When considering Remembrance Sunday, we need to look at the changing times we are living in; the public anger over the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of extremism, alongside the diminishing number of veterans from the World Wars. Some might see the annual ritual as incitement to further sacrifice, with all the fanfare and obvious military posturing designed perhaps not to remember the sacrifice of the fallen but to glorify nature of their deaths. Alternatively should call it ‘world peace day’ were we seek to condemn all war as futile and remember all those who have died as the result of conflict (Reid, 2013).
Remembrance Day has never been a homogeneous, nationally-unifying event. It has provoked a variety of responses over the last 90 years: triumphalism, reverence, anger, pacifism, celebration. And no doubt it will continue to do so, yet for many the lack of a secular presence presents a problem of the relationship between a society in which faith is increasingly privatised and a Church which claims to represent but one expression of one faith. Dan Snow in the Guardian newspaper suggested that Remembrance Sunday is implicitly religious despite the fact the ceremony generally excludes any reference to faith or God. Going on to argue that an Anglican priest presiding over a portion of the ceremony could make secular society feel neglected and unrepresented. Remembrance is an important act for our citizens, but must reflect our changing times to make it as relevant now as when it was first conceived (Snow in the Guardian, 2014)
Irrespective of the ongoing debate perhaps we should consider what these civic ceremonies, often within church walls neglect? It seems that the message of the Gospel with its message of love, peace and disavowal of violence is often left behind in the effort not to offend non-Christians. Therefore it would seem pertinent to look at our existing patterns of worship, Bible studies and prayer meetings to convey a deeper Christian approach to war and peace and to help heal those who have been affected by war and conflict.
Through our regular Sunday services leading up to Remembrance Sunday we may consider the tensions of living in world that is often brutal, violent and full of conflict, yet we proclaim Christ as the Prince of Peace (Course Notes, 2017, p86). Our sermons should offer ‘prophetic preaching’, describing a redemptive future vision which can guide us in the struggle between where should be, from where we actually find ourselves (Schlafer, 1998, p133). Christian tradition may help us to understand the relationship between Christ and the experiences of living in an all too often violent and unjust world, as at the heart of the Christian faith is the paradox of Christ’s death remembered.
In the weeks preceding Remembrance Sunday our regular Bible study group might well consider the issue of war and theology and the various stances that Christians might hold on this theme. For the majority of Christians the ‘Just War’ concept has been the default position of conflict within our society. The foundations of which date back to the Greek philosophers and advanced by Augustine in order to address moral questions about war and military service. For much of its history, just war has been set within a framework of natural law, which suggests that while war is never a good thing sometimes it is necessary to prevent a worse evil in line the consequentialist understanding of ethics (Messer, 2006, p57). We might consider ‘Justifiable War’ a better phrase to use as Thomas Aquinas distinguished between the causes and declaration of war itself, indicating the need to address two separate audiences; governments who decide the how and when to wage wars, the soldier who has to fight it. Just war theory could be a good example of a time when Christians can authentically stand alongside people of a different traditions who have arrived at the same conclusions from a different viewpoint (Brown, 2010, p208-210).
These arguments are meant to be largely utilitarianism in nature and are open for a great deal of discussion about legitimacy and proportionality especially when considered against the recent war on terror. In a war without two clearly defined armies in the midst of large civilian populations makes justification increasingly difficult. Meacher suggests that the just war theory is dead, it promised a war without sin, guilt or shame, yet we know from history past and present that this is a lie (Meagher, 2014, p129). So as Christians who must deal with the actuality of living in the real world, how should we act? Despite the official adoption of just war the Christian community has never spoken with one voice on the subject. Hauerwas rejects the idea that we should change our eschatological approach, believing that abandoning war and releasing the power of destiny to God was the only way we might see the future as God intended. Instead we, the Church are called to love our enemies as ourselves and war is incompatible with this approach, reflecting deontological reasoning that certain actions are always wrong. Again this approach is not without problems, for it could be argued that the church would not have survived two millennia from this approach. Addressing war as an ethical issue, opens up issues about our place in wider society and asks important questions about our attitude to events we cannot control or no ideal solution exists (Course Notes, 2017, p90-92).
In considering the Remembrance service we should be aware of who it is for and what it actually stands for. Perhaps it is more accurate to call it a ceremony which remembers all affected by the legacy of conflicts, and no one should be excluded, whatever their views on religion, gender or sexuality, through a means connected society of remembrance. Although it may be presided over by a cleric from the Anglican Church, it is not a Christian feast day, but a time for remembering not just those who have given their lives, but those who remain baring the scars both physically and mentally and all those who have lost their loved ones.
But what is ‘remembering’ in human and Christian terms, how do we get under the emotions of such a poignant event in order to discover and hold onto something life affirming as we recall the tragedy of war? The healing of past memories is a major concern for both the pastoral and psychological in those people traumatised by war, conflict and injustice (Barrow, 2009, page 2). Many are simply unable to forgive and forget, while their minds are overrun with dread and terror of their losses. It is today’s combat veterans who are bringing the greatest clarity to the moral cost of war. Many sense they have lost their humanity and are unable to live with the pain, resulting in them taking their own lives (Meagher, 2014, p142). Martin Luther presents us with the tension between an act and its motivation, asking the question which leads on from just war debate; is ethics about right actions or about right motivations? Which presents the dilemma between distinctly Christian ethics and secular society, in deciding if the underlying motivation is enough so that we may work towards a common goal, even if we do not share common ends. Some may feel that the task of remembering is too important a motivation to prevent practical moral support at the time of great need (Course Notes, 2017, p31-32).
So during Remembrance services clearly our churches have a duty of pastoral care to those who have suffered from the results of conflicts, but this is not really demonstrated by our acts of remembrance with the secular taking preference over the spiritual. Although as Christians we ought to hold back from turning Remembrance Sunday into something it was never intended to be, that of a religious service. Although what we should also make clear, is that God offers real peace and hope through an invitation which is open to all, in a world which increasingly is focused on the individual rather than the community.
For Christians this opens the ethical dilemma in the dialogue between the Christian and wider community, that if we speak out from the Christian tradition, do we only speak only speak to those who value our tradition or can we speak to those who do not? While Rowan Williams reminds us that the Lord’s Table is a place of welcome where Jesus opens us up to acts of hospitality and that the Eucharist offers a meal of hope (Williams, 2014, p46). This may present the idea of the church having special access to moral truth, which are only accessible though Christian methods and sources.
While contemporary Western society shares a scepticism about theology and questions the validity of any Christian approach and is seeking to further distance Remembrance Sunday away from any theological involvement. Hauerwas suggests that the contribution which Christians are called to make, is of a different kind; that of a distinctive community offering an alternative way of living together in faithfulness to a distinctive story. ‘This acted-out witness is the most important and helpful thing that the Church can offer the world’ (Hauerwas in Messer, 2006, p200).
Conflict we should remember is not the solution, it is at best a tragedy which affects not just those killed in violence. Recognising that as Christians we have a pastoral duty to those who are affected as well as remembering those who have given their lives. We should remember, so that we do not forget the horror that is war, not to run away from the grim reality, but to seek alternatives. Out of conviction of a future where peace reigns and where the power of love overcomes the love of power (Barrow, 2009, page 3).