I am the King's good servant, but I am God's good servant first. (Thomas More)
Last lesson:
Today, we will look at the Christian view of war.
1. The Biblical view of war is complex. On the one hand, the Old Testament can be pretty darn bloodthirsty:
On the other hand, there are passages like:
Even the New Testament is surprisingly ambiguous. On the one hand, Jesus says, "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword." Matt.l0:34. (Even if this is a metaphor, it is a particularly militaristic one.) On the other hand, he does say, "All who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matt.26:52.
2. Nevertheless, the clear import of the New Testament seems to be opposed to violence. Indeed, not only is killing the enemy forbidden, even hating the enemy is forbidden: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." (Matt. 5:44) Paul echoes the same theme: "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. ... Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, 'vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by doing so you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Rom.12:14-21. 2 Likewise, there are affirmative calls not to resist evil for one's own sake: "But I say to you not to resist evil." Matt.5:39. At the same time, there is at least tacit recognition of the role of soldiers and the act of soldiering: Luke 3:14 (admonishing soldiers to be content with their wages); Matt.8:5- 10 (Jesus' encounter with the centurion); Matt.22:21 (give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, including money for the war machine).
3. The bottom line on this seems to be threefold:
DISCUSSION: How can one reconcile all these? What is the meaning of Paul's qualification, "if possible, so far as it depends on you..."? If there is to be no resistance to evil, what is a soldier to do?
4. The early Christian church reconciled these by adopting a position of strict pacifism -- Christians were prohibited from bearing arms on behalf of Rome, and this position persisted for several centuries.
5. At about the time of the Constantinian empire, motivated in part no doubt by the fact that barbarians were pressing all around, the Church fathers began to change their views. The sorts of issues that the Church considered were like these:
DISCUSSION: What if the Good Samaritan stumbled upon the robbery in progress? What should he do, wait until the robbers are finished beating the traveler to near-death, then intervene?
DISCUSSION: How is the admonishment to "turn the other cheek" affected if the cheeks belong to the weak and innocent?
6. In thinking about questions such as these, the Church began to see a difference between the private duty not to resist evil and a public duty to resist evil for the sake of another, as an act of charity, even to the point of self-sacrifice and killing. (See attached quotes from "The Christian View of War.")
7. Over the centuries, there came to be developed criteria for a "just war." The number of applicable criteria vary among commentators, but those on the handout (see Criteria) are among the most common.
a. Legitimacy
b. Intent.
c. Exhaustion.
d. Potentiality.
DISCUSSION: Examples in support of this are taken to be the Melians, who resistance against the Athenians in the Peloponnisian War was pointless -- and led to the men being killed and the women and children being sold into slavery; or the Japanese attack against the US in World War II -- the Japanese did nothing to preserve their gains, did not distribute submarines or troops, did not sue for a quick settlement, they just waited inevitable defeat. But: (1) Are there some evils that must be fought even if the prospect of winning is virtually nonexistent? (2) Doesn't the criterion of potentiality depend upon the definition of "winning"? Principles for which one fought may prevail long after the battle is "lost," leading to a sort of delayed victory, one that would not have been possible had the battle never been fought.
e. Reluctance.
f. Proportionality.
g. Moderation. (Recall the "Law of Warfare" handout from last week. Minimal standards for Christians.) [It is these two, proportionality and moderation, which are oftentimes said to foreclose all uses of nuclear weapons.]
h. Discrimination.
i. Restoration.
8. There are LOTS of problems with the just war criteria. Even commentators who admit the possibility of a just war voice several cautions:
a. The presumption is always against war. The burden of proof is on the proponent of war.
b. ALL of the criteria must be met -- a failure of even one forecloses war.
c. The criteria remain operative during the course of the war. If the factors justifying a war change, continuing participation might have to be abandoned or the course of the war changed. (E.g., although the war against Naziism was just, the firebombing of German cities probably was not.)
9. There are a number of commentators who do not accept the concept of criteria for a "just war." The two main criticisms are:
a. The criteria are self-serving, and proponents of a war are usually able to justify any war they want. E.g., who decides when "all alternatives" have been exhausted?
DISCUSSION: Is this a fair criticism? Isn't this true of all principles? E.g., the Constitution -- isn't it possible to justify almost any search as "reasonable," any process as "due," any silliness as the "free practice of religion," and so on. Does that mean that the Constitution has no meaning, or that it is self-serving? Isn't there value in asking the questions, even if the answers are never certain?
b. The criteria impliedly assume (and validate) the rejection of pacifism, lending moral authority to an admittedly evil course of conduct. There is no Biblical authority to "balance the evils" and select the less harmful of two sins -- we are called to the avoidance of sin. (E.g., one commentator puts "just war" in the same category as "just adultery" or "just murder.")
DISCUSSION: Is this a legitimate criticism? Do you believe the Bible prohibits war entirely? Based on what? If yes, isn't this a good criticism? What do you think of, for example, Erasmus and Dymond?
10. The above raises the question of pacifism. (See attached sheet, The Pacifist Tradition.)
a. Religious pacifism is mainly found only in certain German/Dutch sects (Mennonites, Hutterites, Quakers) and leftist Catholics (whose pacifism tends to be provisional). The influence of pacifists, however, is much broader.
b. The doctrinal basis for pacifism is two-fold:
- Pacifism is consistent with the New Testament teaching of redemptive love (i.e., through a change of heart, the evil-doer will be won back from evil to goodness and rescued from the consequences of sin); fire is not quenched by another fire, but by water.
- Pacifism is the method best suited to human nature; the human propensity toward evil is such that only through forced goodness can we be sure we do not contribute more evil than we remove.
c. Pacifists often accept the validity of coercion, but limit the means to those of non-violence (prayer, fasting, picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, civil disobedience, etc.). In addition, pacifists may confront the evil-doers and force them to perpetrate their violence under circumstances where there can be little or no justification (e.g., by gentle and retiring people--such as little old ladies--exposing themselves to police dogs, fire hoses, tear gas, etc.) Eventually, it is hoped, the goodness inside the evil-doer's heart will overcome him, and he will decide that his sin is repulsive even to himself.
d. For the above reason, one must not confuse true pacifism with mere selfishness and cowardice. [Obviously, both vices can hide behind feigned pacifism.]
e. But pacifism suffers from its own problems.
- If "just war" is confounded by Hiroshima, pacifism is confounded by Auschwitz. Pacifism can lead to a huge toll of avoidable death and suffering.
- Pacifism and dissent run headlong into public-spiritedness at a time when national unity is often essential.
DISCUSSION: What of the pacifists' arguments? What of the distinction between private non-resistance and public duty?
11. The role of the church.
a. We are foremost called to do God's will, not to justify the wars of our leaders. History is replete with examples of those who died rather than adopt allegiance to the state over the dictates of their faith. (E.g., Thomas More who, when asked, "Are you not the King's good servant?" answered, "I am the King's good servant, but I am God's good servant first," a reply for which he lost his head.)
DISCUSSION: What about separation of church and state? When is it proper for Christians to oppose a war because it is unjust according to our faith? [Recall the shameful failure of the German churches to oppose Hitler, even though they widely acknowledged his cause was wrong.]
b. The history of the church is shamefully chock-full of support for dubious causes and blustering pro-war stances, such as the following sermon from World War I:
...to save the freedom of the world, every one who loves freedom and honour, every one who puts principle before ease and life before mere living, is banded in a great crusade--we cannot deny it--to kill Germans, to kill them not for the sake of killing, but to save the world, to kill the good as well as the bad, to kill the young as well as the old, to kill those who have shown kindness to our wounded as well as those fiends who crucified the Canadian soldier, who sank the Lusitania, and who turned the machine guns on the civilians of Aerschot and Louvain; and to kill them lest the civilization of the world be killed.
(Of course, at the same time, the Germans were marching into battle with "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles!)
c. In a way, we are called to be the moral conscience of the state.
d. Some positions of Christian denominations:
- "so, for that end, [Christians] may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary conditions." [Presbyterian, Westminster Confession, Chapter XXIII, Section II. (1647)]
- "Christians may lawfully ... engage in just war, act as soldiers, ..." [Lutheran, Augsburg Confession , Article XVI (1530)]
- "It is lawful for Christian men, at the commaundement of the Magistrate, to weare weapons and serve in the warres." [Church of England, The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church, Article XXXVII (1571).)
12. Task: By next week, you need to work this out -- develop your view of what Christianity has to say about war. Use the Bible; use the selected readings; use prayer; use thoughtful discussions with your friends -- keep an open mind, but work this out.
PERSONAL: My own view:
(1) Pacifism has problems, at least when abject evil is directed against the weak and innocent.
(2) Just war criteria are helpful. Yes, they have problems, but they present a systematic way of thinking about moral issues. Most importantly, keeps focus on the right place: on God's will -- not politics, not economics, not pride.
(3) Notwithstanding that, seems like the criteria are hard to meet. To be expected -- question is, when does God want us to go to war, and the answer is, almost never.
13. Where does all of this leave us? Can Christians go to war? Under what conditions? Next week look at some particulars.
[To Next Lesson] [To Previous Lesson] [To Topic List]
10/27/01