The God Of War And Peace
Sermon
Sermons On The First Readings
Series II, Cycle B
The United Methodists came out with their most recent hymnbook in 1989. Three years before that, while the hymnal committee was deciding which hymns from the previous book would be included in the new one and which would be deleted, they concluded that "Onward Christian Soldiers" should be omitted. The committee voted to delete it, feeling that the hymn was overly militaristic and thus was inconsistent with the church's goal of eradicating war and establishing world peace. The announcement of this decision, however, made in mid-May 1986, launched a great brouhaha in the church.
The reaction of many laity and clergy against the decision was very strong, so much so that the story was picked up by CBS, NBC, and ABC television news. The latter network even flew in a news crew to interview the hymnal editor. Between mid-May, when the deletion was announced, and July 1, the committee's office received over 11,000 pieces of mail, of which only 44 supported the committee's decision. So many phone calls came in about the matter that the staff was forced to make their outgoing calls on pay phones in the lobby. Many of the denomination's annual conferences meeting that June could not even proceed with their stated agendas until comment had been allowed from the floor about the action of the hymnal committee. So overwhelming was the sentiment against the deletion of that hymn that by early July, the committee, meeting in special session, reversed itself and decided to include "Onward Christian Soldiers" in the new hymnbook after all.
Afterward, when things finally settled down, the committee studied the correspondence and discovered that most of the letter-writers gave one or more of four reasons for keeping the hymn: 1) that no changes should be made in traditional hymnody; 2) that just as special interests such as ethnic hymns were taken seriously by the committee, hymns with accepted use by the majority ought to be taken seriously, also; 3) that militaristic metaphors within hymns should be construed in reference to spiritual warfare, which has a firm biblical base; and 4) that hymns using military metaphors should be retained as an affirmation that Christian duty carries an obligation toward civic duty as well.
Related to this fourth reason, the letter writers pointed out that sometimes peace can only be attained by a "just war," and that the committee's deletion of the hymn implied a dishonoring "of the memories of those who died for God and country."1
In recalling the battle over this hymn, I found myself wondering if the committee would have made the original decision to drop it if they had been working in the immediate years following the events of 9/11 rather than a few years before. I say that because those events caused many people to rethink their position on warfare. And events after 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq forced many to rethink it again. In fact, those battlegrounds ended up drawing more ongoing national attention than either New York City or Washington D.C., where the terrorist attacks had taken place.
Thinking about warfare gives us occasion to talk about one of the biblical names for God. It is not my intention to make a pronouncement on war in general or on the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular -- better minds than mine are still struggling to figure out what is best in those circumstances. But with so many of our young men and women serving in the military, thinking of God by this particular name may be a helpful way to connect with him during these times.
No single name for God is sufficient to embrace all that God is. Thus, the Bible uses many different ones, each revealing some additional aspect of God's nature.
The name I want to look at today is translated into English as "Lord of hosts." It is found in our scripture reading this morning, which tells of David, the shepherd boy, facing down the Philistine giant, Goliath, who was armed to the teeth. David said to this huge warrior, "You come to me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel...."
"Lord of hosts" is a translation of a Hebrew name for God: Yahweh-Sabaoth. Although this is a composite name, nothing is taken away from either name by the linking of it to the other. Yahweh-Sabaoth, is, first of all, fully Yahweh. The most commonly used name for God in the Bible, Yahweh by itself means something like "He is." It is usually rendered in English Bibles as LORD, spelled in all-capital letters. Yahweh is the God of Israel and the God who made the heavens and the earth.
The addition of Sabaoth takes nothing away from the name of God, but instead expands how God came to be understood. Literally, Yahweh-Sabaoth means, "He who will be armies."
The name Lord of hosts appears 235 times in the Old Testament, as well as a couple of times in the New. Significantly, the very last time God identifies himself by a name in the Old Testament -- in Malachi 4:1 and 3 -- it is as the Lord of hosts.
Who are these hosts?
¥
The angels of God are sometimes referred to as God's host (Genesis 32:2 KJV and Luke 2:13).
¥
Host also means the people of Israel (Exodus 7:4 NRSV ["company by company" = "hosts" in Hebrew] and 12:41 KJV).
¥
Host refers to creation itself (Genesis 2:1 KJV).
¥
Host refers to the heavenly bodies -- sun, moon and stars (Deuteronomy 4:19).
¥
Host refers to actual armies (Genesis 21:22 KJV; Exodus 14:4 KJV, but different Hebrew word; and Joshua 5:14 KJV).
This tells us that while Yahweh-Sabaoth is the commander-in-chief of the hosts, those hosts include not only of the army of Israel, and of angels, but also of whatever forces God chooses to use, from heaven or earth.
We point this out not to lead to some kind of praise of warfare or to suggest that in any military conflict God is on our side to the exclusion of all others. That, in fact, is the arrogant heresy of the 9/11 terrorists, who claim that God gives a heavenly reward to suicide bombers and those who in his name steer jet planes into skyscrapers. That was also the heresy of Paul Hill, the Christian minister turned killer who slaughtered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard. On the eve of his execution in Florida in 2003, he smilingly told reporters "I expect a great reward in heaven. I am looking forward to glory."2 I suspect he will find he was greatly mistaken.
No, my point is not that God is on our side, but that God is comfortable with military imagery to describe his person and activity in the world, which, in some cases, apparently includes actual warfare. One dramatic place this shows up in the Old Testament is after the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea while pursuing Israel, who had passed across on dry land. In the song of rejoicing that Moses and the people sang afterward is this line: "The Lord is a warrior" (Exodus 15:3). There would have been no successful exodus from Egyptian slavery for Israel without the fact that when he chooses, God can be a warrior.
Having said that, let's be clear that the Bible does not describe God as a warmonger. To go to war is not his preferred activity. We have only to listen to such a verse as Psalm 86:5 to understand that: "For you, O Lord, are good and forgiving, abounding in steadfast love to all who call on you." That is hardly the description of a warmonger, and the New Testament writer John could hardly identify God as "love" (1 John 4:8) if God's preference was for war.
We should also note that one of the other names for God in the Old Testament is Yahweh-Shalom -- translated as "The Lord Send Peace" in Judges (6:24). Admittedly, that name does not appear as often as Lord of hosts, but it is there.
The reality we discover in the Bible is that though God's preference and desire is for peace, he deems that it cannot ultimately be attained while sin runs in the human heart. God still reveals himself in grace, mercy, and joy, but his justice requires that sometimes he reveal himself also in judgment. In the Old Testament, at least, that judgment sometimes seemed to take the form of military actions.
What we are saying today is intended more as a Bible study than as any kind of justification of war. We cannot read far in the Old Testament without realizing that the imagery of God as warrior so permeates that testament that to overlook it would mean to discount whole sections of the Bible.
By the time we get to the New Testament, references to warfare have been spiritualized. New Testament Christians were clearly comfortable with military metaphors to describe the spiritual battle against evil. For example consider the verses from Ephesians where the Apostle Paul tells his readers to "put on the whole armor of God" (Ephesians 6:11ff). Early Christianity saw itself at war with the forces of wickedness on a spiritual plane, so there is little said about actual war in the New Testament. Nothing in the record shows either Jesus or Paul saying anything directly approving or disapproving war in general. And neither said anything one way or the other about a Christian's participation in actual wars.
In the early years of church, however, up until about A.D. 170, it appears that there were no Christians serving in the Roman army, and some of the early church leaders felt that Christianity was incompatible with military service.3 And of course, world peace has been a stated goal of the church universal ever since.
But we come back to the fact that no single name captures all that God is. If the Bible calls God Yahweh-Shalom, the Lord is peace, it also calls him Yahweh-Sabaoth, the LORD of hosts. If God's preference is for peace, he does not shun calling the forces at his command when he judges it necessary.
It is informative, I think, to realize that when the New Testament speaks of the final end of evil, it uses battlefield imagery, where evil is defeated by the forces of God, depicted as "the rider on his horse and ... his army" (Revelation 19:17-21).
We too want peace, and we want it desperately. But this is a dangerous world, and we must deal with that reality. One way to view God is as the Lord of hosts, and here's the application of that I see for today: Right now, a good number of America's sons and daughters are serving in harm's way, in dangerous places, carrying weapons, and being targeted themselves. They are there in those places because our national leadership has determined that this is what we must do at this point in time for the good of our country. It will be up to history to determine if the decision to go to war at this time was the right one. But regardless of that, those individuals serving in the military should have no hesitation in calling on God, not only for personal, spiritual help, but also for guidance, leadership, and protection. Our God is a God of peace, but he is also the Lord of hosts, the ultimate commander who knows what it is to order forces into battle.
Don't misunderstand. I am not saying that God ordains war. But I am saying that human warfare does not prevent God from hearing us when we call to him. According to the Bible, one form of leadership God gives is of a military kind.
The application for those of us not serving in the military is not to assume God is on our side to the exclusion of others, but that God commands whatever forces he chooses against the powers of evil and unrighteousness. That means that while we should work and pray as hard as we can for world peace, we can also have confidence that in the end, God will be victorious, and that ultimately, the forces of evil will be destroyed. God's kingdom will prevail.
____________
1.ÊThe details of the battle over "Onward Christian Soldiers" are from Carlton R. Young, Companion to The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), pp. 135-138.
2.Ê"Notebook," Time, September 15, 2003, p. 23.
3.ÊFor details on those early years, see T. B. Maston, Christianity and World Issues (New York: Macmillan, 1957), pp. 246-252.
The reaction of many laity and clergy against the decision was very strong, so much so that the story was picked up by CBS, NBC, and ABC television news. The latter network even flew in a news crew to interview the hymnal editor. Between mid-May, when the deletion was announced, and July 1, the committee's office received over 11,000 pieces of mail, of which only 44 supported the committee's decision. So many phone calls came in about the matter that the staff was forced to make their outgoing calls on pay phones in the lobby. Many of the denomination's annual conferences meeting that June could not even proceed with their stated agendas until comment had been allowed from the floor about the action of the hymnal committee. So overwhelming was the sentiment against the deletion of that hymn that by early July, the committee, meeting in special session, reversed itself and decided to include "Onward Christian Soldiers" in the new hymnbook after all.
Afterward, when things finally settled down, the committee studied the correspondence and discovered that most of the letter-writers gave one or more of four reasons for keeping the hymn: 1) that no changes should be made in traditional hymnody; 2) that just as special interests such as ethnic hymns were taken seriously by the committee, hymns with accepted use by the majority ought to be taken seriously, also; 3) that militaristic metaphors within hymns should be construed in reference to spiritual warfare, which has a firm biblical base; and 4) that hymns using military metaphors should be retained as an affirmation that Christian duty carries an obligation toward civic duty as well.
Related to this fourth reason, the letter writers pointed out that sometimes peace can only be attained by a "just war," and that the committee's deletion of the hymn implied a dishonoring "of the memories of those who died for God and country."1
In recalling the battle over this hymn, I found myself wondering if the committee would have made the original decision to drop it if they had been working in the immediate years following the events of 9/11 rather than a few years before. I say that because those events caused many people to rethink their position on warfare. And events after 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq forced many to rethink it again. In fact, those battlegrounds ended up drawing more ongoing national attention than either New York City or Washington D.C., where the terrorist attacks had taken place.
Thinking about warfare gives us occasion to talk about one of the biblical names for God. It is not my intention to make a pronouncement on war in general or on the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular -- better minds than mine are still struggling to figure out what is best in those circumstances. But with so many of our young men and women serving in the military, thinking of God by this particular name may be a helpful way to connect with him during these times.
No single name for God is sufficient to embrace all that God is. Thus, the Bible uses many different ones, each revealing some additional aspect of God's nature.
The name I want to look at today is translated into English as "Lord of hosts." It is found in our scripture reading this morning, which tells of David, the shepherd boy, facing down the Philistine giant, Goliath, who was armed to the teeth. David said to this huge warrior, "You come to me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel...."
"Lord of hosts" is a translation of a Hebrew name for God: Yahweh-Sabaoth. Although this is a composite name, nothing is taken away from either name by the linking of it to the other. Yahweh-Sabaoth, is, first of all, fully Yahweh. The most commonly used name for God in the Bible, Yahweh by itself means something like "He is." It is usually rendered in English Bibles as LORD, spelled in all-capital letters. Yahweh is the God of Israel and the God who made the heavens and the earth.
The addition of Sabaoth takes nothing away from the name of God, but instead expands how God came to be understood. Literally, Yahweh-Sabaoth means, "He who will be armies."
The name Lord of hosts appears 235 times in the Old Testament, as well as a couple of times in the New. Significantly, the very last time God identifies himself by a name in the Old Testament -- in Malachi 4:1 and 3 -- it is as the Lord of hosts.
Who are these hosts?
¥
The angels of God are sometimes referred to as God's host (Genesis 32:2 KJV and Luke 2:13).
¥
Host also means the people of Israel (Exodus 7:4 NRSV ["company by company" = "hosts" in Hebrew] and 12:41 KJV).
¥
Host refers to creation itself (Genesis 2:1 KJV).
¥
Host refers to the heavenly bodies -- sun, moon and stars (Deuteronomy 4:19).
¥
Host refers to actual armies (Genesis 21:22 KJV; Exodus 14:4 KJV, but different Hebrew word; and Joshua 5:14 KJV).
This tells us that while Yahweh-Sabaoth is the commander-in-chief of the hosts, those hosts include not only of the army of Israel, and of angels, but also of whatever forces God chooses to use, from heaven or earth.
We point this out not to lead to some kind of praise of warfare or to suggest that in any military conflict God is on our side to the exclusion of all others. That, in fact, is the arrogant heresy of the 9/11 terrorists, who claim that God gives a heavenly reward to suicide bombers and those who in his name steer jet planes into skyscrapers. That was also the heresy of Paul Hill, the Christian minister turned killer who slaughtered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard. On the eve of his execution in Florida in 2003, he smilingly told reporters "I expect a great reward in heaven. I am looking forward to glory."2 I suspect he will find he was greatly mistaken.
No, my point is not that God is on our side, but that God is comfortable with military imagery to describe his person and activity in the world, which, in some cases, apparently includes actual warfare. One dramatic place this shows up in the Old Testament is after the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea while pursuing Israel, who had passed across on dry land. In the song of rejoicing that Moses and the people sang afterward is this line: "The Lord is a warrior" (Exodus 15:3). There would have been no successful exodus from Egyptian slavery for Israel without the fact that when he chooses, God can be a warrior.
Having said that, let's be clear that the Bible does not describe God as a warmonger. To go to war is not his preferred activity. We have only to listen to such a verse as Psalm 86:5 to understand that: "For you, O Lord, are good and forgiving, abounding in steadfast love to all who call on you." That is hardly the description of a warmonger, and the New Testament writer John could hardly identify God as "love" (1 John 4:8) if God's preference was for war.
We should also note that one of the other names for God in the Old Testament is Yahweh-Shalom -- translated as "The Lord Send Peace" in Judges (6:24). Admittedly, that name does not appear as often as Lord of hosts, but it is there.
The reality we discover in the Bible is that though God's preference and desire is for peace, he deems that it cannot ultimately be attained while sin runs in the human heart. God still reveals himself in grace, mercy, and joy, but his justice requires that sometimes he reveal himself also in judgment. In the Old Testament, at least, that judgment sometimes seemed to take the form of military actions.
What we are saying today is intended more as a Bible study than as any kind of justification of war. We cannot read far in the Old Testament without realizing that the imagery of God as warrior so permeates that testament that to overlook it would mean to discount whole sections of the Bible.
By the time we get to the New Testament, references to warfare have been spiritualized. New Testament Christians were clearly comfortable with military metaphors to describe the spiritual battle against evil. For example consider the verses from Ephesians where the Apostle Paul tells his readers to "put on the whole armor of God" (Ephesians 6:11ff). Early Christianity saw itself at war with the forces of wickedness on a spiritual plane, so there is little said about actual war in the New Testament. Nothing in the record shows either Jesus or Paul saying anything directly approving or disapproving war in general. And neither said anything one way or the other about a Christian's participation in actual wars.
In the early years of church, however, up until about A.D. 170, it appears that there were no Christians serving in the Roman army, and some of the early church leaders felt that Christianity was incompatible with military service.3 And of course, world peace has been a stated goal of the church universal ever since.
But we come back to the fact that no single name captures all that God is. If the Bible calls God Yahweh-Shalom, the Lord is peace, it also calls him Yahweh-Sabaoth, the LORD of hosts. If God's preference is for peace, he does not shun calling the forces at his command when he judges it necessary.
It is informative, I think, to realize that when the New Testament speaks of the final end of evil, it uses battlefield imagery, where evil is defeated by the forces of God, depicted as "the rider on his horse and ... his army" (Revelation 19:17-21).
We too want peace, and we want it desperately. But this is a dangerous world, and we must deal with that reality. One way to view God is as the Lord of hosts, and here's the application of that I see for today: Right now, a good number of America's sons and daughters are serving in harm's way, in dangerous places, carrying weapons, and being targeted themselves. They are there in those places because our national leadership has determined that this is what we must do at this point in time for the good of our country. It will be up to history to determine if the decision to go to war at this time was the right one. But regardless of that, those individuals serving in the military should have no hesitation in calling on God, not only for personal, spiritual help, but also for guidance, leadership, and protection. Our God is a God of peace, but he is also the Lord of hosts, the ultimate commander who knows what it is to order forces into battle.
Don't misunderstand. I am not saying that God ordains war. But I am saying that human warfare does not prevent God from hearing us when we call to him. According to the Bible, one form of leadership God gives is of a military kind.
The application for those of us not serving in the military is not to assume God is on our side to the exclusion of others, but that God commands whatever forces he chooses against the powers of evil and unrighteousness. That means that while we should work and pray as hard as we can for world peace, we can also have confidence that in the end, God will be victorious, and that ultimately, the forces of evil will be destroyed. God's kingdom will prevail.
____________
1.ÊThe details of the battle over "Onward Christian Soldiers" are from Carlton R. Young, Companion to The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), pp. 135-138.
2.Ê"Notebook," Time, September 15, 2003, p. 23.
3.ÊFor details on those early years, see T. B. Maston, Christianity and World Issues (New York: Macmillan, 1957), pp. 246-252.
