Pentagon Attempts to Show that God is on our Side

Written by Byron Williams

Friday, 22 May 2009

What should we make of the reports that former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld sent cover sheets to President George W. Bush quoting biblical verses?

Though it remains unclear if Rumsfeld were actually involved or personally sent the cover sheets to the president, I find the implications troubling.

While I personally believe this practice blurs the line of separation between church and state, the contrarian response might be to suggest these were cover sheets sent directly to the president; and he’s comfortable with it, so what’s the problem?

Beyond the sectarian/secular ramifications, what I find most troubling is the subliminal message.

With an image of a tank at sunrise the quote above one cover sheet reads: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.”

With am image of a solider in Baghdad, it reads: “Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.”

And with tanks entering an Iraqi city the above caption reads: “Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith.”

The notion of using biblical justification dates back to the Roman Emperor Constantine, who embraced Christianity after he was victorious in battle in A.D. 312. In fact, Roman expansion was as responsible, if not more so, for the spread of Christianity than the efforts of any individual/group.

The cover sheets are a reminder of how the misuse of biblical text has justified some of the world’s great tragedies. There was biblical justification for the Crusades, the Holocaust, American slavery, Jim Crow segregation, Manifest Destiny, and Apartheid.

The Pentagon cover letters indicate some form of moral justification for positions already held. It is a linear and literal approach to scripture that is not burdened by context in its interpretation.

Given what we now know and the plethora of mistakes made in Iraq, we can also conclude the originators of the cover sheets were not only reading biblical scripture, void of any context to justify their predetermined objectives, but also they were not reading other theologians who may have assisted them in their understanding by offering a counter balance.

Too bad no one seemed to be reading Paul Tillich who would have reminded them that the questions are more important than the answers. My favorite theologian Reinhold Niebuhr would have been helpful, especially his cautions about the seductive way hubris blinds one from honest self-reflection; and that the choice is usually not between good and evil, but rather between evil and more evil.

Did anyone at the Pentagon read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “Cost of Discipleship?” Bonhoeffer’s distinction between “cheap grace” and “costly grace” would have undoubtedly proved helpful.

A comprehensive understanding of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas on just war theory might have also proved helpful. Given the emphasis placed on war, it doesn’t seem like there was much reading or discussion about the emphasis Jesus placed on love—a common oversight with a number of Christians—including those with power as well as those that lack it.

The bible, which is arguably the most quoted and least understood book in our history, still requires a critical approach. The failure to engage in this process condenses one to utilizing bad religion so that the ends can justify the means.

In my experience, seldom do individuals develop their position by reading biblical scripture. What tends to happen is they already hold certain positions; they use biblical text, invariably taken out of context, to justify their preconceived beliefs.

Lest we forget, Eugene “Bull” Connor, the architect of using police dogs and fire hoses during the Civil Rights Movement was also a Sunday school teacher.

The Pentagon’s biblical cover sheets are revealing because they offer the same type fundamentalist/literal biblical interpretation that has historically led to more division than inclusion.

And in the words of the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin: “Fundamentalist use the bible the way a drunk uses a lamppost—always for support and never for illumination.”