On Wednesday night the UK Parliament decided to follow the logic of its position of bombing Daesh in Iraq by extending the campaign to Syria. The debate, which I was able to watch on line, had some good speeches and one outstanding one (by Hilary Benn). But it was largely conducted in secular terms, as befitted the arena. But one MP, a Church Commissioner, Caroline Spelman, did mention the Christian tradition, and it might be worth dwelling on the arguments there for a few moments.
The atrocities perpetrated by Daesh pose many challenges to Christians. In the first place they have actively persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq, and would do so elsewhere if allowed. If you turn the other cheek, they’ll slap that, whilst raping your wife and daughters. To remain inactive in the face of evil is to be complicit in it. To act in the face of it is to become complicit in the deaths of others than the evil-doers. This is the challenge the West faced in the late 1930s, and yet few chose to act. Britain and France did in 1939 when faced with evidence of Hitler’s intentions which could not be denied; the USA did so, like the USSR, when kicked into it by attacks on them. But here, as it the Cold War, we were facing States, and the international system long ago worked out ways of dealing with such things. Since 9/11 we have faced non-State actors whom we call terrorists. But if we think these folk are terrorists in the way the IRA were, then we err. The IRA had political demands about which negotiations were possible, and, once the bombers came to the conclusion they could not get their maximum demands, some in their ranks decided to settle for something less – at which point the British Government offered it to them. A few malcontents exist who don’t want it, but the majority accept it. This pattern is a well-known one, but seems inapplicable to Daesh. As far as anyone can tell, they want as Islamic Caliphate to which everyone else becomes subject; it us hard to see what compromise position exists there. Those who have recently suggested we negotiate with these folk fail to say what we should be negotiating about, or to show that Daesh wish to negotiate anything except our submission.
This suggests that violence is the only way to protect us all from ISIS. These problems of the ‘Just War’ were long ago dealt with by the Church, and it is plain that it suffices to answer the objections to the use of force. It does not answer the contingent questions which are, rightly, bothering most of us, in fact it poses some of them in a moral framework we often seem to lack. The geopolitical complexities are tremendous, but just as in the Second World War we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler, so, too, now, we shall have to hold our noses and work with Putin and Assad. That the leaders of the West appear to think there is some alternative is the real reason for the dithering. When we have finished dithering, many more will be dead, and the problem will still be there.
I don’t know whether folk here pray for their leaders, I know I often pray for the strength to bear them – but in all seriousness we need to offer prayers that they may be rightly guided. This prayer, from the old Anglican Prayer Book seems one for us all, so I commend it to us:
O ALMIGHTY God, King of all kings, and Governor of all things, whose power no creature is able to resist, to whom it belongeth justly to punish sinners, and to be merciful to them that truly repent: Save and deliver us, we humbly beseech thee, from the hands of our enemies; abate their pride, assuage their malice, and confound their devices; that we, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore from all perils, to glorify thee, who art the only giver of all victory; through the merits of thy only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
David B. Monier-Williams said:
NEO, I hope you’re not implying that the Church Commissioner suddenly came up with idea that a world wide Caliphate was what ISIS wants. This has been known from the git go. Ergo the only thing they understand is force, brutal force, unrelenting force, with no quarter given, However, we must not leave a political vacuum behind as we usually have done to our detriment.
I like the prayer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
This time it’s Geoffrey, but since I agree totally with him, I shan’t object:)
Good point, it took seventy years in Germany, and it’s likely to take longer in Syria, if we’re not willing to pay that price, we should simply ally with Russia (and Assad).
LikeLiked by 2 people
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Sorry about that Geoffrey, you and NEO are so interchangeable…LOL!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Good job this isn’t the Telegraph, the trolls would be saying we’re the same person!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gareth Thomas said:
The trolls would be saying you’re the same person and you are the Rabit. Or Eccles. Or Mundabor… etc. Ah, those were the days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
am I not? 🙂
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Well as St. Augustine put it: “It is better to wage war with hope of eternal peace than servitude without hope of liberation.” (De Civitate Dei XXI, 15)
it is strange to me, that in a world that has all but thrown Christianity into the dump, we claim there are issues of morality involved in confronting the enemy of both freedom and liberty, Christianity and sanity.
The European Union erased the old ‘nation state’ constraints on trade . . . and in so doing lost much of their ‘nation state’ security . . . for they no longer have effective borders. So now they are teetering, as the US will be soon, on obtaining a Muslim majority vote which will open the floodgates to those who would have us become part of the Caliphate. The more secular Muslims will not vote with us . . . and we fool ourselves if we think they will. The majority will vote for Sharia if given a chance. We made our bed and now we are loathe to lay in it.
Indeed war should be the last alternative but are we not there? I would argue that the secular West is more concerned with the cost of war on the economies and on their own political power than they are with the morality which they now like to preach. They have no morality outside of their own well-being. As for the rest of us . . . we were sold a bill of goods and bought in to this new world order by the gifts of bread and circuses. If they won’t take the fight to the enemy . . . then it is time for the people of the west to demand the freedom to protect themselves by arming themselves. That scares the hell of the political class. For they know that the masses can run them out of town on a rail if they get the jackboot of the government off their throats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
In any case, as some noted during the debate, which I was also privileged to watch on-line, the Syria-Iraq border is mostly a fiction held in western minds. It didn’t make a lot of sense when we drew it, and makes less now.
Still it’s a fearsome thing to take our peoples to war, but it is not the most fearsome thing, that is losing our freedom, as we inevitably will if we sit passively by. Mr. Benn did indeed give a wonderful speech, I wish our (and your) politicians would heed him.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
For might makes right,
And till they’ve seen the light,
They’ve got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.
Tom Lehrer: Send the Marines
LikeLiked by 3 people
famphillipsfrancis said:
Excellent post. Thank you, Geoffrey.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Thank you very much.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
I’m very negative about this business of bombing the Middle East. A few questions:
1) Is the number of Muslims engaged in and approving of terrorist attacks greater than or less than it was before the American and British campaigns against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?
2) Has Western involvement in what is essentially Muslim civil wars in the Middle East led to general improvement in life in countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Libya?
3) Has anyone seen the light and turned from their Muslim religion to faith in Christ as their personal saviour as a result of British / American military involvement in the Middle East? Is this really a good witness?
4) Is any attempt being made in the Muslim areas of Britain (and other European countries) to evangelise, spread the good news about Jesus Christ there, convicting people of their sin so that they turn to Christ as Saviour?
I honestly don’t see how these military campaigns are remotely useful and I personally believe that all Western military involvement in that part of the world has only done harm and hasn’t done any good at all. It may have helped with oil prices and the domestic economy; it hasn’t done anything to promote peace and harmony and it certainly has done nothing at all to promote ‘Christian’ values.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
So what are you suggesting? Evil s evil and if you don’t think it must be addressed then you would be speaking German.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Unlike the situation in 1939 – 45, this is basically a civil war within the Muslim world. Hitler’s attempts could not be described as a civil war. There are no ‘good’ sides in this; they are all evil. The only objective that military intervention can achieve is that we’ll find ourselves supporting one of the evil groups, which will then get the whip hand in any political settlement later, because we’re supporting them.
The military option will not change the hearts and minds of anybody in the region. After the military intervention is all over, there will still be warring factions of Muslims who don’t like each other very much, united by the fact that they follow a lie (the Muslim religion). And they’ll have an excellent excuse to blame anything that goes wrong on the Western ‘Christian’ powers.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
On ‘what do I suggest’ – as Christians, we recognise that the Muslim religion is a wrong path. Muslims do not accept that Jesus was raised from the dead and hence are on the path that leads to their own destruction.
I think that much could be done to evangelise the Muslim ‘communities’ in our own countries, bringing people to a saving knowledge of Christ – and I’m convinced that nothing (or very little) is being done in the way of missionary work in this direction.
The next revival in Britain should be when Muslims begin to understand that their own path leads to destruction and they turn to Christ. What missionary work is being done to help achieve this?
Sadly, I don’t see ‘the church’ doing very much. Admittedly, the Church of England hasn’t been Christian for some time, so it’s probably wrong to consider any part of what their representatives say as connected with ‘Christian witness’, but the last I remember was some former archbishop of Canterbury suggesting a more favourable approach to Sharia law for Muslim communities within Britain. There was nothing in what he said about the urgent need to spread the gospel to these communities and bring people to Christ.
I frankly don’t see how Western involvement in the Muslim civil wars of the Middle East and siding with one evil faction over against another, ultimately propping up an evil government (in the way America and Britain are currently doing with Saudi Arabia) is going to achieve anything at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
There’s a lot of sense in this Jock – by which, of course, I mean that it agrees with a great deal of what I think; we might both be wrong, of course, but I cannot see how anyone can imagine that this situation can be dealt with without dealing with the false religion.
I find, as I have said elsewhere here, the whole fiction of the ‘Abramic faiths’ disturbing. Either Christianity us true, or it is a tremendous and damaging lie; it cannot be true if what Judaism or what Islam teaches are true.
Our difficulties stem from the fact we have very large communities of Muslims here (I live very close to three) and they are, on the whole, closed ones.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I doubt anyone is very happy about it, and I take your points about the effects of pat policies, but we cannot rewind the clock, ISIS is there, its adherents are a threat in most Western countries, and thinking it is none of our business is easy – until bombs go off in Paris, London or somewhere else, as they will.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. but I don’t believe that bombing Syria will prevent the bombs going off in London.
No matter how many bombs go off in the Middle East and no matter who wins the Muslim civil wars there (with or without our help), the Muslim religion will still present in this country, warping the minds of its followers.
In the short term, the police know whom they should be keeping an eye on here. I note with interest the speed at which they were able to round up the perpetrators and other suspects in Paris. They must have had good information about who they were before the attacks took place. Couldn’t they have dealt with them before the attack?
In the longer term: the Muslims themselves must be coming to the conclusion that their own religion is a dead end, a path of destruction. I’d say that the situation is ripe for Christian revival.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Nor do I, but nor do I believe we can simply let this lot grow in power and influence and hope they will eat us last.
On the revival front, I have doe some work locally, and we are hindered by the attitude of the big local churches, who seem to think we should be doing everything except talk to Muslims about Jesus. I have not found individual Muslims unwilling to listen, but have found the attitude of my fellow-Christians an obstacle – it is as though they feel that there is something wrong with wanting to bring people to Jesus. I suppose as they spend much time doing the opposite, they would feel that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
What worries me more than anything else in this scandal of the Daesh (ISIS) crisis, and it is the real political and economic blind-spot in the West – is that we are condemning and bombing these terrorists while allying ourselves economically to Saudi Arabia, who are funding these demonic enemies of the West.
We have a totally illogical approach to this Middle East madness. My view is that we should cut all our ties with Saudi Arabia until they stop supporting Daesh. Kick all Saudis out of London. They are the most dangerous funders of international Islamic terrorism and the same people who spawned the demons of 9/11.
When will we wake up?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
We will wake up to the truth of Saudi Arabia when and only when we do not need their oil. That is the deep moral issue at stake here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
And until then, the Saudis’ regular policy to slice peoples’ heads off will be seen as a “cultural anomaly”, while the “barbaric deeds” of Daesh (ISIS) are costing us millions of pounds/Euros/dollars in bombs dropped into a desert, in order to register our wrath? Beautiful strategy.
Don’t get me wrong. Slaughter Daesh and use all military force following the UN resolution. Draw a distiction between Daesh barbarity and the Saudis? You are kidding? Their Wahabbi extremism is promoting every Islamic extremist out there! Get real.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Maybe, or maybe not. We in North America are self sufficient and yet we do the same thing. If I understand properly, Europe is more dependant on Russia than anybody else, and China is now the middle east’s biggest customer. And the UK doesn’t use the available and safe technology to help themselves, thus perpetuating the problem. But your point is surely valid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gareth Thomas said:
I am quite convinced that the time has come for a re-colonisation of failed states by Western powers. The present chaos doesn’t result from the drawing up of frontiers by Sykes-Picot after WW1, but results from giving the Arabs the idea of nationhood. (Thanks, Lawrence of Arabia: you should have stuck to archaeology and riding motorbikes.) It may be time to re-colonise the countries that are giving us all the trouble: that includes some Middle East countries and some in Africa. This might sound stupid but if we don’t do it, China will.
Or am I getting hopelessly reactionary in my old age? 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Problem seems to me that we never did colonise most of these places, they are ex-Ottoman messes which should probably have remained under that Empire, which at least kept its mess in house in the last century or so if its ghastly existence. The real problem, if you ask me (which no one is) is that the Crusades failed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Maybe you are, but then again, I don’t have a better idea, either. In some ways, this chaos presented itself after we blew up what remained of Sykes-Picot in the well named oughties, or perhaps naughties would be better.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gareth Thomas said:
Good point Geoffrey, we should re-start the Crusades. I vote we commission an anti-Islamist propaganda film called Monty Python and the Holy Crusades, and take it from there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Seemed to work well enough here! But if I recall aright, Gandhi said his methods would only have worked in the British Empire – the French would just have shot him!
LikeLike