The Cross and the Sword
Islam is often criticized for being a religion of the sword. Though there may be a good deal of truth to this, it has in recent years become a caricature that Zionist preachers, neo-cons, Judaics, and globalists use to cajole the American goyim into thinking that Islam poses a grave threat to civilization as we know it.
Since 9-11, the intensive propaganda against Islam has reached a new level of insanity. Some are now asserting that “we” (meaning the United States and its allies) must fight fire with fire. “We” Judeo-Christians must destroy the Muslim world through military might. Only then will civilization be safe for the spreading of the good news.
One Kultur leader puts it this way:
“To argue for the military defeat of radical Islam by the United States and its allies is to argue for political liberty within which all peaceful religions may evangelize. Christianity has nothing to fear from such an equitable arrangement. We have the power of the Holy Spirit. We should therefore advocate crushing military victories on the battlefield and crushing evangelizing victories in the culture.” (Italics and bold type his.)
In other words, to counter the crescent and the sword, we must advocate a more aggressive Christianity. Military conquest and Judeo-Christian missionary success go hand in hand. The cross itself must be augmented by the sword (along with a little help from the Magen David).
To be fair, the writer does not equate evangelism and violence. He seems rather to view military violence as a form of “pre-evangelism.” Smart bombs, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and mercs from Blackwater are needed to sow the fields that missionaries can later harvest.
There are many absurdities with this. For one, the writer seems to think that the United States and its allies are something like Christian nations. This is laughable when one considers that the writer includes Israel as one of the “allies” – a country that has outlawed Christian proselytization of Jews.
As for political liberty, the United States and its “allies” are fast becoming police states complete with warrantless wiretaps, electronic surveillance, “free speech zones,” Departments of Homeland Security, a leader who constantly refers to himself as our Commander-in-Chief, and the acceptance of torture as a legitimate “interrogation technique.” The few political liberties that remain are hanging by the most slender of threads. To believe that the west enjoys freedoms that Islamic nations do not is fast becoming a farce. Just ask Ernst Zündel.
The grossest absurdity, though, is that the writer advocates the advancement of the kingdom of God by means of, or at least with the aid of, military aggression. For although there is a place for defensive wars in a Christian civilization, two important points are forgotten by the Kultur leader. There are no Christian civilizations extant today and, even if there were, war is not a means by which the Christian religion is to be spread. As the old hymn declares, it is not with swords loud clashing nor roll of stirring drums that the heav’nly kingdom comes.
Having gone to the “Kultur leader’s” web page from whence said quote came, I noticed this quote supporting his Neocon views:
“In a post-9-11 world, I simply cannot endorse the paleo-con option, as much as I can respect those who hold it. As the threats change, our manner of dealing with must(sic) change, too.
Waiting for military retaliation until a suitcase of biological agents wipes out 6 million U. S. citizens in an urban area is not my idea of just war theory.”
Arguments about Just War theory, as important as they are, or should be, for theonomists, never seem to get any traction with Christians in general because that theory was developed in a “pre-9/11 world.” As such they will invariably be deem antiquated, and preemption will be the only reasonable way to be defensive. If it is discovered that we theonomists hold “conspiracy” views, our arguments about how Christ’s kingdom is properly advanced will quickly be discounted. This leads me to conclude that the crying need of the hour is exposing the false flag operation perpetrated on our country on 9/11. No Christian will support the ongoing carnage once he sees how he has been duped into supporting a phony war on terror.
Comment by Doug Wood — April 14, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Doug — I’m not sure this has anything to do with “theonomy” and I’m not signing up for any label, but I follow your point.
All Christians had better have a just war theory. We’ve discussed this at length already.
And everyone has a conspiracy theory about the Eleven. It’s only a question of which conspiracy theory.
The key to becoming motivated to examine the Eleven is to ask, who were the winners?
That the Eleven creates a new paradigm for undoing Just War theory is itself an idea that the neo-cons have fobbed off on us. Consider the great coke-bottle scare a couple years later in London. They may have actually over-played their hand on that one. Notice they don’t talk about it any more.
For, if everyone holding a bottle of water or baby food is potentially a bomber, then not even a police state will suffice to keep us safe. I think they learned from that incident that they need to keep us terrified, but not so terrified that we see that they too are useless.
Comment by Tim H — April 14, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
WHere can I find this quote originally?
Comment by Jimmy LI — April 19, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Jimmy, I believe it is here.
Comment by Candyman — April 19, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Doug -
What struck me about your quote (#1) is the Kabbalistic 6 million figure. Why not 4 or 5 or 7 million?
The obvious reason is that he wants to subliminally link “Islamo-fascism” with the Nazis and the Holocaust.
Comment by MRB — April 20, 2007 @ 3:17 am
Good catch. The “6 million” quote can be found here.
Comment by Tim H — April 20, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
It’s as if when a Christian becomes a neo-con, his thinking inexorably becomes dark, tricky, full of guile.
Comment by Tim H — April 20, 2007 @ 4:01 pm