Christ or Caesar?

Patrick Henry College is a distinctively Christian liberal arts college in Virginia known for being friendly to homeschoolers. The college’s motto is “For Christ and For Liberty.” Imagine my surprise when I saw in the college’s latest “News & Events” that “for a growing number of PHC upperclassmen and alumni, the motto ‘for Christ and for liberty’ has translated into service to their country through the United States military.” One young man who interrupted his studies to join the Marines stated that he was “joining the Marine Corps for the same reason” that he came to Patrick Henry College.

I don’t know what kind of Christianity they are teaching at Patrick Henry College, but speaking as a conservative Christian, I want no part of it.

Over 181,000 people joined the U.S. military during the fiscal 2007 recruiting year. Many of them are no doubt professing Christians. As long as this trend continues, the state will never lack for soldiers to enforce its evil, interventionist foreign policy.

Thanks Patrick Henry College for supplying the state with more cannon fodder. Your motto ought to be “For Christ and Caesar.”

Author: Laurence Vance

Laurence Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. He has written and published twelve books and regularly contributes articles and book reviews to both secular and religious periodicals.

36 thoughts on “Christ or Caesar?”

  1. I am a Christian, and attend a conservative Evangelical church. I have been bothered for some time by the mixing of Christ with the Federal government, big business, and the current war. I find that many men in the church I attend, and have attended for the last 27 years, have amalgamated their faith in Christ with a faith combining the U.S. military, radio and television commentators, and the Republican party.

    It is impossible in this venue to discuss all that is going on in the church. However, the problem is described at length in the book, “The Myth of a Christian Nation” by Gregory A. Boyd, published in 2005 by Zondervan. That book says it all for me, and explains why I often find myself in mourning for the church of Christ in America, and for the loss of our witness for the Prince of Peace in a needy world.

    1. I am reading “The Myth of a Christian Nation” and find it to be excellent and very needed in Christian society today. It is encouraging to see others have run across this book also. Thanks for that.

      1. I can appreciate your claim to be a Christian; however, I do not agree with your assumption that America’s involvement in the Iraq War is in disharmony with being Christian-like. You say that you want no part of the evil America is undergoing in the war. Ironically, the Bible teaches of Christian wars. Jesus Christ sacrificed his own life and died out of love–to save people.. America is fighting against groups who intentionally want to harm innocent people? America did not go to war for evil reasons of killing soldiers and innocent people. America went to war to protect its innocent, even Christian people.

  2. Over the years I’ve read sympathetically of Laurence’s continuing frustration with his Evangelical co-religionists regarding the war. A Catholic, I’ve raised on a number of occasions what I consider to be spirited and well reasoned objections to the warmongering of certain Catholic writers, among them Richard Neuhaus, George Weigel and Michael Novak, against whom a simple charge of their having ideologized the faith would seem astonishingly charitable after one considers the history. But all along I have had the comfort of knowing that my Church’s leadership, specifically, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have spoken out emphatically against the Iraq adventure and that the braying of the Neuhauses is to considered a kind of deformation. Not so Laurence who must live out his beliefs in an environment in which the leadership, despite its being as decentralized as it is, provides him with nothing but the most profound discouragement.

    There is today regnant among a broad cross-section of “religious conservatives” an outlook symptomatic of the faith’s most serious ideological contamination. What one once acknowleged as Church is now more fairly seen as something akin to ReichsChurch. I’m saddened to realize that Laurence Vance is not likely to represent what will pass in the future as normative for his faith community. He’s fighting a very lonely battle.

    John Lowell

    1. Mr. Lowell,
      Your comment that Pope JPII (and now Benedict XVI) was ardently against the war in Iraq is very disingenuous.

      What concrete action did John Paul ever take to try to prevent what we all knew would be more akin to a massacre than a war with the rape of that country’s resources, institutions and peoples while dislocating its society and dismembering its territory being the ultimate goal?? Indeed with the long experience of the Roman empire, Rome should have been the first to see it coming. Yet the pope satisfied his conscience with a few vague homilies. For 12 years the children of Iraq suffered a devastating blockade that devastated their generation to the tune of 500,000 killed. Where was the pope throughout that decade?

      Some very brave Catholics, members of Pax Christi and Cry in the Wilderness more or less saved our honor while John Paul was busy feting his victory in Poland. They tried their best to alleviate the suffering of these little victims, wiping their tears away with their love. They were not given an ounce of support by the fat cats in the Vatican!!

      I have long since stopped going to church. The hypocrisy was too suffocating.

      1. Should we start by handing you a well deserved bed-sheet, Stanley. I’d recommend that or perhaps some suitable emetic. I mean the whole presentation is just too redolent of Robert Shelton, him or some kind of Orwellian five minute hate.

        And so you won’t get sued for misquoting people elsewhere, here’s a little practice reminder of what I wrote above:

        “But all along I have had the comfort of knowing that my Church’s leadership, specifically, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have spoken out emphatically against the Iraq adventure …”

        No concrete actions were ever mentioned, simply the speaking out against the war. But given your level of sophistication, Stan guy, one might suspect you’d have considered it appropriate for the Papal Legate in Washington to have punched Dick Cheney in the mouth, eh?

        Sounds to me that the whole matter of Catholicism is well beyond your reach, chief. Are you sure you’re old enough to be Catholic?

        John Lowell

        John Lowell

  3. Yet another testament to the overwhelming success of the State in co-opting the Church. This has happened in every totalitarian society, for the appeal to nationalist emotions is far more powerful in the majority than the appeal to the love of Christ as preached by the Gospels (you know, those pesky four books of the New Testament that contain Christ’s actual teachings and that this country’s Christofascists find so odious that they routinely ignore them).

  4. As a devout evangelical Christian (Presbyterian), I am bewildered by any person who can associate military might with the message of the Gospel. Jesus taught that we must love our neighbors and our enemies, not make war on them. And the truth is spread by the “Sword of the Lord”, that is His word and love. Christians who support the US incursion into Iraq, applaud an invasion of Iran and support the occupation of the Palestinian lands by Israel just have not discovered the true message of our Lord. I also write some poetry and some lines from a poem I entitled “The Silence of the Church” say this:
    “They believe that an eye for and eye
    And a tooth for a tooth
    Can bring a holy justice
    As if our Christ had never come”.
    When will a Christian American start to follow the teachings of Christ?

    1. ‘When will a Christian start to follow the Teachings of Jesus?’

      I would define a Christian as someone who specifically denies that the Doctrine of “resurrection” taught by Jesus (Isaiah and Mohammed) is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’. That is the origin of Christian theology and the doctrine of ‘vicarious atonement’.

      Thus, the answer to the question is “NEVER”.

      A Christian, by definition, will NEVER follow the Teaching of Jesus.

      See:

      http://unsealing-the-seven-seals.blogspot.com/

      Michael Cecil

      1. Now isn’t this, your comment, the most errand possible nonsense. From its inception the Faith has taught that the Son, his Incarnation, Death And Resurrection, are form of the new birth and the consummation of the world and of history. Further, the doctrine of the vicarious atonement is the eleventh century workproduct of St. Anselm and hardly something contemporaneous with the faith at its origins. The more ancient doctrine of representation seems to have been that held by the early Fathers. You seem to be suffering from a terminal case of nominalism. There’s a cure, you know.

  5. I must say I feel joy and relief reading this blog entry and the comments up to this point, amidst all the threatening news from the other side of the ocean presented at Antiwar.com. I was getting desperate about those calling themselves christians these days – never mind about conservative or progressive – if it be conservative to try to follow Christ’s teachings, then conservative I shall be…
    Thanks to all of you.

  6. It is easy for a Christian to support war and genocide. All he has to do is dwell in the Old Testament of the Bible. There is where he can find all of slaughter and conquest he wants. There is where God shows his tribal preferences and commands that “his tribe” show cruelty to others tribes. The New Testament is totally new cloth – universal, loving, and individualistic. The Book of Revelations is the exception, it is still more tribalistic, violent nonsense.
    A lot of Evangelical churches stress the Old Testament and are absolutely enthralled by the Book of Revelations. These people go to church on Sunday and hear little of forgiveness and a whole lot about punishment, holy warfare, and exclusiveness. There is also a lot of nonsense about the tie-in of modern day Israel and the return of Jesus. You can listen to some of these preachers like John Hagee and never hear the word “love” except in the context of God favoring “his tribe”. It is no wonder that people indoctrinated in these beliefs are warlike and paranoic
    Thomas Jefferson had it right – he took everything except the words of Jesus from his Bible.

  7. I could see the connection if the military was fighting a war of self defense or helping to stop a rwanda type massacre, but that can’t fairly describe the cmilitary today. In fact, our war in iraq is the one thing that would prevent us from responding to those types of emergencies.

  8. I can’t do anything but laugh at antiwar Christians, an incredibly small minority of Christians, who think their religion and war don’t go hand in hand. What’s the point of talking about what Christianity might be in theory when in practice, it’s the perfect excuse for millions to slaughter other millions — the way it has always been. I’m not singling out Christianity, in fact, since most religions fit this mold. But acting like religion is some advanced, enlightened philosophy for men to rise above is bonkers — religions were practically invented to galvanize the masses to kill enemy masses.

    1. “religions were practically invented to galvanize the masses to kill enemy masses …”

      And ths is that why their opposites, the rationalist, secular faiths of National Socialism and Communism, have been such dismal failures in comparison, eh, Jeremy? I can’t do anything but laugh either when college dorm room canards pass as expertise on questions of this kind. What might it be that grounds Jeremy’s programme for peace in the world, Jeremy’s reason? Or maybe its Jeremy’s emotions.
      Want to help us with that?

      John Lowell

        1. Here was the question that was put to you, Jeremy:

          “What might it be that grounds Jeremy’s programme for peace in the world, Jeremy’s reason? Or maybe its Jeremy’s emotions. Want to help us with that?”

          Some reason for the bobbing and weaving, guy?

          John Lowell

        2. “Bobbing and weaving”? I simply pointed out the massive flaw in your response to me. It was a nearly complete non sequitur. It’s typical of the kind of arguments the insane (“religious people”) make.

          I do not see a reason to answer your question, since it is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and is ridiculous, besides. I can tell you, though, that Christianity is not a “programme for peace.”

          *chuckle*

  9. Anyone who believes that Nazis were “rational secularists” has no knowledge of history or the ideological underperinnings of the Nazi regime. (Not to ignore the reality that the institutionalized church, Catholic and Protestant alike, fully supported the regime. National Socialism drew heavily upon the traditions of German Christianity; see, for example, the toxic anti-semitism of Luther. Throw in the Paganism and transcendelalism that many Nazi leaders believed in, and you are not looking at a “secular” movement in any way whatsoever.

    Communism is different-but only on the surface. Communist States drew upon the techniques and methods of religion. Sacred texts? Yep. Saints? Of course. Unquestioned faith in the “revealed” truths? Again, yes. A priesthood? Yes. Looks like a “religion” to me.

    I might be more willing to listen to “Jeremy’s reason” or “Jeremy’s emotions” than the vindictive Jehovah of the Bible.

    1. “Anyone who believes that Nazis were “rational secularists” has no knowledge of history or the ideological underperinnings of the Nazi regime.”

      How’s a degree in history from Tufts Univerity with a specialty in the history of Europe in the period, 1919-1950?
      Would you think that might qualify me as having a familiarity with the ideological underpinnings of the Nazi Regime? And for the sake of charity an assist here: Where I’ve used the term, “rational secularist”, I’ve done so to point to the kind of intellectual style that emerged from the Enlightenment that is the opposite of faith and that has been the parent to much of European ideology, your own included.

      “Not to ignore the reality that the institutionalized church, Catholic and Protestant alike, fully supported the regime. National Socialism drew heavily upon the traditions of German Christianity.”

      I really think you ought to reconsider giving any more lectures on this subject, ace. To say that the institutional Churches “fully supported the regime” is absolute hogwash. In your fevered religion hating you seem to have simply ignored altogether the resistance to the regime made by the Catholic Church as the government tried increasingly to exert control over its life and social institutions from 1933 onward. And just so you won’t embarrass yourself again, National Socialism was a phenomenon mired in paganism, not Christianity, Lutheran or otherwise. Recent scholarship makes abundantly clear that Hitler had targeted the Church and the Christian faith for total extinction in Germany.

      Since you’ve raised intellectual competence as an issue here, Brian, perhaps you’d like to share your academic credentials with us if you have any, particularly those that bear upon the subject at hand. Beyond that, many here won’t particular care whether you’d “be more willing to listen to ‘Jeremy’s reason’ or ‘Jeremy’s emotions’ than the vindictive Jehovah of the Bible”, as utterly incomprehensible as that may strike you.

      John Lowell

      1. I guess the Nazi state slogan “Gott ist mit uns” must have meant “Onward, rational secularists!”

        No wonder I got a C in German. :(

      2. Mr. Lowell, you might want to reconsider what effect your sarcasm, condescension and filthy talk of bedsheets and emetics has on those not directly involved in your arguments. I don’t see the single use of the term “disingenuous” as being terribly uncivil. It was directed more toward the Church leadership than toward you. Your point that the Catholic leadership has spoken out against the war was acknowledged. Stanley simply felt that the Church could have taken more concrete steps. Your intensely personal response was over the top.

        As to the substance of arguments, the Church has threatened to withhold the sacraments from politicians who vote the wrong way on abortion. In what way is war “pro-life”? Isn’t there an opportunity to take more firm action rather than inflaming emotions by foolishly quoting the Islamophobic rantings of a Byzantine Church leader? Perhaps Brian was mistaken in detail about the religious origins of Nazism. So correct the detail. You yourself acknowledge its pagan tendencies. It certainly was anything but rational, scientific, logical or even secular. It was irrational, illogical, emotional, mythical and magical. Today’s opponents of the “reality-based community” are quite reminiscent of Hitler’s belief in “will”.

        Your sectarian crowing about the superiority of your Catholicism vs Evangelicals is duly noted, even to the extent of incivility toward Stanley, who is apparently a fellow Catholic, judging from his reference to “our honor”.

        Honey draws more flies than vinegar, Chief.

        1. Gee, Bill, can it be that I’ve actually managed the last 67 years without previously having had benefit of your incisive commentary and sensitive personal touch? If I say pretty please with sugar on it will you promise to post your e-mail address? That way I’ll be able to forward you the text of future comments for evaluation in advance of their being posted? And shame on me for ever forgetting that I’m here to please others. Maybe you can help me with this.

          John Lowell

      3. Mr. Lowell: How would you then respond to the charges raised by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in his well known book, “Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s” Your saying the ingrained anti-semitism propagated over centuries by many Protestan and Catholic church leaders had nothing to do with it?

  10. We were discussing this very issue with a pastor friend the other night. His theory is that for many U.S. Christians, the state has become Baal, and these “Christians” have literally become idolators. It made a lot of sense to me.

  11. Ba’al means husband, so maybe a metaphor for patriotism. But on the other hand the associations intended are just the product of demonized God(s) in the surviving press of a rival religion and straw man arguments aren’t a very novel invention.

    Against the background of militarism and romanticization of war in the US one should perhaps not expect religious people to be the exception to the rule. But who knows, maybe when they all are much, much older they could become innocent all-knowing catholics yet, I don’t know. Maybe mr Lowell can tell us more.

    1. “But who knows, maybe when they all are much, much older they could become innocent all-knowing catholics yet, I don’t know. Maybe mr Lowell can tell us more.”

      Only if you and they say pretty please with sugar on it, Oebe NL. I mean I had to say pretty please with sugar on it to induce Bill, above, into a way of securing his regular approval of my comments, didn’t I? Why not these folks in advance of their becoming all-knowing, innocent Catholics? But there’s one caveat, Oebe guy: You must be old enough to be Catholic; you can’t be some emotion-ravaged, college-aged bed-wetter who can’t unravel the difference between his hostility toward his parents and that toward God or the Church. We’re simply unable to arrange suitable domestic help for something like that. Maybe after a few more years you could come around again and we could take another crack at this.

      John Lowell

  12. I wrote that article for Patrick Henry, so I feel I may be qualified to comment on what was meant. :) The young men went to college here because they wanted to learn how to make a difference and help others. That is the same reason they joined the U.S. military.

    How much do y’all actually know about what is going on over in Iraq, anyway? Have you ever talked to anyone who has been over there? Do you even know what Iraq looks like?

    Maybe you should find out before you start condemning those who are risking their lives for the sake of people from an entirely different culture.

    1. Oh thank you America for completely destroying our country, our rule of law and way of life! Every day that I awaken in a nation run by corrupt tribal chieftains and overrun with gunmen, rapists and bandits, I thank Allah for America and America’s soldiers who have so graciously provided all of this to me and my fellow Iraqis! I understand and approve of brave innocent American soldiers leaving food and valuables in streets and then shooting anyone who dares pick them up. You are culling our population of undesirables, and what people don’t like being treated like subhuman cattle? Your understanding of our primitive culture is admirable. In fact, I hear that the Resistance is so grateful that they plan to disband, ASAP. Again, thank you for risking your lives for the sake of people from an entirely different culture. It’s mighty white of you, I must say!

  13. Mr. Lowell: Your academic credentials are utterly meaningless if you can with a straight face claim that the Nazis were a secular, rational state. After all, there are people teaching in American universities that beleive the earth is 6,000 years old. Or that there is a Jewish cabal that rules the world. Some of these people even have “history” degrees.

    Sarah P: Oh goodie. Another “it’s the mainstream media that makes us think the Iraq War is going badly” troll. I’m sure the residents of Fallujah, among others, are happy about the “difference” and “help” the American military are providing them! Especially given their opportunity to be proselytized by the bringers of The Truth like graduates of this Virginia Madrassa.

    It’s amazing how similar the two sides are. After all, the Taliban just wanted to help people and help their society live according to “Allah’s” laws.

    1. Brian,

      You make deprecating comments about my knowledge of the history and nature of National Socialism. I point to my academic background in the subject and ask you for yours. With nothing of your own to bring to the table in this connection, you then attempt to recover the resulting lost sense of yourself by denegrating the background to which I’d pointed. A little advice for you, chief: The next time you get your big mouth in gear make sure you can support what you have to say. Right now you’re a badly discredited waste of my time.

      John Lowell

  14. You engage in ad hominem attacks and insist that only people who have “academic credentials” can speak to these issues. This argument is piffle. If you can provide clear documentation that Naziism is a purely “secular” and “rational” belief system with no basis in arcane religious or philosophical or mythical beliefs, then have at it. They certainly used such beliefs. Of course, in your world view, the Nuremburg rallies and all the party symbols and regalia were purely secular and rational things.

  15. As someone who is not a Christian but deeply admires the teachings of Jesus, would someone with more knowledge tell me whether or not they think Jesus would ever be in favor of any war? From everything he said it seems he was all about peace and love under all circumstances. Even a defensive war involves violance, would Jesus have been in favor of it?

Comments are closed.