Ambivalence in a Time of War

In this week's edition of the Alban Weekly, Katie Day offers an insightful response to the upcoming Ken Burn's piece -- WAR -- a piece on World War II. World War II has come to be seen by many as a necessary, just, and ultimately good war. But as Day points out, at the time there was great ambivalence on the part of those fighting and those at home. Churches were conflicted -- not wanting to bless the violence of war they felt constrained to be of service to nation and word.

As Day points out, many of the leaders of our churches were part of that fight or were children of it. This may be why we struggle now with what to do about the Iraq War. She writes:

Although the church’s role in public issues has been dissected in just about every other context, one of the least studied is its role during the Second World War. For good reason: major Christian traditions were bogged down in internal debates about entering into the war, torn between the pacifism that had been in vogue in theological circles after the first World War and the sense of national duty after the invasion of Pearl Harbor. Reinhold Niebuhr, a leading theologian at the time, argued strenuously on political and theological grounds for joining in what he saw as a struggle for the survival of Western civilization itself. “We are witnessing the first effective revolution against Christian civilization since the days of Constantine.”1 However, he and denominational leaders were also cautious about joining in a “war hysteria.” The boundary between church and state loyalties seemed to melt as the Church was caught in an ambivalence, the most positive construction being a “cautious patriotism.”2 The Disciples of Christ denomination articulated the conundrum: “The church of Jesus Christ cannot bless war, but the church in wartime should have something more significant to contribute than a negative attitude. The church has positive and constructive duties to perform to the nation and to the world.”3 Not wanting to appear unpatriotic, most church groups followed suit, quelling their prophetic voice which had led in other times to public critique.

As Day reminds us, however, these elders of our community who were thrown into battle at a young age -- most now in their 80s if not older -- can be a resource to our conversations -- if we are able to free them from their silence.

For the full essay click here.