A Theology of War
In the past several blogs we have been exploring the writings of Dr. Elizabeth Youmans who believes that the devil is busy at work changing the definition of words. As a secularist there is much in Youmans’ writings that I find objectionable, but none more than this; she is clearly at war and she sees herself as a warrior. So, let’s see just how warlike Youmans really is. She writes…
“Words have great power for creating or destroying. God’s Word is both an offensive and a defensive weapon.”
Drop the adjectives and you have the simple truth of Youmans’ world view: God’s word is a weapon and she certainly uses it that way. She continues on her warpath.
“If we are to raise a generation of youth who are spiritually and academically equipped in the 21st century, we have need to arm ourselves with the spiritual weapons of warfare to bring down (i.e. conquer) the centuries-old strongholds in the education of youth. We have need for an educational system that restores God’s Word to the heart of education and return to being “people of the Word.” The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation waged in the classroom and in the media with words! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it! Christian leaders, teachers and parents must be alert and take action to be armed with effective weapons of warfare.”
As history has shown, in times of war there needs to be a clear distinction between US and THEM. There must be enemies and there must be allies. Youmans has allied herself with a rather small, tightly formed circle of (most likely white) evangelical nationalists. Thankfully, not all christians are motivated by Youmans’ theology of war.
Recently I discovered a book simply titled If God is Love by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. Both authors grew up in fundamental christianity, but have since reshaped their christianity to a kinder more loving version of what they learned in their youth. Mulholland’s story goes like this…
(In the church I grew up in) “…rather than teaching us about peace and reconciliation, we were recruited for the Lord’s army. Even the bible became a weapon, a sword to wield against our enemies. No one questioned hatred as an attribute of God. I grew up with a theology that defended both the violence of God and the intolerance of God’s people. Hatred, when directed at those we have judged as wicked, becomes a sign of religious devotion rather than a grievous sin. The enemy is not to be loved, but destroyed, not prayed for, but preyed upon.”
For many, religion is how we decide who to love and who to hate.
One would suppose that Youmans’ righteous angst would be aimed solely against secularists and non-believers, but that is not the case. From her own words it is clear that it’s not enough to just call yourself a christian, one must be the right kind of christian. She writes,
“There are many immature Christians on the planet! Many who say they are Christians, are not! Many are carnal Christians, operating in the flesh, not the spirit.”
Mulholland writes that in the church he grew up in “the saved were those Christians who shared his doctrinal creed. It wasn’t enough to claim you were a Christian. You had to be the “right” kind of Christian.”
For Youmans the line in the sand has been drawn, and some who call themselves christians are on the wrong side of that line. In spiritual warfare there can be no middle ground, nor neutrality. Battles must be fought and the enemy, (albeit an invisible one) must be defeated.
Choose your battles well
We’ve all heard that phrase. So what exactly is the battle Youmans has chosen? Is it to relieve the suffering of the poor? Or to battle against social injustice? Or is it to relieve human suffering at home or abroad? No, No, and No!
Unfortunately for Youmans all of the above actions are commanded in her bible.
“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to undo the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter– when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” Isaiah 58;6-7
“And the King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it (kindness) to one of these my brothers of mine, even to the least of them, you did it to me.” Matt. 25:40
“The righteous cares about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Proverbs 29:7
Youmans’ battle of choice.
So why is Youmans at war?
Youmans: If we are to raise a generation of youth who are spiritually and academically equipped in the 21st century, we have need to arm ourselves with the spiritual weapons of warfare to bring down (i.e. conquer) the centuries-old strongholds in the education of youth. We have need for an educational system that restores God’s Word to the heart of education and return to being “people of the Word.”
I sent Youmans an email and asked her if she was actually suggesting that we restore “God’s word” to public education and also what exactly does she mean by spiritual “weapons of warfare”. Was she referring to the armor of God as listed in Ephesians 6? She responded by telling me that she was praying for me, but did not have time in 2024 to answer my questions.
However, in her writings Youmans mentions Dr. Benjamin Rush who as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, believed that the Bible should be the primary textbook in the schools of the new United States of America. Never mind that it was as unconstitutional then as it is now, Youmans holds up Benjamin Rush as a hero.
Any actions Youmans might take to restore “God’s word” to public education will obviously and rightfully be opposed in court by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and also by the likes of constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel. She might not have the constitution or the law on her side, but she will surely be armed with “effective spiritual weapons of warfare”.
In addition to being unconstitutional, it’s simply just wrong for Youmans and other evangelicals to impose their religious beliefs on others. For Youmans it’s undoubtedly a righteous battle, one that she must wage in order to prove her devotion and her loyalty to her god and her religion. Nevertheless, unlike God’s repeated command to provide relief to the oppressed, I could find no command in scripture to battle an invisible enemy who is dumbing down (the English) language. Perhaps we could revise Isaiah to meet Youmans’ devotion to her battle.
Isaiah 58;6-7 Revised
“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to undo the chains of bad vocabulary and untie the cords of secular dictionaries, to set the oppressed free from secular education and break every spirit of those who questions the stories in Genesis? Is it not to share your religious beliefs with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with a bible and an American flag — when you see the naked, to tell him to get a job, and not to turn away from your evangelical brothers and sisters? (because no one else really matters)” Isaiah 58;6-7 Revised
I ended my email to Youmans with this thought. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to everyone if she focused less on weapons of warfare as found Ephesians 6 and focused more on relieving human suffering as found in the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25. I can pretty much guarantee that the Freedom of Religion Foundation would never challenge her actions if her agenda was simply to show compassion to “the least of these”. But this, as we’ve have seen, is not Youmans’ brand of christianity. She wants a fight, and it’s more noble (for her) to battle non-believers and force her religion on them than it is to feed the hungry.
I’ll end with this thought. Wouldn’t it be nice if more and more christians rejected Youmans’ theology of hate and warfare and replace it with a theology of love and compassion?
In the words of John Pavlovitz “if God is love don’t be a jerk”!
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum