Quentin, I was interested to note how many of the Hebrew Bible passages quoted in the documents turned out not to really be glorifying warfare.

I see the distinction you’re making, but I think that distinction frequently gets conflated. Certainly it did in the Iraq invasion: the rhetoric turned an aggressive act of war into a defensive necessity against a threatening evil. And the rhetoric works the other way: a “necessary” war, even one of defense, is easily spun into a crusade of sorts: a moral, righteous obligation (even sanctioned by God). Perhaps I’m too much the pacifist, but I see the “Just War” and the “Crusade” as negligibly different.

But perhaps I didn’t convey this right in the piece. It’ll run again Monday in Killing the Buddha – perhaps I’ll revise somewhat for that. Any more suggestions are most welcome.

I think there’s one problem in expecting Christians to denounce this sort of “pious” warmongering. Don’t most Christian denominations in America accept some form of Just War Theory? Certainly it appears that large numbers of Christians in America are willing to support warfare. So while many Christians may be appalled that such obvious and specific warmongering, most American Christians don’t reject the very idea of war; most see fighting/supporting war as an acceptable part of a righteous life, or, if you prefer, see war as allowed and occasionally supported by a Christian God. And that may make these uses of scripture less disgusting to a “Just War” Christian than they are to me (and I presume from your writing, to you).

For Christians who do embrace an ethic of radical nonviolence, of course, the manipulation of scripture in this way is appalling. But “moderate” Christians aren’t necessarily anti-war Christians. I’m also appalled by some of the ways in which I see moderate Christianity sanctifying (or at least tacitly condoning support for) warfare.