Francois Ntone

The Kingdom of God Is Not of This World

As a reminder, the focus of this website is the kingdom of God according to Jesus.  In the prologue of his 2007 book God and Empire: Jesus against Rome, Then and Now, John Dominic Crossan draws attention to Jesus’ words to Pilate as reported in the Gospel of John: “My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36).  Crossan correctly points out that this statement affirms a fundamental incompatibility between the kingdom of God and kingdoms of men:  kingdoms of men rely on violence in order to achieve their goals, but the kingdom of God is based on the “justice of nonviolence”.  Jesus is telling Pilate that using violence, even to defend himself, is not acceptable conduct in his divine kingdom.  His divine kingdom is made up of those who follow him and behave according to his example.  There is no place for violence in it.

To Crossan, what Jesus calls “this world” includes not only the Roman empire, but civilization in general, and reliance on violence is part of the “normalcy of civilization”.  Unfortunately, such considerations apply to democracies as well, since democracies also maintain themselves through the use of violence.  Indeed, since the United States is perhaps the most noteworthy example of democracy today, it is interesting to see how Crossan’s statement is validated by today’s events.

There is no question that the rhetoric and actions of the Trump administration have led to a very polarized country.  In particular, disagreements between Democrats and Republicans in Congress on most issues are almost irreconcilable.  However, with the recent military attack carried out by his administration on a Syrian air base, Trump has earned the approval of both Republicans and Democrats who claim to be horrified by the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.  Trump’s action is praised because it is a show of force that sends a clear message to Assad that America will not tolerate his use of chemical weapons on his own people.  It is also a message to allies that they can count on the US to use its military might when necessary.  The only question that has been raised by critics is regarding the next steps in Syria and the lack of a long term strategy.

Historically, involvement in military operations overseas has been a reliable way of reviving the popularity of American presidents.  Therefore it was not all that surprising to see Trump redirect his efforts towards warfare in foreign lands, given his low poll numbers.  But it is also interesting that even the most forceful critics of the Trump administration find solace in the fact that Trump has been wise enough to surround himself with “grownups” who have the right mix of competence and experience and will do the right thing for the country.  General James Mattis is one of those grownups.  He is a retired general and an inspirational leader who earned reverence from his troops, and is known as Mad Dog Mattis.  He is known for his powerful words, which can be found by a quick search of the internet.  A few samples are provided below:

“The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.”

“Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”

That Mattis is a great military leader is probably undeniable.  But the general agreement that he has the qualities needed to be a top national leader is evidence that Crossan is right: what is normal and even admired in a democracy such as the United States is unacceptable in Jesus’ divine kingdom.  In the material that follows, I will take a further look at American military involvement overseas, as seen through the eyes of a reporter who has spent decades observing such matters.

Justifying Civilian Casualties

Allen Nairn, an award-winning investigative journalist who, for many decades, has covered the impact of US foreign policy in many countries across the globe, was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.  Discussing Trump’s attack on the Syrian air base, Nairn recognized that Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people was a “monstrous atrocity”.  But at the same time, he pointed out that Assad “routinely massacres civilians using conventional weapons”.  Trump’s intervention was merely “political theater” to make the US establishment feel good, but was not going to save any lives.  In fact, it was not even the most devastating US attack on Syria, as the US has been bombing Syria all along:

“In Syria and in Iraq, just over the recent weeks and months, U.S. air attacks have hit mosques, schools, apartment complexes, and killed many, many hundreds of civilians, so much so that the people who monitor this, like the Airwars group, have estimated that the U.S. has now surpassed Russia in its killing of civilians by bombing raids.”

In particular, General Mattis himself gets credit for a famous massacre carried out by his forces, the Mukaradeeb wedding massacre.  Regarding the killing of civilians, the US insists on proclaiming its moral superiority in comparison to others such as Russia, ISIS or Assad.  The rationale is that the US does not intentionally target civilians.  Civilians are killed by accident because they happened to be at an ISIS target, or because they were used by ISIS as human shields.  Actually, Nairn explains that the Pentagon does calculations to estimate the potential number of civilian casualties.  If the number happens to be around 25, the risk is judged acceptable.  This has been the accepted American position even under the Obama administration.

Now with Trump and Mattis in charge, the above criterion no longer applies: military operations are no longer subjected to scrutiny on the basis of an acceptable number of civilian casualties.  Nairn explains that while the Obama administration had lawyers who would make an assessment on the legality of a military strike, Trump has given freedom to his military officers who are no longer bound by the fear of killing too many civilians.

Perhaps Trump’s military officers have been taking advantage of their new freedom and are now experimenting with weapons they could not use before.  Their recent use of the so-called Mother of all Bombs in Afghanistan generated much excitement and no significant criticism.

Nairn contrasts the standards used by the US military in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to the standards used domestically by law enforcement officers:

“Well, think of domestic police procedure. Let’s say there’s a hostage situation, there’s a criminal. They’ve just robbed a store, and they’ve grabbed the store clerk, and they’re holding them, and they’re holding a gun to the clerk’s head. Well, what do the police do? They don’t—they’re not supposed to throw a grenade and kill both the criminal and the hostage. They’re supposed to seek a way that will allow the hostage to go free. But what the U.S. military doctrine does is precisely the opposite. They say, “Oh, well, yeah, all these civilians died, but it wasn’t our fault, because they were being used as human shields by our targets.”

Of course, back in the days of George W Bush’s administration, Donald Rumsfeld had made the argument that the thousands of Iraqis who died were mere collateral damage, a notion that has enraged Muslims.  And today, Trump may not even have the most extreme doctrine on this matter among the Republican leadership, as we recall that Ted Cruz was promising to carpet bomb Syria if he became president, in order to defeat ISIS.  Doesn’t all this give a credible excuse to countries such as North Korea which claim that they must have nuclear weapons as a deterrent against their enemies?

Military Operations in Yemen

Amy Goodman pointed out that shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the US Navy Seal conducted a strike in Yemen.  About 25 civilians, including many children, were killed.  The event happened to be publicized in the US because a Navy Seal was killed.  The Navy Seal’s father, William Owens, later refused to meet Trump and criticized the raid, asking why it had to be carried out at that particular time, so early into the Trump’s presidency.

Nairn explained that the strike was part of a broader war conducted by Saudi Arabia, with a great deal of American military support, against the Houthi armed rebels in Yemen.  In this war, the Saudis have not shied away from targeting civilians.  In fact, the US had to admonish the Saudis and withdraw some of its aid after one particular operation that resulted in a massacre on a funeral gathering.  But now with the Trump administration, “again, it’s full speed ahead with assaults on civilian targets by the Saudis in—in Yemen.”

One of Nairn’s observations is the fact that both conservatives and liberals in the US feel that the use of force in order to support allies such as the Saudis and other Gulf states is always a good idea.  There is often criticism of an administration that disappoints the allies by being too soft.  Such an administration is said to lack credibility.

But Nairn also pointed out another reason why US presidents are inclined to use their military power:

“As to why Trump authorized it in that way, I think a very important motivating factor, that is really underestimated by people, especially scholars, is the extent to which, when you have power, when you’re the king, a lot of the motivation for violence, for war, it’s not just interest. A lot of the motivation is fun, is thrill, is getting a charge out of ordering violence, and thrilling the public, exciting the courtiers around you, exciting the press around you. The recent reaction to the Syria attack is a very good example of that. I think to really understand how big powers operate, when it comes to going out and killing people, I mean, don’t just study their concrete interests, like, you know, mineral exports and geopolitics. Also study Shakespeare. Study the whims of kings, because that’s what a lot of it is about.”

Both Goodman and Nairn recalled that Hillary Clinton made, before the  strike on the Syrian air field, a statement that clearly indicated that she would have ordered the strike if she had been president.  On such matters, the left and the right are in agreement.  Can we find a better illustration of Crossan’s assumption that violence is part of the normalcy of civilization?  Isn’t America a democracy, the best that civilization has to offer?  To that, Jesus says: “My kingdom is not of this world.”  This does not mean that his kingdom is in heaven and cannot be on earth.  Obviously all Christians say the Lord’s Prayer: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  Do Christians say those words like robots, without really taking them seriously?  If the answer is yes, then they should find a different name for their religion.