Army Chief says, 'There is life after death'

This is Chief of General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, at this week's Spring Harvest Aiming 4 Excellence Conference in Swanwick, Derbyshire, where he spoke on, 'Leaders need a spiritual dimension.' I understand the Ministry of Defence was not too impressed by Sir Richard's unabashed evangelical take on the eschatological aspect of the job he does. It took us ages yesterday to get them to comment on our story. And yet, after all, someone's got to be head of the Army. Surely, given the close daily contact with death and destruction that Army service entails as Iraq is all to sad a witness to, it's better that the person responsible for all this is someone with strong religious beliefs. Or maybe there are some who think not, Islam, Christianity and the state of the world in general. And Sir Richard has after all been pretty frank in the past in his views on Muslims.

Anyway, an insider at the Spring Harvest conference tells me the MoD were none too happy when news of what their boss had been saying, and they got into a bit of a spin over the 'spin'. There was also a q&a, which I am told was even more enlightening as to the profundity of Sir Richard's strong Christian faith, but of which I, and therefore you, are sadly not permitted to know the substance.

We got the story from the Church of England Newspaper, via its reporter Matt Cresswell. Matt is working this week in our obituaries department, appropriate I suppose given the subject of the story.

This is what Sir Richard officially said, in full: 'In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal, and I think there is very much an obligation on ...a Christian leader to include a spiritual dimension into his people's preparations for operations, and the general conduct of their lives. Qualities and core values are fine as a universally acceptable moral baseline for leadership, but the unique life, death, resurrection and promises of Christ provide that spiritual opportunity that I believe takes the privilege of leadership to another level.'

Moving on to the issue of what else a leader has to have, the General said 'What really gives the leader their authority comes down to the nature of their character and the degree of their integrity. Character defines the person – it answers the question as to whether this is someone to emulate and with what enthusiasm. Integrity establishes the moral baseline to lead. Is this someone who can be trusted? Is this someone whose instructions are honourable? Is this someone to commit to? These are all judgements for the subordinates to make.'

Finally, he said that, for him, 'The inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The example of his life, the purpose of his death and the hope that comes from his resurrection brings that special dimension to leadership and to life itself.'

The Aiming for Excellence conference, which was held from 1st -3rd October, was aimed for those working across the charitable world, and attracted 300 delegates from over 160 organisations.

Libby has also blogged it.

Comments

[Mattheus Mei]

Philip Jenkins has an interesting view on the General's brand of Christianity and what that Christianity means for Europe in this age of 'concern.' He spoke at my Alma Mater recently and I was privileged enough to hear his lecture. I even blogged on it.

(rg writes: do give us precise link, thnx)

[Barry Henderson]

Dannatt has no business promulgating specifically Christian views in a service that is supposed to serve all religions and none. He should be fired.

[Chuck Unsworth]

A fine tradition, the christian soldier. The British military have historically taken their religion(s) very seriously. They are not fanatic, but their religions sustain them in moments of extremity. I recall the moving ceremonies in the Falklands which were televised widely, and the respect paid to the dead and injured Argentines.

Sir Richard is absolutely right to comment on this and to consider the moralities of war. It's a pity that his shameful political masters do not do so.

As to MoD's hysteria, well that's par for the course. There's an increasing divide between the highly politicised Ministry and the armed forces which it is supposed to support.

[Tom Jackson]

"Dannatt has no business promulgating specifically Christian views in a service that is supposed to serve all religions and none."

Says who?

We are a Christian country, guarded and protected by a military with a long history and tradition of Christian worship. Thank God we have one leader who openly recognises and acknowledges this strengthening and supportive characteristic of our servicemen and servicewomen.

[andrew holden]

Sir Richard is both entitled to hold his views and to promulgate them to a specifically Christian audience at a Christian conference. The British Armed Services are committed to pluralism and diversity NOT, as some would like the kind of secularism that tries to turn religion into a purely private matter for one's spare time. All the major religions view faith as a 'way of life' affecting work, rest and play so privatising religion in this way is anethema to most committed believers. Chuck's got it just about right - and the same approach is still working in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The British Armed Services also have a specifically Christian (of the tolerant pluralist variety) basis which can't be unpicked until someone is prepared to tackle the Constitution of the country, the monarchy and the establishment of the Church of England. Rightly or wrongly that's the country we presently live in.

Having said that the days of Church Parades and enforced religion in the Army have almost gone. What remains is largely to do with honouring the tradition - and there is usually an opt out for the intolerant.....

[John]

Are we living in 2007 or 1907?

This is just an updated version of Onward Christian Soldiers going into Imperial wars of conquest with the tribal "god" on their side---bringing "jesus" to the heathen savages!

Please check out this Illuminated Understanding of the meaning and significance of death.

1. www.easydeathbook.com
2. www.dabase.org/dualsens.htm
3. www.dabase.org/noface.htm
4. www.adidam.org/death_and_dying/index.html

Plus a critique of the usual "jesus" idolatry.

1. www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm#idol

Altogether the author of these essays points out the usual dreadfully sane ego-"I" is infinitely godless and always at war with the Divine.
These two references describe the unspeakably dreadful politics & "culture" created in the image of inherently godless egos whether so called religious or otherwise.

1. www.dabase.org/coop+tol.htm
2. www.ispeace723.org

Plus the general is really talking about the childish emotionally primitive mommy-daddy parental "creator" god-idea---supposedley protecting his children

1. www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

[John]

If the general beieves that Cheney and Rumsfield were bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to Iraq or anywhere else I would suggest that he sit down and read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

[Tom Jackson]

"Are we living in 2007 or 1907?"

If anyone knows what John is going on about, can they enlighten me please.

[dgh]

John asks, “Are we living in 2007 or 1907?” Ah, would that it were 1907, with its low crime rate of 1 crime for every 371 people as compared to today’s 1 for every 10 (census being every decade, figures are from 1911 and 2001 respectively) and a people described by the philosopher George Santayana so: “The Englishman … disciplined, skilful and calm … the ideal comrade in a tight place; he knows how to be … well-dressed without show, and pleasure-loving without loudness.” (Soliloquies In England, 1922)

John then provides the conventional leftist version of British history (or is it the Islamist version?): “Imperial wars of conquest … bringing ‘jesus’ to the heathen savages”. If this was the case, perhaps John will kindly explain why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are not all solidly Christian. While the Ghurids under Muhammad Ghori (1162–1206) offered conversion or the sword to those they didn’t massacre or enslave, the British were instead very respectful of local customs and practices—so respectful that in tribute to the loyal muslims (mainly Indian) who had performed such sterling service to Crown and Empire for so long, we built a mosque in our very capital (London’s Regents Park Mosque opened in 1944).

John closes by suggesting that Sir Richard read a tract by left-wing author, Naomi Klein (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2131). Why on Earth should a general of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces read her, any more than he should read works by Lenin or Bukharin?

Earlier Barry Henderson wrote, “Dannatt has no business promulgating specifically Christian views in a service that is supposed to serve all religions and none.” Apart from newly-joined soldiers swearing “by Almighty God” on the King James Bible an oath of allegiance to Crown, Heirs and Successors (although presumably there are alternatives for those with specific objections), see this article on the Royal Army Chaplains Department (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/priests/armychaplains_print.html): “At the moment (2007) all commissioned padres in the armed forces are Christian. The Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim soldiers in all three of the armed forces are served by Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim Chaplains to the Military. … Unlike Christian padres, who are commissioned officers, the four Chaplains to the Military are civilians. At the time of their appointment there were 220 Buddhists, 90 Sikhs, 230 Hindus and 305 Muslims serving along with around 183,000 Christians. There was already a rabbi acting as honorary chaplain to the 65 serving Jews.” (See also official site: http://www.army.mod.uk/chaps/index.htm)

Is it not a sad testament to the state of modern Britain that Sir Richard’s innocuous remarks should attract such vitriol? It seems we are now an anti-Christian country rather than Christian. I am agnostic myself but have a layman’s interest in religion, and it cannot be denied that our Christian heritage is part of our British identity (as well as playing a role in our Constitution, as Andrew Holden notes). Viewing modern Britain’s rampant selfishness and daily brutality, while it might be wrong to fault Christianity’s decline for this, modern atheism has certainly not produced any “humanist” utopia.

I also find that Christians are often interesting to talk to, and I’ve enjoyed debating political and current affairs by drawing on (their) biblical teachings. Certainly more fun than talking to the kind of “devout” atheists exemplified on this thread, who generally show as much tolerance for opinions contradicting their own as they do for any mention of the God they so unaccountably loathe.

[British Patriot]

This country could do a lot worse than return to its Christian, British Family based roots so deliberately undermined over many years by the EU Marxists we have in Government.

General Dannat is about the Only Solid rock still standing in this sabotaged country.

[Simon Newman]

I applaud General Dannatt and his Christian faith. I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that men like him are a bulwark in defence of my liberty and the liberty of all Britons.

[Brian Pennington]

I am interested in the reason that after having a comment posted (and presumably moderated) why it was then removed? Perhaps because I actually dared to quote the Bible and it slipped past the wicketkeeper! Generalities allowed but specifics most unwelcome! Band aids by the million, but cures not really desirable.

[Kurtenscharfer]

All very well for DGH to wax-lyrical from the Soliloquies In England on the merits of life in 1907 (low crime in well-dressed England eh?) Also happens to be a time prior to the discovery of vitamin D, treatments for diabetes, vaccines for diphtheria, whooping cough, tuberculosis, typhus and tetanus. Still... those that didn't die of TB could always rest assured that their comrades were "pleasure-loving without loudness."

He closes by asking, "Is it not a sad testament to the state of modern Britain that Sir Richard’s innocuous remarks should attract such vitriol?" Not such a sad testament as DGH's own misplaced nostalgia. Nostalgia for a period in which women were still seeking the vote, no less. Ah! Those were the days!