The Death of the State and the Triumph of Tribalism

Over the last couple months, we all have observed the escalating conflict in Iraq with growing concern as to what it means for both the region and the world at large.  In one sense, this ‘civil war’ in Iraq (if we dare call it such) is nothing more than an internecine conflict between different ethnic factions who hold to competing religious and political goals.  Even the bloody massacres perpetrated by ISIS, as horrific as they are, are not in themselves truly historically significant (I hate to break it to you, but there as always been a small, but militant faction of Islam that has enjoyed killing people.  Not to sound overly trite in our age of the “touchy feely” syndrome, but for that minority of Muslims, such a practice is the European equivalent of going to the pub on Saturday night before mass the next morning.)  But in contemplating the historical context of both the presence of ISIS in Iraq, and its consequence-a growing civil war, I was struck with the following observation:  What is happening in Iraq is an excellent example of an observation I made several months ago on this blog regarding the future of the modern geo-political state as we knew it and defined it in the 20th century.

In my previous post, Why 21st Century Politics is killing Socialism, I wrote the following observation regarding our postmodern world:

My point is that this paradigm shift in the western world, the death of the Modern, and the rise of the Post-modern, is the simple explanation why Socialism and its Centralized State are dying and being replaced with a new geo-economic and political theory. What will be the dominant political and economic theory of the twenty-first century? A modified form of Localism or Libertarianism. But lest those on the political right get overly excited about this observation, this embrace of Localism is not because mankind has suddenly experienced an awakening to the value of individual liberty. No, for the most part, the world is still rushing full speed back to authoritarianism. But for the Post-modern who views reality as splintering apart into a trillion little pieces, entirely disconnected to each other, the only sensible political theory is a form of anarcho-Libertarianism which could be stated more succinctly this way:

Let every man, woman, child or whatever gender you prefer to describe as do what is right in their own eyes.

Now, I can already hear the questions being posed. What does the death of socialism and the centralized state along with the rise of Postmodern thought have to do with a centuries’ old religious conflict among Muslims?  After all, Muslims aren’t exactly know for being champions of the centralized state or Modernism or Post-modern thinking.  Allow me to make two observations regarding why I state that the current conflict in Iraq is a reflection of the death of the Modern State and the rise of the Postmodern tribal mentality.

First, we must remember that the “MODERN STATE” of Iraq was an artificial creation of the Western powers after World War I.  The nation-state we call “Iraq” did not actually come into existence until 1919 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Prior to that time, ‘Iraq’ was part of the Ottoman Empire and was ruled by the Turks from the mid-1400’s.  But with the defeat of the Central Powers, the victorious Allies, “afflicted and troubled in conscience” by the “sin of empire,” and eager to make the world “safe for Democracy”, determined that the Ottoman Empire needed broken up along with the German and Austro-Hungarian conglomerates.  But rather than break up the Ottoman Empire according to ethnic or tribal divisions, the Allied powers, ever mindful that making the world ‘safe for democracy’ meant preserving the oil fields of the Middle East for British and French industrial power, arbitrarily drew boundary lines in such a way as to preserve the integrity of the oil fields with no respect for centuries old tribal boundaries or ethnic and religious traditions.  This is how the modern state of Iraq came into existence.

But as the Modern ideals are dying (or in some cases, already dead), the people of the world will naturally revert back to what they knew for generations before the “modern hiccup” spit forth in the 20th century.  I would be so bold as to predict that before the 21st century ends, the ‘modern’ state of Iraq will cease to exist.  But that observation is secondary to my real point which is this: Iraq is dying because it lost it’s one point of national identity in 2003-the toppling of Saddam Hussein by the American invaders. And so it’s people are reverting back to their former loyalties: Shiites, Sunni or Kurd which are the three main ethno-religious groups in Iraq.  Localism killing the state.

But this fact pales in significance when compared to my second observation, the rise and spread of ISIS through the Middle East.  The presence of ISIS is Iraq is even more significant that then the problems in Iraq or Syria because their presence signals the rise of Islamic dominance once again in the Middle East.  I do not think that ISIS itself will last long.  Their goals and aims are far too radical, costly and disconcerting to both the Modern and Postmodern ways of thinking.  ISIS will die quickly, and if I had to make projection, Iraq will continue to plunge into worse chaos in the next several years unless another strong man comes to forefront. The question is, who will that strong man be? The United States? Another Iraqi nationalist like Saddam? Another foreign power from the East? Or a new Islamic leader who is both militant in his beliefs and can build a strong man coalition that can unite Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and perhaps even other Arabs in a broad Islamic coalition?

That is the real question regarding the future of Iraq as well as our new postmodern world.

Holy War! The Rise and Fall of the American Theocracy, 2039-2079 (Part 1)

by Nathaniel Lane Stewart, M. A.

Introduction: The Unique Phenomenon of the American Theocratic Republic

On January 20, A. D. 2081, General Josiah Grantham, who was elected the preceding November, was sworn in as President of the United States on a cold winter day.  Unlike inaugural ceremonies in past decades, this one was relatively simple.  Standing inside the dome of the old Capital building (which still contained large holes from massive bombings in the previous decade), the new president-elect took the oath of office with only a handful of observers-a few government officials, several military officers representing three different nations, and about hundred local citizens who had gathered for the occasion.  Despite its simplicity, this event was pivotal for many reasons, including several important firsts for its time.

One, President-elect Grantham was the first president to be formally sworn into office in 16 years-the last official inaugural ceremony occurred in January, 2065.

Two, he was the first president to hold office following the defeat of the American military in 2079 during the final days of the conflict that later historians would call World War III (2019-2079).

Three, his election and ceremony were also remarkable considering that during the years leading up to both events, much of the North American continent was under the joint military occupation of allied forces from the Republic of China, the Russian Imperial Federation, the Free Republic of Mexico, and the League of Islamic Republics, these powers having effectively defeated the United States and its few allies by June, 2079.  Further, despite these forces still occupying significant portions of American territory in 2079 and 2080, his election was welcomed by most of the officers of this joint military force.

Four, and perhaps most significant of all, he was the first president since George Washington in 1788 to be elected without facing an opponent.

Standing in the center of the domed rotunda with his left hand raised and his right placed upon a Bible held by his wife, the new president, dressed in plain civilian garb, repeated the oath of office to a local magistrate, who was the only official judge that could be summoned for the occasion.  After reciting the words, “So Help Me God”, the magistrate shook the new President’s hand and offered his congregations.  There was no 21 gun salute and no band playing “Hail to the Chief”.  The omission of both from the ceremony was the new president’s expressed wish.  After a quiet applause from the onlookers, President Grantham took his place at the dais and began to speak.  He offered words of thanks to the judge and to the various officials who had assembled.  He also thanked the citizens who attended, and then expressed his gratitude to all those who had participated in the electoral process despite the many hardships most Americans were facing in the post-war world.  After these and other rather generic remarks regarding the American traditions of democracy, he addressed the matter that was on the minds of most who were present:

“For almost three decades now, Americans have suffered under a brutal tyranny imposed by a minority of religious militants who upon high-jacking our system of democratic government promoted a vicious and evil form of religious radicalism of which this nation has never seen in its three centuries of existence.  We who have survived this national nightmare have witnessed the horrific consequences that religious authoritarian dogmatism can create. We have seen the death, carnage, and destruction that a religiously motivated political ideology will bring upon a people who have lost their spiritual identity, their love for truth and righteousness, and most of all, have lost sight of that second of the two greatest commandments: to love one’s neighbor as oneself. 

While our desire may be to erase utterly from our national memory those thirty years of horror, the responsible course of any nation must be to never forget the evil perpetrated by those few who sought to impose their misguided attempts to create heaven upon earth.  And by refusing to forget this tragedy of horrors, may we then avoid the mistakes of our parents in permitting such an evil to exist among us in our own time.  Today, let us pledge that while we wish never to see such grotesque evils visit our land again, we will never forget the bondage that human religion when mixed with civil government can and will bring upon any people.  We, as Americans, are a spiritual people.  We have always been a spiritual people.  We believe in spiritual truths that exist beyond this world.  As our Declaration of Independence affirms, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”  What truths? Spiritual truths-principles of morality-right versus wrong, good versus evil, and the moral versus the immoral.  But while spirituality is expressed in our National Creed, let us also remember the words in our chief national instrument of law-our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.”  These two statements are American Values and American Fundamentals.  And though we welcome spirituality in our public arena, let us vow that we shall forever uphold the fundamental truth that the government shall never stand above the conscience of the citizen in regards to matters of religion!” *

This final statement received a standing ovation as the audience expressed its solemn concurrence to this firm declaration of principle.  And while the crowd gave its approval, President Grantham paused to face his audience.  Despite their apparent consent to his words, their eyes revealed a weariness of soul the depths of which could hardly be noted in those few moments.  Few present were military veterans, but all gave the expression of a people long oppressed with severe trouble and sorrow.  Having served in the U. S. Army since 2046, the President had seen first hand the sorrow his nation had experienced.

As observers of history, we must pause as we examine this scene and ask this simple query:  Why should a nation, conceived on the idea that the individual conscience, particularly in regards to religion, was free from coercion by the state now find that its chief magistrate must assert with clarity to the world that its government will never permit religion to govern its civic life, its laws, and its national identity to the degree of eliminating the freedom of the individual conscience? If the scene before us draws us to ask this question, then we have found a fitting point at which we can begin our study of one of the darkest chapters of the history of the Post-modern era: The American Theocratic Republic.  Though this regime ruled the North American continent (as well as parts of the Central America) for a mere 14 years (2065-2079), its influence in the American national life was felt as early as the mid-2040’s while its origins can be traced back to the middle of the 20th century.  And though we are over seventy years removed from its events, nonetheless, the shadow of the American theocratic movement still deeply influences life in the Americas in our own time.

(To Be Continued. . . )

*Taken from the Collected Writings of Josiah Grantham: The Presidential Years: 2080-2089, published in A. D. 2129, edited by Elizabeth A. Gratham and Maggie G. Stewart.

What if Christianity ruled the USA?

So did the title catch your attention?  Are you wondering what odd and crazy ideas this next post contains?

Let me restate the question in another manner: What if Christianity ruled the United States in the same way that Islam rules Saudi Arabia or Iran in today’s world?

Such an idea may sound absurd to us in the twenty-first century.  After all, what about the First Amendment to the Constitution and the “disestablishment clause”?  Wouldn’t such provisions make it impossible for any type of religion to gain control of the Federal government?  And given the context of our Post-modern world, with secularism, relativism, the paradox and subjective morality being the key beliefs of our age, why would I even pose the question of religion dominating civil and political affairs in the United States?

To us who live in 2014, such questions are legitimate.  But as I observe the trends in both theology and philosophy as well as the shifting global attitude towards religion in general, I would be so bold as to say that in fifty years, such questions could more than theoretical ideas, but very possibly realities in the world of the twenty-first century.

Without crafting a long answer, allow me to explain why I think it is likely religion will come to dominate the American government in the twenty-first century.  As I stated in previous posts, the Modern world is dead.  I agree that most people are still thinking in modern terms, but the ideas of the Modern have died.  One of the main consequences of the death of the Modern is the decline of a secular society rooted in a purely materialistic epistemology.  While the Modern had little use for religion (other than a quaint practice from days of yore), the post-modern has a definite use for religion in its worldview of paradox and contextualization.  Why do I claim this?

For the Modern, religion was just one of many lesser spheres that had little significance upon the course of events in the world whereas concerns of politics, economics, technology and science were considered the true drivers of history and development.  Therefore, the secular was the King of all spheres and ruled all things according to a scientific and ‘rational’ (really, it was irrational, but that is another topic for later) method.

Contrary to the worldview of the modern, the post-modern views religion as a viable and equal partner with the secular realm in terms of knowledge, interpretation of data, philosophy and ethics.  It is not that the post-modern has suddenly decided the secular and sacred should merge into one or that the sacred should govern the secular (like the Medieval worldview).  No, the post-modern still sees a distinction between the secular and sacred realms.  But given the post-modern’s emphasis on the paradox and contextualization of all knowledge, a distinction between the secular and the sacred is far less important to the post-modern than to the Modern Secular Materialist, the Enlightened Rationalist or even the Evangelical Protestant.  Ergo, the Post-modern welcomes the presence of religion in the world of the twenty-first century.

With this particular fact in mind, and the related fact that in the last ten years, we have witnessed the rise of religion around the world, and it’s growing impact on global affairs, I return to my original question: Given the slow blurring of the distinction between the secular and sacred realms in our Postmodern world, how will Americans’ attitudes towards the relationship of religion to the civil and political realms change in say 50 to 75 years?

Naturally, no one  in 2014 can know for sure what the future holds.  And don’t ask me; after all, I am an historian, not a prophet.  But I have thought about this question quite a bit, and have a few thoughts that I would like to share in the coming posts.  However, rather than try to share my thoughts in the form of some essays, occasionally such themes are better explained in the form of a story.  So I am going to invite you, my readers, to take a journey of historical speculation and imagination.  Let us travel into the future to the middle of the 22nd century-the decade of the 2150’s to be precise.  And rather than having me offering my own prognostications, I will let a historian of greater skill recount to you one of the greatest (and to us, ‘potential’) events of the 21st century.  So as I bring this particular post to a close, allow me to set the stage for you in regards to the world of this historian as he narrates to us the events that could await us in the future.

The name of this renowned historian is Nathaniel Lane Stewart.  He is a respected Professor of English and History at one of the few prestigious universities remaining in North America (most of them having been destroyed by the tragic events he will narrate to us), the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.  The University is a member of the Catholic Academic League, a worldwide organization under the jurisdiction of the Vatican.  Nation-states, as we know them, do not exist with two exceptions: the Republic of China, and the Neo-Islamic Empire.  The world is governed by a document known as the Covenant of Religious Detente  which was formally ratified in 2131 and for the last twenty years, has slowly been implemented by the Jesuits and other members of the Roman Catholic Church in cooperation with the New Islamic Empire and the Council of the Jewish Nation.

Professor Stewart has long standing family ties in North America and is regarded as reputable scholar throughout the eastern part of the continent.  He has written a number of significant works, including A Short History of the Twenty-first Century (2153), The Death of the State: How the German Epistemological Matrix Destroyed the Protestant Commonwealth (2145), and a controversial little work entitled, Who Doth Protest? How the Church reversed 6 Centuries of Schism (2157).  But his most important work, and the one we shall get a few samples from is this one: Holy War! The Rise and Fall of the American Theocracy, 2039-2079 (published posthumously from his lecture notes in A. D. 2195).  I trust you will find this little excursion interesting and instructive.

Next time: We open the pages of the history of the American Theocracy.

(This post is Part 3 of a series on the rise of the Postmodern world and its impact on Biblical Protestantism.  This post offers Biblical insight to the theological and spiritual changes we are witnessing in our day and how we ought to view them through the lens of Scripture.  These essays are an exploration of the continual impact of Postmodern thought upon Biblical Christianity.)

Naturally, when discussing such shifts in theological and philosophical thinking, the question among true Bible-believing Christians arises: what can we do about this new shift in the history of religion in the world?  The Bible provides a very simple answer to that question: NOTHING.  We cannot stop such religious and philosophical shifts which are simply part of the global rebellion of mankind against God and His sovereign rule.  Indeed, God does not expect us to start, stop or change the broad flow of human history.  One of the sad commentaries regarding current Evangelical thought and theology is that far too many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are still living under the old New England Puritan and later Edwardsian pang of conscience that it is the Church’s responsibility both to change history and to usher in Christ’s kingdom.  The scripture is very clear: God is sovereign over the course and direction of human events, and God alone changes and directs the flow of time and historical development.  The duty of the Christian is simple: be faithful to God’s commands in the Holy Scripture no matter what may happen.  Hence, many a saint has spoken wisely, “Duty is mine, consequences are God’s.”  And a true Protestant, indeed a true Calvinist, would assert that in all circumstances of providence, our first duty in all of life is to trust God and to submit to His all wise and all sovereign will.

Having stated these observations, let us now turn the real question regarding this new shift in theology and thought in the Western world. The right question we should ask is not what is happening (descriptive) or what can we do about the present crisis of thought and theology (proactive), but rather the question we ought to ask is this:

What does the Scripture say about such a crisis of theology?  And how are we to view such a crisis in light of the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ?

These are the fundamental questions we must ask ourselves in the query concerning an understanding of the times in which we live.  Indeed, every Christian in every age ought to ask this one question.  What does the scripture say about my times and circumstances?  Between the constant badgering of the secularist and the age old question of the devil himself, too many Christians have allowed themselves to think that the Bible does not address their time and circumstances. But in fact, the Bible does talk about different times and seasons, and through His word, Christ offers instruction for His church in all such times and occasions.  With this perspective in the mind, the question we ought to ask in such times of crisis is this:

How am I to view the current shift of theology and thought that is occurring, especially considering the overall traumatic effects it is having upon our economic, political, social, cultural, national and international circumstances?

Without a doubt, in our life time we will witness the total collapse of Protestantism as we have known it for the last five centuries.  But with the outward collapse of such a movement or an absence of a clear outward profession of faith, does that mean that the church of Jesus Christ shall cease to exist?  On the contrary, the scripture patently declares otherwise!  Christ will build His church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it!  That is the sure promise from Christ himself.  But that promise does not mean there will not be rises and falls in the history of the church until Christ returns.  So then, that fact being acknowledged, the proper question for us to consider is what should our duty be when faced with the traumatic shift of thought that is occurring in our day, and what can we as followers of Jesus Christ do to prepare for new world which we and our descendants may face: a world in which the Protestant havens we have known no longer exist and we are left in a theologically and ecclesiastically desolate wilderness.  It is this question that I hope to address in the essays to come.

(The following post is Part 2 of a three part series that I began in the previous post entitled, 9/11 and the death of the Modern.  While the first part focused on the philosophical and secular impact 9/11 to the Postmodern age, this section focuses on the theological impact of Postmodernism, particularly on Protestantism.  A third post will follow this one offering some concluding remarks.)

The more sobering reality of the epistemological revolution occurring in our day is not just that the Modern has fallen prey to the supplanting forces of the Postmodern, but that at the same time, the last gasps of a Post-Protestant Christianity are also quickly succumbing to the same principles of Postmodern thinking.  And when carefully examined, the principles of the Modern, the Postmodern, and the growing Post-Protestant Christianity are not only virtually identical, but these principles which they espouse are the same principles of religion adhered to by the Roman Church.  Thus, the sobering fact of this shift that we are witnessing in the opening years of the 21^st century is the very the reversal of the Protestant Reformation, not just in theological terms as occurred in the 20^th century, but also in ecclesiastical, cultural, social, economic and political terms.  Even secular historians acknowledge the Protestant Reformation transformed Europe and the United States into the great dominating social, cultural and political powers of the 18^th and 19^th centuries-often referred to as the great ‘Golden Age’ of the West.  But in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the Modern destroyed the theology of the Reformation, creating instead the secular dispiriting dystopia of the 20^th century. And as we proceed into the 21^st century, having realized the emptiness of Modernism, humanity has embraced a new religion for its times, Post-modernism.

The consequence of this shift is even more frightening than that of the Protestant to the Modern, because while the Modern destroyed the theology of the Reformation which under girded the Western world, the Post-modern is actually destroying the outward institutions of Protestantism-including everything from the organized Protestant church to the rejection of constitutional representative government by the rule of law.  And all of this is happening as a result of the church’s and society’s embrace of the new Post-modern religion with its faith in human faith and its worship of the human ego.  And unless there is a swift and sudden reversal of these trends, we will very likely in our life times witness the complete and total collapse of those very institutions that we as Evangelical Protestants have all taken for granted for the last five centuries.  And all of this simply because of the great theological paradigm shift we are watching work itself out in our time.

Now as an aside, I should point out, not all professing Christians in our time are grieved by this shift.  In fact, there are many who profess to be Christians who would welcome the death of Protestantism as the next step in an Hegelian-like step of ecclesiastical progress that will once again unite Christendom into one institutional church.  And depending one’s theology and religious views, such an even might be a welcome triumph.  But as most of you already know, this author does not welcome the apparent death of Protestantism as a good thing for the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  But I digress on that point, and will visit perhaps some time in the future.

Suffice to say this: As the modern age collapses into the ethereal smokey age of the Postmodern era (age sounds too sophisticated for our time), the radical change in philosophical thinking is also impacting the course of theology and church history in just as radical a change as our secular world.  And we cannot truly appreciate this change without understanding both the secular and religious elements of this epistemological revelation.

(The following essay is Part 1 of a 3-part series examining the rise of what I would call the Postmodern world and its impact on Protestant Christianity.  The original essay was close to 2,000 words. However, that length seemed to long for one blog post.  So I am posting the essay as a three-part series.  Nonetheless, you may wish to read all three parts consecutively to appreciate more fully the main thrust of the essay.  These observations were originally written in 2012 as part of an introduction to a sermon outline which I never completed. These thoughts really provide the philosophical and theological foundation for why I started this blog in 2013.)

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, proved to be the seminal event that defined the first decade of the 21st century if not for the entire century.  But it did not define that decade in geo-socio-political terms alone, but also in religious and theological terms. In the thirteen years since that attack on American soil, we have witnessed a significant shift in the philosophical, theological and religious paradigm of the 21st century world that may be regarded by future historians as the beginning of the new Post-modern world.  But what makes the post-modern world different from the modern world of the 20^th century?  The answer to that question is actually quite simple.  In the modern world, secularism was king, and religion was relegated to the status of a serf or a slave and was considered in the words of Karl Marx to be the “opiate of the people.” Throughout the better part of the 20^th century, economics, politics, cultural revolutions, science and philosophical enlightenment were the gods of the modern. Religion was considered out of date, passé, and most of all something to be discarded like the last vestiges of an old rag.  As a substitute for the religious convictions, experiences and paradigms that dominated the world up till the late 19^th century, the modern worshiped human reason, exalting it to the place of the supreme being of the universe.  This fact is actually quite ironic because while the modern worshiped reason, the modern was perhaps the most irrational of all the philosophical schools of the thought of the last 3000 years. But with the collapse of the great eschatological movements of the 20^th century-namely, Perfectionism, Progressiveism, Socialism, Communism, etc, the modern was left with nothing but empty shells of meaningless promises, failed hopes and empty dreams, and most of all, a world that seemed to have petered out of life, energy, vitality and purpose.  History had run its course according to the high priests of Modern religion, but humanity had still not yet reached utopia, the eschaton was not manifested, and we still had not regained Paradise.  Then, 9/11 occurred.

Suddenly the great hopes and aspirations of the modern which by the late 1990’s had obviously failed were now replaced with fear, terror, and the constant threat that our very way of life would be completely devastated in a short moment of time by an a small, but extreme group of militant religious terrorists.  For the first time since the world wars and the cold war of the 20^th century, Americans were faced with the full extent of their mortality, and hope was replaced with fear, optimism with terror, and confidence with despair. And in a sense, as the twin towers fell, their fall marked the final death of the modern, and out of those ashes, rising in the mist of the smoke of burning rubble, the foggy and ethereal post-modern age, and in particular, the post-modern’s rejection of a full orbed secularism in place of an inclusion of religion within the segmented world of human knowledge and understanding.

In one sense, this shift was a perfectly natural occurrence.  Just as an individual who suffers a life-threatening trauma will suddenly become aware of their mortality as well as their own spirituality, so the same principle is true with societies.  On September 11, 2001, our nation was suddenly, brutally and traumatically shaken from its lethargy and complacency, and brought face to face with the potential end of our existence as we knew it.  Hence, an embrace of faith in the post-9/11 world was perfectly normal.  But the real significance lies not in the embrace of the faith, but the peculiar nature of that faith which our society is now embracing.  That new type of faith marks the first major manifestation of our new Post-Modern religion that will very likely define the coming decades of the 21^st century.

What is this new object of worship for the Post-modern?  The Modern worshiped HUMAN REASON. The Post-modern worships HUMAN FAITH-faith in humanity, faith in some vague ill-defined spirituality, faith in experience, faith in secret knowledge, and ultimately, faith in subjectivism and its ultimate consequence, the human ego.  And faith in the human ego is perhaps the the SINE QUA NON of religion in our Post 9/11 world.

But this so-called religion is hardly new.  It is just another repackaging of the religion described by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1.  Paul describes this religion as one that worships the ego and is manifested in self-pleasure, self-aggrandizement, and the assertion of one’s own will as supreme and sovereign over all things, including the Sovereign and Triune God.  In short, egotism is nothing more than the very sin that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were guilty of-the exaltation of oneself in the place of God.  And Egotism (whether in faith, knowledge or the human will) is now quickly replacing the Modern faith in secular reason and pure rationalism.  This is the death of the Modern which has given birth to the Postmodern.

With the escalating civil war in Iraq, Americans are once again asking if our military personnel and material will be called upon a second time to occupy this desert nation as was done in 2003-2012.  Some of you may know that I had reservations about the initial invasion in 2003, and as events unfolded in the subsequent years, my reservations were confirmed as it became clear this military endevour was an even greater mistake than the invasion and occupation of Vietnam in the 1960’s.  In December, 2008, I wrote the following letter to the editor of the Times Examiner newspaper here in Greenville protesting the invasion and occupation of of Iraq by our central government and its armed forces.  This past week, I looked at my copy of that letter and was reminded that the fears I had regarding the failure of American policies in Iraq were now coming to pass.  I offer this letter as statement of protest against the failed policy of the past and once again to remind the citizens of our great nation that if ever there was a time for making a radical change in our foreign policy now is that time. Politics and public policy change with the wind, but the moral truths and commands of the inspired and inerrant Word of God never change, and nowhere in Scripture can one find a “doctrine of ‘preemptive war'”.

(Editorial note: I wrote this letter in December, 2008.  At that time, Osama Bin Laden was still considered at large by the international community and American troops still occupied Iraq.  Since the writing of this letter, we now know that Bin Laden was assassinated by an American seal team and is no longer living. Also, American troops have not occupied Iraq since 2012.)

To the Editor,

Since March, 2003, Evangelical Christians have defended the United States’ invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq as a ‘just war,” warranted by Scripture.  Many point to God’s use of war in the Old Testament to judge evil rulers while some have even appealed to God’s commands to Israel to wipe out the Canaanites as a justification for the United States’ “war on terror” against militant Islamic forces in Iraq.  Unfortunately these arguments ignore other clear biblical teachings on warfare.

In Romans 13, God grants to civil government the power to avenge evil committed within a society.  Besides this power of capital punishment, this passage also teaches that the government possesses the right to wage defensive wars to protect its citizens against attackers.  On September 11, 2001, the United States was brutally attacked by the Islamic terrorist organization, Al-Qaida, and they used four American jetliners as weapons against our own citizens.  Based on this Scripture, this barbaric attack justified a military response by the United States government against our enemies to avenge the evil committed against our citizens. Immediately, a military force was dispatched to seek out Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and capture him for his barbaric attacks against the United States.  Sadly, in 2002, Bin Laden was never actually apprehended, and to this day, he still remains at large.  However, in 2003, two years later, the 9/11 attacks were used to justify an American military invasion of Iraq even though neither its government nor its citizens participated in those tragic events. (It deserves noting that though the terrorists who participated in the attacks were Saudis, the U. S. government never took any aggressive action towards the Arab kingdom in seeking justice for this attack). Nevertheless, the United States military invaded Iraq, toppled their government, and reduced a sovereign nation to colonial status under military rule which has continued to this day.

The Bible grants the power of the sword to governments to execute evil doers and to protect the innocent.  But justice must be administered justly.  Iraq did not attack or threaten the United States, but our President used cruel and excessive force against this nation to seek justice for Bin Laden’s crime.  Preemptive wars do not end conflict; they ignite them.  Warfare must come as a result of the curse of sin, but may God keep His church from defending unjust wars that result from sinful lusts leading only to bloodshed and to death.  I do not write these words to condemn the country I love.  Rather, I protest this war in the name of the Christian gospel, and utter the prayer of the hymn writer, “America, God mend thine every flaw; confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.” May God enable this nation to honor liberty and law by her practice, and not through sinful bloodshed that contradicts empty rhetoric.

Sincerely,

Stephen M. Cope