“I’m driven with a mission from God.” God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’ And I did…”
Naabil Shaath, the Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs, attributes these words to former US President George Bush, claiming that Bush spoke them during a meeting with him in 2003. Most news agencies picked up the story at the time, and it has never been denied by the US presidential administration. Beyond the populist overtones that messages referencing religion can have, it is clear that religion is playing a major role in modern warfare. In an article published in November 2007, The Economist rightly states that “religion is seldom the casus belli[1]: indeed, in many struggles, notably the Middle East in modern times, it is amazing how long it took for religion to become a big part of the argument. But once there, it makes conflicts harder to resolve.” In this context, some of the most challenging questions we must address are: Where is God in today’s conflicts? Whose side is He on? How can we test the claims of those who say they are acting on God’s behalf?
Gott mit uns![2]
This expression, although much older, became known throughout the world after Nazi soldiers received belts inscribed with these words. The idea that God is with us left more scars in the 20th century than at any other time in history. Many historians believe that religion had been brought back to the forefront in the previous century when, during the American Civil War, both sides claimed that God was on their side. Christianity Today presents a striking statistic: “Perhaps 10 percent of all Civil War soldiers experienced conversions during the conflict.” Pastors and believers on both sides prayed for and spoke of God’s intervention in their favour. Chapels were built for soldiers, some with as many as 1,000 seats, and impressive baptisms were organised. Nevertheless, according to official figures, more than 620,000 soldiers died in this war, killed by bullets or disease—more than in all other conflicts in which American soldiers had been involved until then.
This scenario has since been repeated in all major conflicts. During the First World War, for example, religious processions were a feature of both sides. Soldiers marched “with the cross on their foreheads/For the army is Christian” ironically fighting for ideals that had nothing to do with religion or their lives. Ultimately, the political ambition and fierce stubbornness of some leaders claimed over 10 million soldiers and millions more civilians. Regarding the role of religion in this conflict, Philip Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of History at Baylor University in the United States, published the provocatively titled book The Great and Holy War: How World War I Became a Religious Crusade in 2014. In it, he states: “Religion is essential to understanding the war, why people went to war, what they hoped to achieve through war, and why they stayed at war.”[3] In his book, Jenkins quotes religious leaders from both sides who tried to reinforce the religious motivations of the conflict, as outlined by several aspects: they claimed that their soldiers were fighting against evil, that they had a special mission from God, and that they had to fulfil this sacred calling until the end.[4]
This perspective was also evident in the rhetoric of the Second World War. Once again, religious arguments were emphasised insistently, and once again, the results were catastrophic—even worse than those of the First World War—with over 70 million victims. It goes without saying that the concentration camps were not built in pagan regions forgotten by the world, but in areas with a strong Christian tradition, and the oppressors of the Jews were members of major Christian communities. Unfortunately, in general, churches preferred to protect their own members and said little or nothing against the abuses. Moreover, political leaders tried to use churches to achieve their own territorial ambitions. Gerald P. Fogarty of the University of Virginia says of Stalin that his ultimate plan was to subordinate all branches of the Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe to the authority of Moscow, creating a second Vatican.[5]
The two world wars were arguably the most significant challenges that Christianity faced in the 20th century. They did not prove the essence of Christian teachings, as some were quick to maliciously claim, but rather that mere acknowledgement in theory is useless (just as a maths test does not prove whether the subject is good or bad, but whether the students have learnt the material). Overall, the major wars of the 20th century tell us more about how people have used religion to achieve their own agendas than they do about God. Even though armies often went to war with the blessing of religious leaders, and theological arguments were used to justify horrific behaviour, this did not stem from Christian morality, but from the way in which politicians chose to exploit it for their own ends.
The passage of time has done nothing to diminish the reality of the interplay between religion and politics, or of military actions decided by political forces. In 2010, after the press discovered that American soldiers’ weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq, manufactured by Trijicon, had references to biblical texts inscribed on them, the arms company decided to stop inscribing biblical verses on weapons[6]. Regarding the relationship between religion and politics, six years later Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress—who led the religious service at President Donald Trump’s inauguration for his first term in office—said: “When I think of you, President-elect Trump, I am reminded of another great leader God chose thousands of years ago in Israel. . . Nehemiah. . . And the first step of rebuilding the nation was the building of a great wall. . . You see, God is NOT against building walls.” He then added, “He knows that God has called him to do a great work, and he’s not going to be stopped by him.”
On the opposite side of the world, at the start of 2012, a meeting of the leading religious figures in the Russian Federation unanimously declared Vladimir Putin, who was then campaigning for a third term as president, to be the country’s only hope for progress, describing his leadership as “a miracle of God”. Reuters reported that the event brought together Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Armenian, Catholic, and other Christian leaders, as well as a Buddhist lama, all of whom praised Putin’s administration and spoke out against his opponents. While it was no secret that Patriarch Kirill was a fervent supporter of his country’s leadership, the show of support from other religious leaders revealed the close relationship between religion and politics. For example, it is worth recalling Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar’s statement regarding some opposition demonstrations: “The fact that they [opposition protests] took place on Saturday suggests that it was not a Jewish business. We joked in the synagogue that it would have been better to come for a prayer on that day.” Or Mufti Ravil Gainutdin’s statement: “Muslims know you, Muslims trust you, Muslims are wishing you success.” Speaking about the missionary duty of Orthodox states towards the whole world, Patriarch Kirill of Russia stated the following: “The countries where the majority of inhabitants are Orthodox have the vocation to show the world the example of the construction of an economy and a popular government in conformity with the Christian principles and ideals.”[7] This statement further highlights the Orthodox leader’s view of the close relationship between state and church.
It is only natural to ask ourselves how Eastern governments are closer to Christian ideals than Western ones, and what would happen if people of other Christian denominations came to power in such countries. Would they tarnish these Christian ideals and principles? The fact that the Church remains silent or is indirectly involved in the country’s military conflicts suggests that this statement reveals much more than meets the eye.
Is mixing religion and politics really the ideal of Christianity? Does this development stem from Jesus Christ’s original plan, as revealed in the Bible? Or is it merely an adaptation to human tendencies and concerns, like many other practices that have become associated with Christianity over the centuries?
The Bible and the final war
Throughout history, many Christian leaders have seen themselves as part of a final war, messianically called to punish evildoers and save the righteous, in order to achieve their own political ambitions. This has caused the idea of crusades to reappear time and again, even in recent speeches. If a political leader is God’s chosen one, then he must have a mission from God. Therefore, anyone who stands against his agenda is actually standing against the One who sent him. Superimposing this pattern onto that of a war makes it seem logical that God is on the side of his chosen one, and that the idea of conflict comes from above.
However, the history of the last 2,000 years has shown us that this view can be catastrophic. While the religion of the Bible recognises that “rulers do not bear the sword for no reason” as they are “God’s servants,”[8] when their demands contradict God’s revealed principles, the believer must “obey God rather than human beings.”[9] Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever speak of military missions for Christians or of organising an army to fight for the eternal goals of the Gospel. On the contrary, they speak of turning the other cheek, being a peacemaker, and the fact that those who take up the sword will perish by it.[10]
However, there is a war that the Bible speaks of, which many consider to be a final crusade or the greatest holy war. Yes, the Bible speaks of a final war, the famous Battle of Armageddon, but the perspective that Scripture offers is radically different from that desired by some political and military leaders.
The only biblical reference to Armageddon is Revelation 16:16. It describes three demonic spirits who convince the kings of the earth to mobilise for a great battle by performing amazing signs, and this great army gathers “to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.”
This is where the controversies begin, but also the solutions. The name “Armageddon” appears to be composed of two Hebrew words: the first means “mountain,” while the second has no definitive translation. Many commentators believe that this refers to “Megiddo”[11], a place mentioned in the Old Testament, so a possible translation is “Mount Megiddo”. However, the only problem with this theory is that there is no mountain named Megiddo in Palestine; rather, there is a valley with this name. However, some interpreters see a reference here to the mountain in front of the city of Megiddo—Mount Carmel.
However, Laurenţiu Moţ, a professor of New Testament at Adventus University, states the following: “To interpret this term as referring to a specific location in the Middle East where the armies of all nations can assemble is both biblically and logically incorrect.”[12] To support this view, he points out that many of the place names in Revelation are symbolic, such as Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem. He also reiterates that there is no geographical location in the Old Testament that can be identified as Mount Megiddo.
So what is Armageddon? While the meaning of the name is difficult to determine with certainty, the event that will take place there is easier to decipher. Perhaps the most important aspect is that this war is not between a righteous nation and an unrighteous one; rather, the text suggests that the kings of the earth are united against God. The three spirits sent by Satan will convince the world’s political leaders through supernatural manifestations—an element that is in accordance with what the Bible reveals elsewhere: “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.”[13] These pseudo-servants of truth are preparing the greatest deception in history, which the Apostle Paul also refers to: the appearance of the Antichrist, who will sets himself up “in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.”[14]
Even if not all the details of this future event are clear, one thing is certain: “In the final act of deception, the Antichrist is Satan himself, who will pretend to be Christ”[15], gathering political and military leaders to fight an enemy “who is coming”, unaware that they are actually fighting Christ. Therefore, “Armageddon is the moment of the eschatological revolt of the world against God, a battle in which the false church becomes collateral damage and the true church is ‘cornered'”.[16] He likens this final war to the experience of the biblical Josiah, who, acting out of pride and without reason, becomes embroiled in a war that does not concern him and is killed at Megiddo by the Egyptians, who set out to fight against Assyria. Like Josiah’s armies, the Christian church at the end of history will become a collateral victim of a war that doesn’t concern it, having become proud and confident in its own strength and therefore gotten involved.
The war beyond the war
David Hunt recounts an incident from the Second World War that has long been overlooked by the public. Contrasting this with the Christmas Eve 1914 truce, when soldiers from the First World War emerged from the trenches to celebrate the birth of Jesus together despite being on opposing sides, the generals of the Second World War announced that any such gesture would be severely punished. However, it is said that, on Christmas Eve in December 1944, something amazing happened in a small hamlet in the Ardennes forest. Elisabeth Vinken was at home with her 12-year-old son when a strange knock at the door interrupted their peace. Two American soldiers were begging for mercy at the door, while a third, seriously wounded, lay in the snow. Despite being enemies, Elisabeth welcomed them in and began to care for the wounded man, even though she did not speak English. Suddenly, there was another knock at the door, and Elisabeth thought that more American soldiers had strayed into the area. She cheerfully went to the door, but found a corporal and three armed German soldiers outside. They wanted to come in, but she wisely told them that there were American soldiers in the house and that she did not want gunshots in her home. It was Christmas Eve. Surprisingly, the events of that evening led the corporal to ask the soldiers to leave their weapons at the door. They entered, sat down at the table with the American soldiers, and helped the wounded soldier. In the morning, all seven left without firing a single shot at each other.
This example is just a drop in the ocean. In a world where such exceptions are completely forgotten, it seems insignificant. However, it shows us that Christian symbols, and the message of God’s love can unite people in a way that nothing else can. It reveals the potential of Christian love if allowed to flourish in millions of hearts. Rather than siding with one power at the expense of another, God sides with people, loving them “with an everlasting love.”[17] The Church’s attempt to turn political leaders into messianic figures is not part of its mission, and it can easily become a form of abuse against those with different political or religious views. If we look at history, this dramatic scenario is astonishingly predictable. The Church’s mission is to exalt Christ and His principles in a manner full of love and sacrifice.[18]
Christianity has nothing to do with war and ambition for power and is all about consistency and love. God does not fight on the side of some against others; He loves everyone and wants to save everyone. He wants to save humanity from prejudice, selfishness, delusion, and death. However, there is an enemy who will ultimately declare himself to be a god and try to turn people against God and those who remain faithful to Him. In the face of this prospect, the important question is not whose side God is on, but whose side you are on. If you see events around you that seem to be leading towards conflict, decide today whose side you want to be on. How? It is written in your Bible!