Tag Archives: war

The Gospel of Hope on Remembrance Sunday

Posted on by symonhill

On Remembrance Sunday a week ago (9th November 2025), I had the honour of preaching at Renew Inclusive Church, a Baptist church in Cambridge. They are very hospitable and made me very welcome. Below is the text of my sermon.

Although this is the text that I wrote beforehand, I deviated from the wording slightly in practice. However, the substance is the same.

The sermon followed two Bible readings:

What does the word “Remembrance” mean to you?

It seems that the meaning of the word “remembrance” isn’t quite the same as the meaning of the word “memory”. They sound like they should mean the same thing. But we use them differently. “Remembrance” isn’t just something we happen to remember. It’s something we choose to remember. And we’re used to this in Christian worship. When we take Holy Communion later, we’ll hear Jesus’ words: “Do this in remembrance of me”.

So remembrance involves choice: choosing to remember. And often, that isn’t easy. When we remember Jesus being killed, we remember a crucifixion – a human being killed. It’s not easy to think about. Sometimes, when we think about death and suffering, it is easier to forget. Or at least, it can feel easier in the moment to bury painful memories, to ignore difficult feelings, though of course that often turns out to be more difficult in the long run.

On Remembrance Sunday, we are invited to remember war. that is difficult. It is unimaginably difficult for people who have experienced war directly. Those of who have not experienced war directly, or who have only witnessed it from the margins, can be tempted to sanitise war. Instead of listening to the experiences of those who have gone through war, we may talk of honouring them – and then quickly move on.

But suffering isn’t easy to talk about. You might have experienced this if you’ve been bereaved, and well-intentioned people have – understandably – tried to say reassuring things when perhaps what you really need is someone to recognise just how terrible you feel. 

But whether we have experienced war directly, whatever we believe about the rights and wrongs of this war or that war or war generally, we all know that war is indescribably horrific. And if we are serious about remembering war, we have to face reality with honesty.

We do ourselves no favours if we pretend that remembrance is straightforward, easy or uncontroversial. Let’s have the honesty to acknowledge that remembrance is a painful – and often controversial – subject. In the first few years after World War One ended, wealthy people marked the anniversary of the Armistice on 11th November each year by holding a Victory Ball to celebrate. Veterans, struggling with poverty, demonstrated outside the Victory Balls in protest. My own great-grandfather, who fought at the Somme and won five medals in World War One, had to pawn all five of his medals after the war to feed his family. Gradually, the anniversary was marked in a more sombre way. But in 1921, veterans protested against their ongoing poverty by marching past the Cenotaph with pawn tickets pinned to their lapels instead of medals. It was an embarrassment for the government.

Remembrance continues to throw up difficult questions. What should we remember? How should we remember? Who should we remember? Many of us understandably want to remember those with whom we have a personal connection, perhaps people who we know or knew, perhaps those from our own area or who consider to have been on our own side. At the same time, let’s recognise the truth that most people who suffer in war, even most people who fight in war, have limited choice even as to which side they are on. I mentioned that my grand-grandfather fought at the Battle of the Somme. I’m very aware that if he had been born in Berlin instead of Birmingham, he would have fought on the other side at the Battle of the Somme. I’m sure many of you can think of similar examples from your own lives or your own families.

I suggest that the demands of truth, and the Gospel’s call to love our neighbour, mean that we should seek to remember victims of war of all nationalities on Remembrance Sunday. To remember the past is to learn from it. I dare say there are various views in this room about what lessons we should learn from war and about how we build peace. But the good news of Christianity is not about pretending that everything’s okay or that we have all the answers. The Gospel is not a trite reassurance. It’s about hope amidst horror. We have no business proclaiming the hope of the gospel if we do not recognise that we are broken people in a broken world, if we do not recognise the depth of the suffering into which we proclaim good news. We do not have all the answers. We look to God to guide us as we search for them.

Earlier we heard from Matthew’s Gospel, from a passage about unfathomable violence – about a massacre of children. Can any of us imagine anything more horrific? In the world today, civilians make up as much as 90% of war casualties, and the killing of children is – appallingly – not a rare event. Yet Matthew describes this horror right in the middle of the story that proclaims the hope that comes with the birth of Jesus and the failure of Herod to defeat him. Jesus brings hope amidst the horrors of violence, death and war.

I’m sure there are varied views in this room about what lessons we should learn from war, and about how we build peace. I suspect many of us do more to build peace than we realise. I have the privilege of working in a multifaith chaplaincy at Aston University in Birmingham. Every week, I see students reach across divides to build understanding with people who are different to themselves. In Welcome Week in September, I saw students of varied nationalities, faiths, personalities, cultures and sub-cultures simply start chatting, eating and playing games together in the Chaplaincy. It was just after there had been a spate of far-right protests outside accommodation for asylum-seekers, just as parts of the media were stirring up anti-migrant feelings and dividing people against each other, yet here at the grassroots in a university campus, ordinary 18-year-olds were unconsciously defying the hatemongers with their everyday reactions. In the Chaplaincy, I have sat and drunk tea with the President of the student Palestine Society and one of our university’s most pro-Israeli students, simply because they both happened to wander into the Chaplaincy at the same time. I thank God that that they did. I sometimes think our students could do a better job of sorting out the world’s problems than the politicians and diplomats. They restore my faith that God can lead “ordinary” people to achieve reconciliation and resolve differences; to build peace.

Martin Luther King spoke of two forms of peace: a “negative” peace, which is only the absence of conflict, and a “positive” peace, which involves the presence of justice. He insisted that building peace does not mean avoiding conflict. Indeed, building peace might put us in conflict with those who uphold injustice. But King encouraged people to engage in conflict nonviolently, with love for enemies and with a hope of reconciliation.

These two forms of peace – negative and positive – are very much on show in the New Testament.

The Roman Empire claimed to bring peace to the places they conquered. The Roman authorities said they offered conquered peoples “peace and security”. This supposed peace consisted of an absence of conflict. And there was no visible conflict because it was violently suppressed. With their enemies killed, there was no-one to disturb the “peace”! The apostle Paul mocked the Roman Empire’s claims about peace. In his first Letter to Thessalonian Christians, he wrote, “Just as they are saying, ‘There is peace and security’, sudden destruction will come upon them” (that’s 1st Thessalonians 5,3). To his original readers, it would have been obvious that the people saying, ‘There is peace and security’ were the Roman authorities. Paul and his readers knew that that the Empire had not brought any real peace or security.

In contrast to the fake and brutal peace of the Roman Empire, the New Testament offers us the just and lasting peace of Jesus Christ. “My peace I give to you,” says Jesus to his followers at John 14,27. “I do not give as the world gives”. This is a different peace to the imperial stifling of conflict or dissent. This is the peace demonstrated by Jesus in the nonviolent defiance of turning the other cheek. This is the peace of the upside-down Kingdom of God in which the last are first, the poor are blessed, the weak are strong and power is found in love.

Let us remember war with honesty to recognise its horrors and moral confusions. Let us remember war with humility to learn from those who have experienced it differently or more directly than us. Let us pray that God will guide us in learning as we remember, so that we may work with others to build peace – not the peace of trite reassurance, or the avoidance of conflict, or the suppression of dissent, but peace built on the justice of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus. So that as we learn from the realities of war, God will give us the hope, and show us the tools, with which to beat our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning-hooks.

The Peace of Christ or the Peace of Rome?

Posted on by symonhill

I was honoured to be asked to write about active nonviolence for Shibboleth, an excellent new Christian magazine that I heartily recommend (not just my own article!). This is my article, which appeared in Issue 2.

Jesus was executed by one of the most violent empires in history.

It is staggering just how rarely this is mentioned in churches. For centuries, we have been told that Jesus was killed by “the Jews”. Antisemitism has combined with attempts to depoliticise Jesus’ message by shifting the blame away from imperial authorities.

We cannot, however, get away from the fact that Jesus was condemned to death by Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea. The gospels present the Jewish leaders as complicit in Jesus’ death, but these were the Jewish leaders who collaborated with Roman rule and owed their position to not upsetting the Romans. They were not representative of Jews generally.

Supporters of Roman rule championed the “Pax Romana” or Peace of Rome. For them, “peace” was a euphemism for order, control or an absence of conflict. There is no conflict when all resistance is crushed. The Romans claimed to bring “peace and security” to conquered lands. “When they say ‘peace and security’, then sudden destruction will come upon them,” wrote Paul in one of his earliest letters (1 Thessalonians 5,3).

Jesus proclaimed a very different sort of peace. I suggest that to understand Jesus’ teachings, we need to recognise that he was speaking to people for whom violence was a daily reality. They included civilians abused by Roman soldiers, slaves beaten by their “owners”, women mistreated by men.

Yet many Christian discussions of the ethics of violence start from the wrong place. They focus on war between nation-states and the decisions of governments.

Of course, national wars appear in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), which contains varied attitudes to violence. Those passages that justify massacres do not in any sense point to the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Many other parts of the Hebrew Bible include prophetic condemnations of violence and oppression. At certain points, Israelite forces are reminded to rely only on God’s strength – Gideon is told to reduce the size of his army so his victory is attributed not to military power but to God’s power (Judges 7,2).

Wars between nation-states today generally involve people being ordered to fight by their governments, based on the bizarre premise that we all have more in common with our rulers than with people like us who happen to have been born on the other side of a line on a map.

But the Christ who breaks down barriers exposes the reality of violence. And it is with Jesus’ teachings that a Christian ethic must surely begin.

When Jesus’ spoke about turning the other cheek, he was speaking to people who were used to being hit.

“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek…” says Jesus (Matthew 5,39). To be hit on the right cheek (with the right hand) implies a backhanded slap. This was the way in which people disciplined supposed inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves, men backhanded their wives, employers backhanded workers.

The submissive response to being hit is not to turn the other cheek but to cower, cringe or step backwards. These are all very understandable reactions. To respond with violence is also understandable, though probably futile when the aggressor has far more power. But calmly turning the other cheek is a gesture of nonviolent defiance, potentially confusing the aggressor and tipping the balance of power, at least for a moment.

Of course it does not work in every situation. The same can be said of Jesus’ teaching to go “another mile” – which would cause trouble for Roman soldiers who were permitted to require civilians to carry their packs for only one mile (Matthew 5,41). These methods of nonviolent defiance are suggestions. Different contexts need different suggestions, with similar principles.

Jesus’ protest in the Temple is sometimes presented as inconsistent with turning the other cheek. I suggest instead that Jesus’ teachings and actions are entirely consistent. The Temple protest was disruptive but not violent (violence involves hurting people, not damaging tables). It involved the same principles of nonviolent resistance that Jesus championed in the Sermon on the Mount.

Active nonviolence is not about judging those who are driven to resist violence with violence. I cannot condemn someone who picks up a gun in a horrendous situation that I have never faced and cannot imagine. This is different to encouraging such things.

Active nonviolence is about seeking to live by a different power. This is the power of the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed, which turns notions of kingship on their head. The Kingdom is both now and not yet, a future reality that is glimpsed in the here and now in every moment that testifies to the love of God, from small moments of kindness to global campaigns against injustice.

Given its centrality in the New Testament, it is very surprising that we don’t talk more in churches about loving our enemies. Loving enemies does not mean having no enemies (how can you love your enemies if you haven’t got any?!). Nor is it a concept that can just be explained away, as with Augustine of Hippo’s tortuous argument that it is possible to love someone while killing them. Arms dealers and militarist politicians are my enemies, but I cannot kill or demonise them, nor fail to recognise my own sin and complicity in violence, if I love them in the upside-down power of the Kingdom of God.

The New Testament makes clear that living by this power – or trying to – is not about avoiding conflict. As Martin Luther King pointed out, a commitment to peace involves conflict with those who wage war. When Jesus said that he had “not come to bring peace but a sword”, he spoke about divisions within families and communities, so in that context he meant “peace” in the narrow sense of an absence of conflict (Matthew 10,34-36). The gospel involves conflict with forces of violence and injustice.

The New Testament does not teach us either to kill our enemies or to pretend that we have no enemies. Serving the Kingdom of God involves engaging in conflict with love – something that it is not possible in our own strength, but only by the subversive, transformative power of God that we see in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. This is a power that forces of violence and domination will not tolerate. That is why, as the Quaker peace campaigner Helen Steven used to put it, following Jesus “leads straight into trouble”.

Churches condemn aid cuts – and then undermine their own argument

Posted on by symonhill

I am pleased to see that the leaders of four of Britain’s biggest Christian denominations have condemned the Starmer government’s cuts to international aid.

But I am really sad to see that they have undermined their own argument with their comments about the increase in military spending that the aid cuts are going to fund. Not only have they failed to challenge the military spending increase, they have also bought into misleading militaristic myths that equate “defence” with preparations for war.

The leaders of the Church of Scotland, Methodist Church, Baptist Union of Great Britain (of which I am part) and the United Reformed Church have produced a statement that rightly condemns the aid cuts and points out some of the horrifying consequences that can be expected to follow. However, they declared:

“While there is a case to be made for increasing defence spending to support Ukraine in resisting Russian aggression, that shouldn’t come at the cost of vital humanitarian and development programmes, which play a crucial role in promoting human security around the world.“

While not quite expressing support for the military spending increase, the church leaders have explicitly stated their acceptance of an argument for doing so.

While politicians are tripping over each other in their enthusiasm for increasing military spending, few if any of them have made any attempt to explain how this will defend us. NATO’s massive military budget did not deter Putin’s vile invasion of Ukraine. Given that the combined military budget of NATO countries is much higher than Russia’s, it’s entirely unclear how increasing it further is expected to deter Putin now.

The wording of the churches’ statement implicitly accepts the notion that military spending is about deterring Russian aggression. In reality, much of the UK’s military budget is spent on supporting military aggression, such as through the provision of military training to Saudi Arabia and Israel, whose forces are killing civilians in Yemen & Palestine.

Meanwhile, the UK military is closely linked with the US military, with US troops stationed at various bases in the UK. Those troops are now Trump’s troops: they have a Commander-in-Chief who is a far-right despot. The UK government’s “independent” nuclear weapons system is in reality depending on US technology to operate. Morally, I cannot see how funding a military that is linked to Trump’s forces is any better than funding a military linked to Putin.

Most of all, I am dismayed that the church leaders undermined their criticism of aid cuts by going along with the use of “defence” as a euphemism for war and preparations for war. Five years ago, the Covid pandemic came as a deadly reminder that weapons cannot make us safe from many of the threats that humanity faces. Spending on defence should mean spending on things that keep us safe in a variety of ways and protect us from all sorts of threats: poverty, pandemics and climate change, as well as war. The aid budget is an aspect of defence.

I am pleased that church leaders pointed out the role that humanitarian programmes play in human security. However, military expenditure and aid expenditure symbolise two very different views on what security really means. These church leaders are right to condemn cuts to the aid budget, but on the wider issue of building a safer world, they are sadly sitting on the fence.

Sunak is fuelling militarism with his dangerous ‘National Service’ plan

Posted on by symonhill

If patriotism is “the last refuge of a scoundrel”, then militarism is the last desperate hope of a Prime Minister clutching at the thinnest of straws as he plummets to defeat.

Rishi Sunak’s plan to bring back so-called “National Service” might get some militarists and Daily Mail writers salivating with delight. It might even win him a few votes from right-wing hardliners tempted to vote for Reform UK.

Many of the most hardcore militarists have attacked Sunak’s government for not increasing the UK’s already massive military budget by as much as they would like. The billions that this scheme would cost would in effect mean another big rise in military spending.

But that’s far from the worst aspect of it. Eighteen-year-olds who join the armed forces for a year would be part of an institution that is exempt from basic employment laws. Armed forces personnel have no right to join trades unions or to give notice when they wish to leave. Unlike people in almost any other job, they can be imprisoned for refusing to do what their boss tells them to do. The orders that they can be required to obey include orders to kill others without reference to their own conscience.

Sunak’s proposed ”civilian” alternative to joining the armed forces would be little better. The experience of many other countries makes clear that those who choose the military option are often treated with greater esteem and have more chance when it comes to applying for jobs later.

For those who choose the civilian option, Sunak offers a weekend of “voluntary” work once a month for a year. This “voluntary” work would be compulsory. It is obvious that the concept of compulsory voluntary work makes as much sense as a square circle. While some of this work may well be beneficial to the community, it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which it is used to plug gaps in services that have resulted from government cuts and underfunding. Unpaid “volunteers” (in effect, conscripts) would be doing work that should be done by paid professional workers.   

And what of the 18-year-olds who refuse to be part of the scheme at all, as the Peace Pledge Union has today urged them to? James Cleverly said this morning that nobody will be imprisoned but that refusers will face other “sanctions“, whatever that means.

Thankfully, this ludicrous plan is unlikely to be introduced as the Tories have almost no chance of winning the general election. This does not mean that the proposal is not dangerous. It has already caused damage by making such militarist policies more mainstream.

Some years ago, the only people who talked about “bringing back national service” were right-wing pub bores and retired colonels writing angry letters to the Daily Telegraph. This has changed because of the deliberate ramping up of militarism in the last 15-20 years. In the wake of public opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, militarist politicians and their allies have introduced Armed Forces Day, the Cadet Expansion Scheme, “military ethos” projects in schools and “armed forces covenants” for local authorities and other institutions to sign.

It is this rise in everyday militarism that has brought us to a point at which a proposal to bring back conscription can be taken seriously. This Tory policy, even if it is never introduced, will further help to normalise militarist attitudes and practices in the UK.

I can only hope that the number of people who will challenge and resist the proposal will help to increase resistance to militarism as well. Everyday militarism must be met with everyday conscientious objection.

Justin Welby conflates submission to the state with the service of God

Posted on by symonhill

The Archbishop of Canterbury has used his New Year’s Day message to promote militarism and armed force even while Palestinian Christians continue to criticise his position on Gaza and Israel.

Justin Welby’s message comes only days after two Christian pacifists were arrested for pouring fake blood on the gates of Downing Street in protest at the UK government’s complicity in genocide in Gaza.

There are times when I gladly defend Justin Welby. I think he does a better job than many Archbishops of Canterbury have done – though I admit that’s a low bar. He has spoken out about poverty and the rights of refugees. Sadly, when it comes to armed force and monarchy, he is fully in tune with the values of the establishment.

Welby began his New Year message by talking about Charles Windsor’s coronation last year. He said that “our” military were at “the centre of the celebrations”.

This of course is true – monarchy has always been closely tied to militarism. However, Welby claims that the armed forces had such a major role because:

“… they, like many, many others in the country, embodied the theme of the coronation: service”.

Membership of the armed forces is often spoken of in terms of “military service”. The question that Welby did not address was who or what the armed forces are serving.

In a tweet yesterday, Welby went so far as to apparently equate military service with the sacrificial life of Jesus. He wrote:

“Going to @RAFBrizeNorton to film my New Year Message, I met servicemen and women there who embody the spirit of service, following the example of Jesus, who came ‘not to be served, but to serve’ (Matthew 20,28).”

This equation of two very different lifestyles is both outrageous and dangerous. Jesus embodied nonviolent resistance – even in the face of the brutal Roman Empire, which he mocked, challenged and resisted but did not take up arms against.

Whatever view you take of the ethics of violence, it is surely obvious that not everyone who is dedicated to “service” is serving the same person or the same thing. But early in his New Year message, Welby said:

“They [armed forces personnel] promised to be faithful, and to observe and obey all orders.. .Forces personnel are living out that oath every day.”

This is surely different to Jesus’ example of serving God and his neighbours. Members of the armed forces are obliged to obey orders given in the monarch’s name by their officers and NCOs.

However well-intentioned individual armed forces personnel may be (and I don’t doubt that many of them are), they are required to serve the state, not God or humanity. They must obey orders without reference to their own conscience or faith. Recent years have seen a string of British armed forces personnel imprisoned for refusing orders that go against their conscience. Examples include Michael Lyons, Joe Glenton and Malcolm Kendall-Smith.

I don’t for a moment claim to be a better Christian than those Christians who join the armed forces. I frequently fail to follow Jesus’ teachings, to love my neighbour as myself and to seek God’s guidance. I cannot begin to understand how seeking to follow Jesus is any way compatible with joining an organisation – any organisation – whose members are required to obey orders without question, for no authority should trump our loyalty to the Kingdom of God.

The rest of Welby’s four-and-a-half-minute message is little more than a puff piece for the UK armed forces. The archbishop rightly champions their work providing humanitarian relief, but fails to point out that this is not their central purpose or to ask why this cannot be done by a civilian force. In an outrageously misleading moment, Welby claimed that British troops are:

“…supporting civilians in the midst of conflict, in places like the Middle East”.

Welby must surely know that UK armed forces provide military training and support to the forces of countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, which are engaged in the systematic killing of civilians (in Palestine and in Yemen respectively).

Far from supporting civilians in the Middle East, the UK government’s troops are complicit in the killing of civilians in the Middle East.

Thankfully, Welby spoke about “the human cost of war”. He added:

“Jesus Christ tells us to stand with those suffering because of war, and to seek to make peace. And we trust in God, who promises peace with justice.”

I agree with Welby on that one. That’s precisely why I cannot share his enthusiasm for an organisation that does not make peace but perpetuates and justifies war.

The archbishop seems to be conflating service of God with service of the state and the monarch.

Welby’s words are likely to cause further dismay for Palestinian Christians, who have been highly critical of the failure of the leaders of many western churches – including the Church of England – to call for an immediate ceasefire and to condemn genocide in Gaza. Many church leaders have rightly condemned Hamas’ vile attack on Israeli civilians on 7 October, but have waffled or made excuses instead of condemning Israeli forces’ equally vile killing of Palestinian civilians.

Munther Isaac, a Lutheran pastor in Bethlehem, challenged church leaders internationally in his Christmas sermon, accusing them of providing “theological cover” for genocide and thus “compromising the credibility of our gospel message”. He insists that “Jesus is under the rubble in Gaza”.

Three days before Welby’s New Year message was broadcast, two British Christians were arrested in Downing Street. Virginia Moffatt and Chris Cole poured fake blood over the gates in protest against the UK government’s military and political support for Israeli forces. They were arrested.

I have been honoured to campaign alongside Virginia and Chris in the past. As it happens, they are both Catholics. They frequently act alongside other Christian pacifists from different traditions, as well as with many other war resisters of various faiths and none. If Jesus is under the rubble in Gaza, then Virginia and Chris were acting in solidarity with him.

The archbishop’s New Year message and the nonviolent action at the gates of Downing Street provide two very different examples of British Christian responses to war. I know which one of them reminds me more of Jesus and the prophets.