In Faith in the Fight, Jonathan Ebel takes on the difficult subject of how the religious forces of early 20th century America influenced the lives of individual men and women during the Great War. He uses letters and diaries of American soldiers as examples of individual soldiers' religious faith in relationship to the war experience, and contextualizes those experiences in the religious climate and political forces of the era. World War I was not fought over religion; nevertheless, religious ideas motivated individual soldiers, and religious institutions, by and large, supported the war effort. The author aims to provoke thoughtful discussion on how Christianity and the American experience came together in the World War I era, how theology was used as ideology in the formation of civil religion, and how individuals rationalized war experiences through the lens of religious belief. Religion provided meaning to the larger war effort as well as to soldiers' personal sacrifice. In addition, Faith in the Fight provides an excellent introduction to the war poetry of the era, including Rupert Brooke, Alan Seeger, and Archibald MacLeish.
Ebel contends, not that men fought always and everywhere with “God on their minds and a prayer in their hearts,” but that religion contributed to a sense of moral duty, provided a purpose for living and dying, imbued war with symbolic ritual, and gave transcendent rationale to apparently random death. The idea of redemption directed soldiers' eyes beyond death to salvation. Furthermore, he argues that prior to the First World War, the United States lacked a military identity. The purpose of the military until this time had been to “do” specific things: separate the country from England, fight the Civil War over slavery and national sovereignty, and protect commercial activities in Latin America and the Pacific. World War I was an extension of the ideas of American exceptionalism: democracy and Christianity were inextricably linked to national destiny. Home, family, and nation were virtually equated with religious ideology and patriotic duty. Some may take issue with this assessment, believing that all wars are a combination of idealism and realism. If World War I was as different as Ebel contends, it may be because the American public could find no justifications for Unite States involvement other than idealistic ones — support for democracy, against evil empires, and for the global good. The war was not rationalized in terms of political power, nor at the end was the United States a stronger country economically or politically.
One of the major contributions of the book is the attention given to Black-American soldiers, Native-Americans, and women who served in a variety of capacities during the war. Often overlooked, the author deals with these “not quite equal” Americans with sensitivity and compassion. These are the stories soonest forgotten — those of racial and ethnic minorities, women, health workers, and support personnel. Ebel contends that they reintegrated into the life of the country: as it was, not as it might be. The rigors of combat in warfare seemed to be easier than facing a nation that did not consider their sacrifice of equal worth. Yet, sometimes the social and political consequences of war experiences are not immediately apparent. In the aftermath of the Great War, citizenship was extended to Native Americans and women.
Ebel has built a bridge between religious scholars and the military community and those daring to cross that bridge will find themselves on new intellectual ground. Most courses on war taught in religious studies programs focus on “just war theory,” but do not address social context, the faith of the individual soldier, or the reality of war on the ground. Courses in military history invariably neglect the religious factor in defining the enemy and mobilizing public support. Religion and war are about life and death; good scholarship recognizes that they are intrinsically intertwined. Ebel's book is a significant contribution to this discussion.
The author restricted the scope of the text and did not take on the thorny issues of how religion influenced the personal morality of the soldiers (e.g., rape, prostitution, participation in war crimes, or mistreatment of enemy prisoners). Nor does he address the religious component of military leadership. Also missing is the soldier's religious response to the influenza pandemic, which killed 43,000 of the 126,000 who died in Europe. It is a uniquely American story, and Ebel does not explore the relationship of religion and warfare in the larger European environment. Most of the extant literature concerning the individual soldier in World War I is written by English academics and journalists, which stands to reason since they were “in the midst” longer, suffered more casualties, and had to deal much more with the visibility of the wounded as they returned to the island. Faith in the Fight provides a unique contribution to American history. The author clearly limits the scope of his focus, which leaves the reader wanting more – which may be the ultimate compliment.
