It begins simply enough... A flag in the church sanctuary alongside the altar, the customary minute of silence for our fallen warriors, weeping and crying and arms raised in thanks for our freedoms, streamers and the us-vs-them of the war on terrorism. But what does all this mean for the Christian, the follower of Jesus who is called to place their loyalty to God above all other loyalties, even national and familial? It means a fundamental threat to everything our faith is about, and to the truely free practice of this faith.

Patriotism is not just something that is "outside" of Christianity... It is contrary to Christianity. Our only alleigance should be to Christ, not to some oppressive human power structure, as all human power structures are. In the early Church, Christians went to their deaths rather than pledge alleigance to Rome... Why do we suddenly think it's okay to pledge alleigances to our little Romes?

We are called to submit to the authority of human power, but not to give them our loyalty. If the laws of a nation are in agreement with Christ, there is no problem and we can go on living. As Christians, we are called to understand that everything that is good, true, and beautiful comes from God, therefore we can certainly appreciate the good, true, and beautiful things of our respective nations, knowing ultimately from Whom they come. But if our country calls us to commit acts that are grossly contrary to the way of Christ, like killing other human beings in some other country, then we should not even have a momment's hesitation to refuse and to accept the legal consequences.

Paul, in this New Testament, says that we are to obey the rules of the government, but he doesn't say we are to serve the government. We are to follow Christ and Christ alone, rendering to God what is God's (and tell me, what is not God's?), and if the government is in line with Christ's teaching, then there is no problem. But if it is not, then there is a problem, and we are to willingly go to our deaths, obeying the government's rule of law. Paul did... The man who wrote that we are to obey the government was martyred for practicing his faith.

Some will argue that we go to war so not to be martyred... So that noone should have to die for practicing their faith. Yet, I must have missed the part where we require the freedom to worship. To obey the civil authorities certainly doesn't mean murdering for some imaginary freedom we don't require. In fact, the arguement could even be made that when we stopped risking our lives to be Christian, we lost touch with what the faith means. At the very least, nothing is so completely self-defeating in one fell swoop as disobeying the teachings of Jesus so that you can have some supposed freedom to worship Him. Not only was there a time when Christians went to their deaths rather than pledge alleigance to a government, but in that same time, a Christian was excomunicated if they engaged in soldiery. But now, I have yet to encounter a church that honours those who have died freely practicing their faith. They seem to be awfully in the habit of honouring those who would kill to have a nice, air-conditioned, church building though.

So that makes murdering other human beings okay? Whatever happened to the martyr ethic? What ever happened to imitating Christ even unto death? Are we so scared of dying for Christ that we're willing to murder in spite of Him? I'm not saying anybody should have to die for their beliefs, but I'm not saying anybody should have to die to make sure we don't. At least as Christians, we're supposed to be willing to die for our faith... Who are we, who follow a Messiah who said to turn the other cheek, to volunteer other people to die for our freedoms? Where are their freedoms? Don't they count? What makes me so important that another person has to give their life for me? At least Jesus volunteered to do that out of his love and grace. Some poor Afghani kid didn't.

The funny thing is, I'm willing to die for what I believe, but I am not willing to kill for it. One may speak of the principles of their country - the freedom to worship and assemble, to speak and to think, without fear of oppression and reprisal - yet the freedom to hold to those principles has been built on the removal of those who don't agree with those principles. The advocate of war has chosen to remove the freedom to live from others so they could have the freedom to worship.

But even this "fight for freedom" is a canard... There is only one reason any war in history has ever been fought, and that is power. One country wants power, another country doesn't want to give it to them, war insues. It's not about people, or justice, or freedom, or any such bollocks. It is the monied elite of the world using rest of us as canon-fodder, literally.

A case in point is World War II. There were clear heroes and villains: the heroes are people like my grandfather, who worked to subvert the Nazi regime (his particular claim to fame was helping persecuted people escape the Holocaust). The villains are the soldiers of Axis and Allies, who raped, killed, ethnically cleased, and stole from civilians before, during, and after the war. There was so much that the soldiers' keepers could have done beforehand to prove their righteousness, like not turning the Jewish refugees away. But they didn't. There's so much they could have done afterwards, like not killing my grandfather. But they didn't. WW2 was about Hitler and Japan wanting power, and the others not wanting to give it to them. Hilarity insues. Of course, the US has it's own direct crimes like the genocidal bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, above and beyond the regular bullying that soldiers on all teams did.

But by in large, the way I see it, there are two sides in war: the soldiers and the civilians. The soldiers divide into teams and fight for the right to murder, rape, ethnically cleanse and steal from their choice of civilians. Any notion of them fighting for freedom and the moral good is complete B.S.... I've heard enough stories from civilians on boths sides, those who got shafted by the Axis and the Allies, NATO and Warsaw. Oh yeah, the Allies were there to save the Jews... After they sent back Jewish refugees.

And the weeping and crying and raising our arms in thanks to our fallen heroes? One does not win a war by dying for their country. They win a war by making some other poor soul die for his country... A soldier who died was merely a bad soldier (of course, who knows how many they killed before they were finally stopped). Is that so harsh a saying? How can I say that to those who are suffering the loss of a family-member who engaged in soldiery? Make no mistake about it, if that enemy troop didn't kill your family member, your family member would have killed him and made his family suffer. In the battle over who gets to oppress whom, families on both the solider teams suffer.

For Christian soldiers, their activities are between them and God. But overall, Jesus gave one very telling promise: the meek will inherit the earth. This earth is ultimately for the weak, the abused, the oppressed, those who die in righteousness and the way of Christ. Destiny has not promised victory for the strong, the abuser and the oppressor, the killer for the government. Soldiery is ultimately self-defeating because in becoming strong, one foreswears their inheritance.

But lets not mince words about what we're talking about here, since I'm tired of military lies and self-delusion. What is soldiery about? Where are the loyalties of even a Christian soldier? "You" are the soldier for a foreign government. That makes you my enemy. Christian or not, if your government told you to kill me, you would do it without questioning. Hell, I could be knealling down in prayer and you would put a bullet in the back of my head. You would be required to do so. I know this because this is "your" job. You are employed by the government to kill people the government tells you to kill. Doing as you are told and following orders to kill other human beings is how you make your money. Judging by e-mails I have recieved, people would do it gladly and with zeal.

But as a Christian, I follow a Higher Authority. Jesus taught me to love my enemy. That means that even as "you" storm into my house to kill me, I won't kill you. Scripture says that there is no greater love than laying down one's life for their friend, but I somehow think that simply not killing them would be a decent display as well (is it too much to ask for you to simply not kill me?). I know that you would be willing to kill me, a fellow Christian and another limb in the Body of Christ, for your government, but I would not kill you out of love for you and a desire not to see your family suffer.

That is the practice of my faith. It makes no sense to kill to practice it, because in killing, I have ceased to practice it. I am willing to die for my faith, as the Lord Himself did. I am not willing to kill for it, nor did He ask me to. This is the free practice of my faith, these are the principles I live by. A soldier would kill me for these principles, as they killed Christ and countless martyrs before me.

I am given pause to recall the Peace Prayer of St. Frances, and there is a point to be made from the final stanza:

Give up a part of the faith in one area to freely exercise it in another, and soon we lose the whole thing. The world will offer us no quarter, so let us offer no quarter to it: love freely, with impunity, even to the cross.

So yeah, to me, the choice is simple. I am a Christian, and that means I am called to something more, a higher standard than the rest of the world. I have the privilage to be a worker for healing and reconciliation in the world, the duty not to cause more pain and death. And I have the freedom to die in Christ, not afraid for myself or for others. This Christian life, I think, is actually a lot harder to live for than it is to die for... but what does it say about us if we're not even willing to die for it?