How to Secure Defeat

My friend and I were discussing this and that over a cup of coffee the other day and the subject of the Vietnam War came up. He wondered if Vietnam was somehow prophetic of today's Church.

"What?" you say. "In what possible sense is Vietnam related to the Church?!" I can even detect a little indignation in your question. So let's examine the idea for a moment. There is a lot that can be said about that conflict, but the most obvious one is ... we lost. It was the first major conflict that the American military entered and lost. I know, I know, there are those who argue, "We didn't lose!", but we withdrew and South Vietnam fell and we failed to meet our objective, so that's a "lose". The question, though, is why?

There are two basic reasons that America lost in South Vietnam. Those reasons do not include a lack of ability, a lack of resources, a lack of firepower, a lack of skill or experience, or any such thing. No, it was something else. The first reason is a failure to comprehend the enemy. While the North Vietnamese fought to free their southern brethren, Americans fought to defend freedom, some vague concept never really made clear. The battle was against "the domino effect", the belief that one nation falling to communism would cause others to go with it. That's a vague concept for soldiers to fight for in the field. The Viet Cong were able to move into the midst of the Americans, infiltrating, sabotaging, surprising. Devoted Vietnamese (devoted to nationalism) would give a child a grenade and send them into the midst of American soldiers bringing a horribly efficient means of killing groups of men. While the American military thought they were fighting a poorly equipped, poorly organized, rag-tag enemy, it turned out they were devastatingly well organized and capable. The problem, then, was an underestimation of the enemy, allowing them to end up in our midst.

The second problem was the biggest. It showed itself in a couple of ways. On one hand, the military leadership fought a "limited war". Targets were selected and ignored. Choices were made for political reasons as much as military reasons. Strategic targets were banned while nonsense targets were hit. Avoiding civilian casualties was a big priority, even if it meant leaving alone some of the most important targets of all. The military leadership, then, tied the hands of their own forces to prosecute the war. The leadership, however, was itself bound by the American government and its people. While the hundreds of thousands of deaths in World War II were "tragic but necessary", any death in Vietnam was too much. The American politicians and American people lacked the will to carry out this war. Part of this was because of the limitations on the military. In Korea Allied forces pushed all the way to China's border before being pushed back, but in South Vietnam no such initiative was allowed. It was a long, cold, "stand your ground" war with no sense of purpose, no sense of success, and no hope for a positive outcome. This second problem, then, was the lack of will both on the part of the military and on the part of Americans. Nothing will lose a war faster than that.

Okay, so how does any of this relate to the Church? First, the Bible is quite clear that we are not at peace. We are at war. Paul's famous passage on "the armor of God" isn't vague.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm" (Eph 6:10-13).

We are at war. It's not against flesh and blood. It's against spiritual forces of wickedness. Of that we should be certain. But ... we're not, it seems. In so much of today's church, we're not really at war at all. The enemy is often political correctness or the fear of offending people with the Gospel. We want to entertain rather than convict. We don't want to be judgmental or intolerant. And we give ground in areas we can't afford to surrender because, well, we have underestimated the enemy. So they are able to slip into our very inner circle. They hang a badge on their uniform -- "Christian" -- and if you even question it you're being mean. How dare you question another's salvation?!! That's just wrong! And they sit in our midst and blow us apart from within because we don't even know the difference between the enemy and an ally.

Worse, much of the church today lacks the will to fight. We surrendered our political voice in the 1950's with the 501(c)(3) concept when the government bought our silence. But, truthfully, political silence is small compared to the unwillingness so many have today on matters of much more importance. Now it's considered bad form to call sin sin. People don't want to hear lengthy sermons on the Bible, so we are trying to make preaching "more applicable", "more relevant". Oh, and by all means keep it short. Look, in fact, if we can leave off the term "sin" from our sharing of the Gospel and set aside any real hard work like, you know, discipleship or the like, it will be so much easier to get people in ... won't it? We lack the will to fight.

America was crippled because it fought a defensive war with no apparent victory in sight. We are commanded as believers to "stand firm", and our victory, while sure, isn't apparent either. Many lack the will to stand firm and many don't even recognize the enemy, his tactics, or how dangerous he really is. You know, I thought my friend was on a tangent with his "Was Vietnam somehow a prophecy about the Church?" question, but I can begin to see where he was going with that ... and it's not pretty.