The Case for Flagless Churches

Many attend church week after week and never pause to reflect on the presence of a flag in the sanctuary.  Or singing “America, the Beautiful” on the Sunday after Independence Day.  Or a bulletin insert decorated with the stars and stripes.  I know that I didn’t for years.  These things were just as normal as donuts and coffee after Sunday School.  And yet, pausing and reflecting is something we must do because what we do on Sunday mornings matters.  Everything we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste (don’t forget communion!) in worship communicates.  These things orient our lives to eternal truths.   And by placing a flag in the podium we are, aware of it or not, participating in what sociologists call “civil religion.”  It’s a term I didn’t learn until seminary, but once I learned it, I began to see it at every turn.

Rob Hewell, author of Worship Beyond Nationalism, describes “civil religion” in this way:  “Civil religion develops as a nation-state seeks validation from the church or prevailing religious order for its establishment, protection, sustenance and ambitions.  It propagates itself through a cross-pollination of the stories, symbols and celebrations of the church and nation-state.”  In short, it is mixing patriotism with worship.  And it is ubiquitous in American churches.

The American flag did not appear in churches until World War I.  Why?  The simple answer is that a wave of patriotism always sweeps through a nation during times of war.  The tremendous cost and horror of “The Great War” united Americans and motivated them to display the flag in church.  The church felt the need to validate the nation and its agenda.  This was a lamentable change and it needs to be reversed.

When I was an English teacher in China, I had the opportunity to attend the officially state-sanctioned “three-self” church.  It caught me off guard when I entered the sanctuary and saw, next to the cross, a large Chinese flag hanging from the wall.  The juxtaposition angered me:  One was the symbol of peace, forgiveness, and salvation; the other was a symbol of communist, one-party rule; forced abortions; millions starved under the Great Leap Forward; repressed speech and freedom during the Cultural Revolution; and ongoing threats against political dissidents.  Why would Chinese Christians consent to displaying such a symbol next to the cross of Christ? 

But not so fast.  We do it too. 

Now I’m not equating the American government with the Chinese government.  Just hear me out.  Think about what the American flag symbolizes to different people groups.  To Native Americans, it means exile, dispossession of land, blankets infected with smallpox, rape, murder, Wounded Knee, and the Trail of Tears.  To African Americans, it means a history of slavery, broken families, Jim Crow, and burning crosses.   To my Iraqi neighbors, it is a symbol of military might, war, and national upheaval.  To the Japanese, it is a reminder of two of the worst days in human history, when thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians were instantly incinerated.  To Latin Americans, it is the emblem of a nation that funded bloodthirsty regimes in the 1980s.  I could go on.

Of course America and its flag are not all bad.  Like all nations, America has her moments of greatness.  But we can all agree that, at best, it has a checkered past.  For those who have been served well by the present state of things, the American flag may represent many beautiful things – freedom, liberty, the American Dream.  But the church of Christ is built on a different foundation.  Whereas America – like all nation-states – is founded on military power, Jesus demonstrated self-sacrificial nonviolence.  Whereas America obsesses over security, Jesus taught us to seek first the kingdom and worry not.  Whereas Americans chase the allure of upward mobility, Jesus demonstrated a way of life where “the Son of Man has no place to rest his head.”

You see, when we mix patriotism with the Christian faith, we pervert the faith.  We turn the universal

message of Christ into something tribal.  We confuse the nonviolent ethic of Jesus with the unending power struggles of the powers and principalities.  We fall prey to the temptation that has plagued the church since 313 CE, when Constantine decided he’d been divinely chosen to establish a Christian Empire.  This unholy concoction of the original way of Jesus and the way of the world expresses itself through our worship when we sing national anthems in our services, display flags in our sanctuaries, and use salvific rhetoric in reference to our national troops rather than to God.  Civil religion takes many forms.

We who claim to ally with Christ are part of a new nation, a separate and holy people that are (or ought to be) marked by our refusal to bend the knee to the violent gods that seek to subvert our allegiance.  In this nation, our laws are different, our language is different, our narrative is different, our relationships are different, and our ruler is different.  As Christians, we pledge our allegiance to that kingdom, and that kingdom demands all.  There is no room for any other alliance that might ask us to deny our true citizenship.  In this sense, we who follow Christ are all aliens in this world.  We who set our face toward Jerusalem have no nation but God’s. 

I pledge allegiance to the Lamb of God who was slain.  The one who is worthy to open the scroll.  The one who chose to lay down his life rather than grab political power. His kingdom, unlike America or China or any other earthly nation, will never end.  His kingdom is universal.  So let’s rid ourselves of our symbols of tribalism.  There is no room for them in the unbounded nation of God.

Blessed are the Peacemakers...

I'm seriously wondering if these people read the same Bible I do. Get serious. When these people speak of "the gospel" they mean something totally foreign to my mind.

Conscientious Objector

I thought I would make this letter public since I do that sort of thing.

- Greg

**************

April 28, 2010

To the Wabash Conference of the Free Methodist Church of North America:

I am here declaring my right to register officially with the Free Methodist Church as a conscientious objector to war in accordance with the Book of Discipline Section A, Paragraph 332.3 (1995 Book of Discipline).

Briefly stated, after several years of intense study on the morality of war, I have concluded that Christ calls his followers to a nonviolent, alternative way of life which upholds the suffering cross as our example rather than military power or national flags. I believe Christians are called to resist evil, but to do so without entering into the very violence that the world condones. Many of Jesus’ teachings seem to me to be quite clear on this point, especially in his famous Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7.

I renounce the desire to control the course of history as misguided and commit myself to fidelity to God’s sovereign purposes even at the cost of my own life. We worship and imitate the Lamb Who Was Slain. On the cross, Christ redefined the meaning of “power” and revealed to us that the ultimate redemption of creation is laid on the foundation of self-giving, suffering love for the sake of the Other rather than upon retaliation.

Violence is cyclical. This has been demonstrated through all of world history and I am convinced that, among his many other missions, Christ came to teach us how to break out of the cycle of violence that has existed since Cain and Abel. Although not a professing Christian, I certainly agree with the insight of Mahatma Ghandi who said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless.” Forgiveness breaks the cycle and puts an end to it. We, as the people of God, must have such a radical trust in the power of God and his resurrection that we would rather die than participate in the violence introduced to the world through sin.

Lastly, I believe that blind patriotism and sworn oaths of loyalty to a nation-state can compromise the Christian position. The agenda of God’s kingdom does not always align itself with the agenda of the United States or any other nation. For this reason, I prefer to swear no loyalty or allegiance to my nation lest it compromise my citizenry in a sacred country – the peaceable kingdom. Hence, I would find it a violation of my moral conscience to enter into the military or even public office for fear that it could divide my loyalty and put me in a position of moral compromise.

Respectfully Submitted,

Gregory R. Coates

Gran Torino: A Profoundly Christian Movie

Warning: This post contains spoilers. If you plan to watch Gran Torino and don't want the end ruined, then read no further.

Gran Torino tells the tale of a grouchy, hardened Korean veteran whose wife has just passed away. Mad at his kids, mad at his neighbors, and mad at life, Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) gradually experiences a conversion through his relationship with the teenage Hmong brother and sister who live next door. Seeking to payback a gang of ruthless thugs for beating and raping the young Sue Lor (Ahney Her), Walt Kowalski seems set on some vintage Eastwood payback. However, the viewer is surprised to find that Walt, who has struggled with guilt his whole live over his immoral behavior during the Korean war, chooses to instead stand before the gang and allow them to shot him -- ensuring that they go to jail (since there were many eye-witnesses) and effectively ending the cycle of violence which could easily have escalated beyond control.

I found this film to be profoundly Christian in that is serves as an excellent illustration of ancient theories of atonement. As he his riddled with bullets, Walt falls to the ground in the shape of a cross -- a clear allusion to the Christ story. Whereas movies abound which venerate the substitutionary view of the atonement (e.g. Denzel Washington's Man on Fire), Gran Torino points to a much more sophisticated understanding of what exactly happened at the cross. By allowing himself to be consumed by evil rather than resisting evil with violence, Walt attains a victory much more complete than mere retaliation could have ever provided. Christ also chose to remain silent before his accusers and to "absorb" evil, thus defeating it.

Cycles of violence plague our world. Israelites kill Palestinians who kill more Israelites who kill more Palestinian. Violence begets more violence. I must confess that deep down inside I was rooting for Walt to storm the gang's lair and blow off a few heads. And yet, unlike William Wallace in Braveheart or Edmond Dantes in The Count of Monte Cristo, our hero "leaves room for God's wrath" by not seeking revenge. He stands as a model for us all who are confronted with evil. Shall we meet evil with more evil, violence with more violence, or will we walk in the footsteps of Christ and "absorb" evil, effectively opening a door to the deescalation of conflict and paving the path to peace?

I find such a theory of the atonement far more satisfying than the substitutionary view which Steve Chalk has called an example of "divine child abuse." To whom was the "debt" of the cross paid? Not to God who does not demand blood, but to the Satan which thinks it is gaining a victory but is in fact swallowing its own poison. Why did Christ die? Gran Torino and the early church fathers answer the question in this way: He died to show us how we might live. He died to bring "peace on earth and goodwill toward men." He died as a role model to all of us so that we -- humankind -- have an exit from the unending cycle of violence. He died to give us a preview of the shalom which is at the heart of God and which will one day become the Ultimate Reality. This is precisely why the apostle Paul commands us who claim to follow Jesus to "know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Philippians 3:10-11).

Sadly, too many Christians have missed the point. They need to re-read the Scriptures through the lens of non-violent opposition to evil or, failing that, to at least watch Gran Torino several times. Followers of Jesus must cease imitating William Wallace, and start imitating Walk Kowalski.

Who would have thought it? Clint Eastwood teaching us non-violence and atonement theory!

Remembering Robert McNamara

I've had a fascination with the brusque and articulate Robert McNamara since I first saw the documentary "The Fog of War" in 2004. McNamara served as Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy and LBJ administrations and, as such, was perhaps the key architect of the Vietnam War. McNamara died last week.

The reason I find him so fascinating is that he was known for being the hawk of all hawks during his time as defense secretary. He stubbornly insisted that if we were to prevent world war III from taking place, it must involve containing the spread of communism in Vietnam. For this reason, McNamara constantly advised his presidents to escalate and continue the war -- making him the icon of scorn by all anti-war advocates. Although he denies it, many believe that McNamara issued the infamous order to use Agent Orange as a chemical weapon. Those facts alone would not make him a very interesting person, but it is what happened later in his life that fascinates me.

Robert McNamara changed his opinion. In 1995 he wrote a memoir detailing his time in office and basically repenting for his role in the escalation of the Vietnam conflict. After several visits to Vietnam, he had seen the devastation of the war and became convinced that sending more and more troops would be futile -- an opinion he kept to himself until 1995. In his final days, although never embracing pacifism McNamara became a harsh critic of uninhibited war and offered the following eleven lessons that we can learn from both WWII and the Vietnam experience. These are taken from the movie "The Fog of War" and each lesson is followed by a quote by McNamara:

LESSON #1: EMPATHIZE WITH YOUR ENEMY.
"Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep us out of war. And General Curtis LeMay, whom I served under as a matter of fact in World War II, was saying 'Let's go in, let's totally destroy Cuba.'"

LESSON #2: RATIONALITY WILL NOT SAVE US.
"I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war."

LESSON #3: THERE'S SOMETHING BEYOND ONE'S SELF.
"I took more philosophy classes - particularly one in logic and one in ethics. Stress on values and something beyond one's self, and a responsibility to society."

LESSON #4: MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY.
"In that single night, we burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo: men, women, and children."

LESSON #5: PROPORTIONALITY SHOULD BE A GUIDELINE IN WAR.
"[I]n order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way. LeMay's answer would be clearly 'Yes' . . . Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve."

LESSON #6: GET THE DATA.
"I was present with the President when together we received information of that coup. I've never seen him more upset. He totally blanched. President Kennedy and I had tremendous problems with Diem, but my God, he was the authority, he was the head of state. And he was overthrown by a military coup. And Kennedy knew and I knew, that to some degree, the U.S. government was responsible for that."

LESSON #7: BELIEF AND SEEING ARE BOTH OFTEN WRONG.
"We spent ten hours that day trying to find out what in the hell had happened. At one point, the commander of the ship said, 'We're not certain of the attack.' At another point they said, 'Yes, we're absolutely positive.' And then finally late in the day, Admiral Sharp said, 'Yes, we're certain it happened.' So I reported this to Johnson, and as a result there were bombing attacks on targets in North Vietnam. Johnson said we may have to escalate, and I'm not going to do it without Congressional authority. And he put forward a resolution, the language of which gave complete authority to the President to take the nation to war: The Tonkin Gulf Resolution."

LESSON #8: BE PREPARED TO REEXAMINE YOUR REASONING.
"Were those who issued the approval to use Agent Orange: criminals? Were they committing a crime against humanity? Let's look at the law. Now what kind of law do we have that says these chemicals are acceptable for use in war and these chemicals are not. We don't have clear definitions of that kind. I never in the world would have authorized an illegal action. I'm not really sure I authorized Agent Orange. I don't remember it but it certainly occurred, the use of it occurred while I was Secretary."

LESSON #9: IN ORDER TO DO GOOD, YOU MAY HAVE TO ENGAGE IN EVIL.
"How much evil must we do in order to do good? We have certain ideals, certain responsibilities. Recognize that at times you will have to engage in evil, but minimize it."

LESSON #10: NEVER SAY NEVER.
"One of the lessons I learned early on: never say never. Never, never, never. Never say never. And secondly, never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you. And quite frankly, I follow that rule. It's a very good rule."

LESSON #11: YOU CAN'T CHANGE HUMAN NATURE
"We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What 'the fog of war' means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily."

The Stars and Stripes

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

Has anyone stopped to ask, "Why is patriotism considered to be such a virtue in our culture?" It seems so utterly arbitrary to me. I would not go out and kill others and sacrifice my life for Marion County if it got into a squabble with Hamilton County. I would not kill Cub fans in the name of glorifying the Cardinals. What right does my nation have to my allegiance any more than my city or county or skin color or language or last name? We all define ourselves by particular social boundaries and then create civil religions in order to perpetuate those boundaries. Hence, we have pep rallies at our high schools. We have mascots for our sports teams. And we have the star spangled banner sung in our modern day worship centers (aka Lucas Oil Stadium). But I don't want to swear loyalty and a willingness to kill for my county or my state or my sports team or my skin color or my language or any other human boundary that we create between us. What if I'd been born in Mexico? Would I be an ardent, dyed-in-the-wool, willing-to-kill-others fanatic for Mexico? I hope not. That would be stupid.

I'd really rather swear my loyalty to humanity. Are you part of the species homo sapiens? Then I'm with you! It doesn't matter to me that you have squinty eyes or talk Swahili or use the yen to buy your groceries. It doesn't matter to me if you prefer communism or socialism or capitalism or anarchy or Obamaism. I just want to be part of your team. I want to join the pro-humanity party.

As I look around to various communities/nations/states/organizations/conglomorations of people with a common shaping identity, I can't find one that fits the bill just right. I want to be part of a nation that always loves the unlovable, that always invites and never excludes, that chooses harmony over war, that woos instead of coerces, that is filled with self-giving submission to one another, that embraces freedom and justice for ALL people, that doesn't need to compromise its standards in order to maintain power, that isn't ruled by an iron fist from above and is instead ruled through humility from below, that embraces Greg Coates for who he is and seeks to transform him into something far better than he could ever dream, and that is led by a benevolent monarch. Wow. If I could find such a country, I would pledge my allegiance to it and never pledge my allegiance to any other nation or institution or group.

And I did find it. And I'll never pledge allegiance to another again.

Preferring Death over War

"A warlike people who think life is not worth living if one cannot bear arms. They prefer death to peace, others prefer death to war." - Blaise Pascal

Will historians judge America as a nation which "prefers death to peace?" I cannot help but think that they will. It is time we admit that the other nations judge us correctly -- we are a militant people who take delight in fighting our "splendid little wars."

I, for one, prefer death to war. My rationale for such a stance is rooted in the resurrection. When I see my life as a vapor, a mist and look ahead to the day when the lion and the lamb will lay down beside one another, I renounce violence in all of its forms and prefer suffering over inflicting pain on the Other.

America, you ask me to make you a god, to swear my allegiance to you and your violent ways. You demand that I demonize my enemy and desensitize my conscience. You mask the destruction of innocent children as "collateral damage." You insist on another nation's "freedom" at gunpoint. You ask me to deny my Master who taught me that death is preferable to war. You ask me to take the life of one who bears the image of our maker and call it "patriotism." You idolize those who participate in such violence as "heroes."

Well, I will not play your game. I will not allow you to define my values. I serve a different God. I will not pledge allegiance to your flag; I will pledge my allegiance to the Lamb Who Was Slain -- the One who moves the stars in the skies and makes the mountains quake.

I pledge my allegiance to unconditional, eternal shalom which was from the beginning and shall be forevermore -- the love within the Trinity which never coerces, never destroys, and always invites.

Ironman, the Modernist

Courtney and I watched Ironman last night. Fun action movie. It also got me thinking about our own sense of identity as Americans and how this is constantly reflected in our comic heros.

Americans have always perceived themselves as that lone vigilante for justice. The myth of the cowboy or Batman or Mr. Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington pervades our psyche. We are suspicious of totalitarian power and the injustice perpetuated on masses of people by the "evil" ones of the world. Interestingly, in the movie Ironman the protagonist realizes that his weapon-making business has been falling into the wrong hands and as he witnesses his own weapons being used against innocent civilians, he undergoes a sort of conversion. He decides to stop producing weapons, much to the dismay of the Powers.

But then the movie takes an interesting (and expected) turn. Our protagonist decides that he can no longer trust justice to be done by anyone... except for himself. So he creates a flying, missile-shooting, invincible metal suit for himself and, in good American fashion, goes out and kicks some arse.

This is the modernist illusion. We are the good guys; they are the bad guys. It's our moral duty to kill the bad guys so that they don't do bad things anymore. We do not trust others with power so we reluctantly take up power upon ourselves so that the "evil" ones won't rule over the "good." Such dualism, says postmodernism, is an illusion and I happen to agree. None of us are the good guys and none of us are the bad guys. And we are certainly not trustworthy with our Iron Suit. Soon we, the powerful ones, become corrupted and before we know it, we're the ones killing the women and children and calling it "collateral damage."

It wouldn't make a very good movie, but if the Ironman had been a postmodernist instead of a modernist and had allowed himself to be suspicious of all controlling metanarratives, including his own, then he wouldn't have made an Iron Suit. He would have, as Jesus said, "Put down his sword."

Ironman, a fun movie I must admit, perpetuates the myth of our own self-righteousness. When will we stop seeing everyone else as infected by power's corrupting influence except ourselves? When will we stop playing the executioner? When will we learn to trust the One who knows everyone's story perfectly and who is able to mete out justice flawlessly? When will we set aside our one-man, iron-suited vigilante ways and instead start bearing the cross?

Peeking at the Kingdom

One of my favorite preachers, Steve DeNeff, hit the nail on the head in a sermon I recently heard. I am so appreciative of his words that I want to transcribe them and share them with you:

"There is a kingdom. You've never seen it, but let me describe it to you.

There is a kingdom where the most powerful person in the room divests himself of all of his power so that all of his power resides not in himself but, like the Triune God, it rests in the people he has given it to. He is only powerful as they are powerful.

There is a kingdom where man is not measured by the things he possesses, but by the things he gives away.

There is a kingdom where truth is not pursued to accomplish an air of superiority, but where truth is a mere tool to accomplish the things in this world that God has sent us into this world to accomplish.

There is a kingdom where the most powerful person in the room, the all-transcendent God, the Holy One so awesome that if you would look at Him you would die... this person gets down and lets little children walk on his knees.

There is a kingdom where the most holy person in this room is surrounded by those who are precisely unholy."

I confess that I often loose sight of this kingdom. I am thankful to Pastor Steve for reminding me of it. Oh how Christians need to catch a glimpse of this kingdom! We would no longer insist on our rights, we would no longer fight our enemies, we would no longer buy into the upwardly mobile lies of our culture, we would no longer play purity games with one another.

Lord Jesus, I pray that you show us this alternate universe. Come, Lord Jesus, come.

A Word of Truth from Our Military

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently testified in front of congress. He made one of the most brilliant statements to ever come from a military leader and I just had to share it:

We cannot kill our way to victory.

I would just like to point out that I follow a man who said this centuries ago. In fact, he redefined victory entirely. Refusing to participate in the perpetual struggles for power in which nation-states have been participating since the dawn of time, he revealed a new power: a power which suffered and bled and forgave out of love.

I commend you Admiral Mullen. I think Jesus would tell you that you are not far from the kingdom of God.

Progressive Revelation

The following is a post that I created for my Biblical Theology of the Old Testament class which I am currently taking online. I thought I would share as these are questions for all of my blog readers as well.

-----

One of the issues I have been pondering recently is the idea of
progressive revelation. I was reminded of this issue again as I read
Christopher's H. J. Wright's article in which he points out that "some
OT exclusion laws seem to be repealed... within the OT itself (e.g.
the contrast between Isa. 56:1-8 and Deut. 23:1-8)" (286). Wright
goes on to summarize, "The point then is that we cannot fully
interpret any single text with confidence that we have 'heard the mind
of God' on the matter, until it is set in the wider light of canonical
teaching" (286).

I have always accepted the idea of progressive revelation as having
the best explanatory power when dealing with difficult (shall I say,
"offensive"?) laws in the OT. I find particularly disturbing the laws
about how physically deformed and handicapped people were not able to
enter into the temple of God. This completely contradicts my entire
understanding of the ministry of Jesus which celebrates the least and
marginalized of our world. I think the best way to understand such
offensive OT laws is to read them contextually within their culture
and as having been nullified by God's later progressive revelation.
But this is not without problems.

First, if God truly does reveal his will progressively, then why do we
have a closed canon? Do we believe that God spoke to Moses, the
prophets, Jesus, and the authors of the NT, but then after the canon
was formed and solidified that he stopped speaking? I doubt that we
believe this. But if we reject such a notion then why give more
authority to the Bible than say the writings of the Didache or the
patristics or, heck, even C. S. Lewis?

Secondly, does an acceptance of progressive revelation entail
rejecting the notion of absolute, timeless truth? For example, if it
was once declared right by God to exclude the physically handicapped
from his temple, but it is now considered wrong to exclude the
physically handicapped from his sanctuaries and temples throughout the
world, then did God's will change? Is what was once right now wrong
and once wrong now right? If so, is all morality contingent purely
upon historical-cultural location? And if that is true then do we
have any right to declare that the Bible is a more credible source for
ethics than the Quran or Bagavad-Gita or the pop psychology of Oprah?

I eagerly anticipate your responses because I honestly don't know the
answers to these questions and I think they are very important.
Thanks!

How Appropriate

I was intrigued by the following story published recently in the Wall Street Journal:

-----

Army uses giant video game as recruiting tool

Even the U.S. Army finds it needs innovative recruiting tactics. So it has developed a traveling exhibit, the Virtual Army Experience, that lets the audience climb into Humvees and Black Hawks and shoot at "genocidal indigenous forces" on a big screen.

The video game is based on one created by the Army several years ago and is considered a recruiting tool and it also gives the Army a new way to relate to the public.

Before the players can start, they need to give their contact information to an Army representative, who enters it into a database -- and they're asked if they're interested in enlisting.

-----

I would like to thank the army for proving a point that peace activists have been trying to make for years. The very first objective of any war machine is to convince the general public that our enemy is not human. We take away their faces, their voices, and their God-given imago Dei and instead label them as "genocidal indigenous forces" -- something akin to the man-eating aliens from the movie Independence Day. We conveniently neglect to mention the fact that our enemies have families and loved ones, have hobbies and interests, have favorite flavors of ice cream and favorite TV programs. Instead we make the enemy into a video game. We dehumanize and demonize them so that we don't feel so bad about killing them.

I would propose another video game. A game where you sit down with someone of another culture and learn about his family and what makes him laugh. And after a few hours of learning about this human being, seeing pictures of his kids, and sharing a drink with him, you are asked to blow his head off.

It might not be a very effective recruiting tool, but at least these young men and women who play it would know what they are signing up for.