Who Would Jesus Bomb?

By Steve Hampton   (View Printable Version)

In the aftermath of the 2004 election, it seemed that everywhere I went I heard comments ridiculing Christians, and specifically evangelicals, for their apparent blind allegiance to the Bush Administration. Comedy shows like South Park and The Daily Show lampooned Christians' apparent support for war, while a t-shirt, sold alongside others with various anti-war slogans, described "evilgelicals". And then there's the bumper sticker (and a song by David Rovics) that asks, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

The question, of course, is a sarcastic parody of the popular question, "What would Jesus do?" Yet it has significance on many levels. First, it is a commentary on the election. Second, it is largely a critique of Christians by non-Christians, using Christian ethics. Finally, it is a legitimate and meaningful question, regardless of the context. I will explore each one.

A Commentary on the Election

Exit polls show that 78% of white evangelicals voted for Bush in 2004, providing him with 36% of his support. In 1976, most evangelicals voted Democrat, siding with Jimmy Carter, the first presidential candidate to use the phrase "born again". In the ensuing decades, conservative Christian leaders, who were also closely allied with Republican views on economics and foreign policy, managed to highlight abortion, prayer in school, the rights (and tax status) of private schools, and, later, gay rights, as key moral issues. Compassion for the poor, human rights, workers' and consumers' rights, and, later, protection of the environment, all of which are important issues for Democrats, were not considered moral issues. The evangelicals bought it.

Why? Two reasons: 1) a lack of teaching and leadership in local churches; and 2) a narrow definition of morality. These are related. Let's be clear on one thing: most evangelical pastors are not preaching conservative politics from the pulpit and telling their parishioners how to vote. Indeed, they are largely silent. A recent Pew poll found that 82% of white evangelical pastors took no public position on the invasion of Iraq. Leaders from other branches of Christianity were similarly quiet. In a day and age where churches have largely adopted a business mindset, where bills or mortgages on new sanctuaries must be paid, the local pastor knows better than to mix politics with religion. As a pastor once told me, if he preached what was in his heart, "I'd be run out of town on a rail." So sermons are geared toward positive motivation, or addressing personal crises; they do not tell adults how to behave. And thus morality is best narrowed to things that most parishioners can agree on: no adultery, no pre-marital sex, no homosexuality (you see the theme here?). Giving to the poor is mentioned for good measure, but there is no real discussion of lifestyle, consumerism, or US policy vis-à-vis the poor of the world.

And so the congregation is like sheep without a shepherd. More like a country club than a vanguard of Jesus' Kingdom, they seek no social justice, ignore racial reconciliation, and do little to help the world's poor. They create no enemies, for they push no buttons. The Pew poll found that only 10% of Americans say their religious beliefs influence their thinking about war (and 32% say their religious leaders should say more about it). Into this vacuum of teaching steps the big name pop-conservative figures of television, radio, and other mass media: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, James Kennedy, John Hagee, Franklin Graham, Charles Stanley, and many others. Closely allied with the Republican Party, they seized upon this pathetic and wayward Church. For it, they defined enemies (liberals, secular humanists, and, later, gays), which were associated with the Democratic Party. By focusing on the sexual mores of society as a whole, and narcissistic Christian issues like prayer in school, they avoided any enemies associated with the Republicans (militant nationalists, white-collar criminals, etc.). In fairness, the issue of abortion is by far the most legitimate, in that at least it focuses attention on "the least". In short, these conservative leaders gave meaning to bored Christians; they now had a battle, a moral struggle, for the hearts and souls of America. For spice, Dungeons & Dragons, Harry Potter, and even the Smurfs were defined as enemies of the faith.

And so we find ourselves today, with most evangelicals firmly in bed with a worldly power that invades other nations, killing thousands of civilians, that accepts torture throughout its empire, and that scoffs at global warming while the rest of the world recoils in shock and disdain. And when so many ask, "How can a president who lied about a war win an election?" the answer that comes back is, "The evangelicals helped swing the election for him." And so, now, the evangelicals who supported Bush are seen as accessories to imperialistic aggression, mass murder, and torture, among other crimes. And so the bumper sticker mocks them, as if to say "You, Christian, are bombing families in Iraq."

A Critique by Non-Christians

While we can't be sure, this bumper sticker appears to come from non-Christian origins. At least, it appeals to non-Christians who have some axe to grind with their Christian neighbors. In that regard, it marks a sudden trend in non-Christians directly challenging Christians on their commitment to the ways of Jesus. On a recent television news talkshow, liberal commentator George Stephanopoulos challenged James Dobson about public perceptions that evangelicals were not emulating the values of Christ. Dobson quickly shot back, "Are you trying to tell me how to be a Christian?" To which Jon Stewart of The Daily Show commented, "Well, someone should." Such exchanges are now commonplace.

It is rather remarkable. Despite widespread public disdain for various groups of Christians (and not just evangelicals), Jesus' reputation remains unscarred. As a character in Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters states, "If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what people were doing in His name, he would not stop vomiting." Gandhi, in the midst of his struggles with the British Empire, was more eloquent: "I love your Jesus Christ; it's you Christians I can't stand." Perhaps hypocrisy is easy to point out, but the ability and willingness of non-Christians to differentiate between Jesus and Christians is one of the most hopeful signs in today's world. Furthermore, the non-Christians are often correct in their interpretation of Jesus and in their critiques of those who claim to follow Him. They tend to focus simply, almost like a child, on what Jesus said about forgiving enemies, turning the other cheek, healing the sick, and giving a cup of cold water to the thirsty in His name.

A Serious Question

Who would Jesus bomb? Let's answer it seriously. The obvious answer, the one that my 10-year old child quickly understood, is "nobody". The bumper sticker question tempts Christians, daring them to answer with somebody's name. Few can answer. Jerry Falwell did. On a recent news talkshow, he declared, "We should bomb them all [the terrorists] in the name of the Lord." Like most evangelicals, it appeared he used the term "we" to describe America rather than the Church. And that's the root of the problem. Evangelicals often identify first and foremost with the earthly nation, and only secondarily with the Kingdom of God and its mission. Note that no one seemed to even ask how the invasion of Iraq might impact Church mission efforts overseas. All the focus was on America's security rather than on the ministries of Iraqi Christians or others working in the Middle East or Muslim nations. Of all religious groups in America (including atheists), the Pew poll found that evangelicals were the least likely to be concerned about civilian casualties in Iraq.

The answer, of course, is that Jesus would bomb nobody, whether motivated by a desire for more oil (or hay for his donkey) or to fight enemies (i.e. terrorists) or to free the Iraqis. Jesus clearly stated, and modeled, that weakness is power. His resurrection exposed the myth of redemptive violence, replacing it with the truth of redemptive weakness. Love really is the answer. He announced, time and time again, His Kingdom had arrived. It relies on new methods. As Paul states in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4, "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world." Paul was cognizant that a new Kingdom was now in place, fulfilling the words of the prophet in Isaiah 9:5-6:

"Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."