seeking to 'walk in God's holy will and commandments' (as Baptism liturgies put it).
Military imagery typically encourages identifying and assaulting an enemy. Powerful emotional energies can be released which promote hatred of humans not 'like us'. As Brian Wren writes, "the shift from 'Christ v. the Devil' to 'us v. devilish people' is, and has been, and will remain too easy for comfort".[12] This is most dangerous when such an enemy is not openly identified, but is implied. When planning to use a hymn with military imagery, we must ask, Will it encourage those who sing it on this occasion to 'attack' a particular group? Or will it empower them to get about doing God's will? (which may involve prophetic repudiation of evil).
So, for example, 'Onward Christian soldiers' could function to inspire a congregation embarking on a programme to 'fight' poverty. In other situations, however, it might encourage hate for those with whom they disagree - e.g. during an election campaign where immigration policy is an issue. Some are likely to see immigration in racist terms: they may not name immigrants as 'the foe', but raise 'theological' objections, such as the possibility of there being more 'pagans' in 'our Christian society'. And it is the non-specific nature of the 'enemy' which underscores the racist effect of 'Onward Christian soldiers' in such a situation. (This example is drawn from my own experience.)
Similar examples can be drawn from the 'left'- Jesus as 'freedom-fighter', 'liberator' and like usage. Children can be told the story of David and Goliath from either a liberationist or conservative political perspective. In either case the story can encourage aggression - and / or to portray the importance of practical trust in the Lord's strength.

3  Military imagery can be used to encourage committed, disciplined, godly obedience

Involvement in war requires commitment: war imagery is often so used in the scriptures (cf Deut 20:1-9). Yet the end to which commitment is to be directed is crucial - is it the purposes of God, or our discernment of those purposes? So 'fight the good fight of faith' (1 Tim 6:12) has its end given in the preceding verse: 'aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness' (6:11) - an interestingly 'pacifist' list! Ultimately such allegiance must be directed to Christ, though this is readily projected onto other commitments of transient political or cultural nature.
Discipline is another scriptural virtue related to being 'soldiers of Christ'. It is sorely needed in every age, particularly to maintain long-term commitment to the hard tasks - pastoral care of the 'unlikable', ongoing social concern when public interest has waned, loving patience with the difficult and so on. There are dangers: we can encourage an unloving 'hard edge' to discipleship, or a sense of spiritual elitism, or a single-mindedness which is blind to other aspects of truth. But the picture of 'disciples' is inseparable from 'discipline'.
Both commitment and discipline reflect a basic dimension of faith, godly obedience. This is not the blind obedience of the trained soldier, but the discriminating, gracious commitment of people seeking to forward the purposes of God. The earthiness of military imagery runs the major risk of translating Christian goals into 'worldly' ones. Yet it also and thereby has the virtue of encouraging an earthy godliness (the NT terms approximating 'spirituality').

4  Consider the 'primary' meanings which may be encouraged by military language

In considering military imagery it is vital to be aware of what may be actually going on in the minds and hearts of worshippers. Hymns are potent reservoirs of religious and nostalgic sentiments: octogenarians wanting to sing the songs of their young adult years is a common occurrence in pastoral care. Awareness of the context in which people will hear or use military imagery is essential in seeking to promote peace-making.
The growing technology of war undergirds the addictive fascination with weapons for some (cf the number of magazines available). This seems to carry over into equal fascination with 'spiritual weapon' techniques for many. 'How to' sessions on various aspects of  'spiritual warfare' abound, many focussing on attacking the devil. 'Renewal' groups can reflect a fascination with technology (tapes, OHPs, keyboards, powerpoint, and especially amplification) which discloses a technological approach to spirituality: and these same groups are keen on 'spiritual warfare' imagery.

What these various trends mean for the 'primary' theology of such Christians is hard to say. Used with sensitivity, military imagery can tap the powerful roots of 'primary' theologizing, to direct it towards Christ-like ends. The fervour of religious commitment will be directed somewhere: failure to acknowledge this encourages 'pneumatics' to gravitate towards circles where sensitivity to wider perspectives is at a minimum. The 'insider' mentality of such circles easily furthers an aggressive spirituality in which military imagery becomes downright dangerous.
The dangers associated with military imagery can thus be seen as its greatest potential. The need for powerful commitments to peace-making is great. Committed discipline is important in bringing reconciliation and building community - 'shalom'. We need to employ the power of God to resist evil, and free people from sin and deprivation. Military imagery is a potent tool to further these ends, whose sheer blatant character can guard against promoting violent attitudes.

Conclusion

I have argued that military imagery can and should be retained in public worship, but with care. At the same time, the explicit language of peace-making needs to be made far more visible than it is. Nevertheless, military language can encourage violence in both blatant and subtle ways (the latter being far more dangerous). Even so, in this Australian setting, there is a useable tradition of strong self-sacrifice in war which can be tapped. There is also the need to deal with the 'wimp' image with which Christian faith has come to be associated: here sensitive use of military imagery may be of help. Yet any such use must avoid implied identification of an enemy in ways that further 'us / them' attitudes.
On the other hand, the aggressiveness of many men needs no encouraging. Nor does our tendency to be prejudiced towards others require any support. The 'success' and 'demonic' mentalities (sometimes seen together!) which have appeared in recent years need correction, not support. Yet military imagery as used in the scriptures already has within it the seeds from which such correction, and a positive role for such imagery, can emerge. I would argue that the use of military imagery in the scriptures can and should be the model for our own use of such imagery.

Notes
1. This text is regarded as the earliest written Israelite tradition by many. It is interesting that war-songs are often sung by women in Israel (cf Judges 5, 1 Sam 18:7 etc). Patriarchy and militarism need not always go together.
2.  See my The Overcoming of Satan (Bramcote: Grove Spirituality series 17, 1987).
3. "Onward Christian Rambos? The Case against Battle Symbolism in Hymns, by Brian Wren (Journal of the Hymn Society of America, 1987) 13-15. See also his What Language shall I Borrow (SCM, 1989).
4. Wren, 'Onward Christian Rambos', 14.
5. See my 'Gendered language in Corporate Worship', Australian Journal of Liturgy 1/3 (1988) 84-95.
6. See further A. Thistleton, Language, Liturgy and Meaning (Grove Liturgical Series 2) passim, and J. Lebon, How to Understand the Liturgy (London: SCM, 1986) chapters 11, 14, 15, 23.
7.  Other traditional hymns where similar problems can arise include 'Stand up, stand up for Jesus', 'Fight the good fight' and even 'A mighty fortress'. They are all good hymns: even so, there are times when their use is pastorally wrong. Brian Wren's paraphrase of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' has this as its third verse.
 Feel the thrill of bloodshed / guns, and holy wars. We don't really mean it / it's all metaphors.
 Nuke the Devil's Empire / for in God we trust. Yes, we'll love our enemies / when they bite the dust.
 Onward Christian Rambos / spoiling for a fight!
 Wave the flag for Jesus / knowing that we're right.
8. This fragment is set canonically in the pre-conquest period, is accepted as early by scholars, yet is taken up in the psalter. 'Arise, O Lord' occurs in many other places in the psalms, probably with reference to the ark.
9.  The ideas which follow are more fully developed in my The God Who Fights (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1993)
10 Some may want to hold that the 'Christus Victor' motif is more important than this: so G. Aulen's book of that title (SPCK 1931, 1978). But law-court metaphors predominate in the New Testament, emphasizing innocence and justice rather than victory. I would argue that even when the Victor motif did become prominent, in the third and fourth centuries, considerable care was taken to see that 'right is might' is emphasized in salvation, not 'might is right'. This is evident, for example, in Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Instruction, despite the reputation he has gained to the contrary.
11. G.B.Caird, Commentary on the Revelation of St John the Divine (London: Black) has an incisive discussion of these passages, and the war-theme in Revelation.
12. Brian Wren, personal correspondence, September 1988.