By Neil Earle
“The blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven.” These words were spoken by young Congressman Abraham Lincoln against President James Polk after the Mexican War of 1846-1848. That conflict has always left Americans feeling a bit sheepish. Andrew Jackson, the old warhorse himself, said in the 1830s that war with Mexico would poison relations forever.
It is in this light that, perhaps, that Christians can look back at the most recent Middle East war between Israel and Hizbollah. Since it didn’t directly involve Americans, it is perhaps a timely way to relearn the three basic ways the historical Christian Church has viewed the subject of war. This will be but a fast, introductory overview on a subject that is by no means a shallow one.
Activism – the view of the Christian mainstream. Christians are allowed to support a military effort whenever their country declares war. The argument flows from texts which tell believers to submit to their rulers (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Since governments are ordained by God – and rulers and officials are even called ministers of God – we are obliged to submit to state decisions. Activists draw upon numerous Old Testament arguments to support their position – God’s Holy War against Amalek (Exodus 17:8-16) and, in extreme cases, the call to exterminate the Canaanite cities in Joshua 6:20-21.
Activists argue that God is more concerned about justice issues than a fragile, deceptive “peace at all costs.” Often cited is Martin Luther’s teaching of the “Two Kingdoms.” These are the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. Luther felt it was unreasonable to expect Christians to live utopian lives in this world – even the Sermon on the Mount gave realistic instruction on going to court, submitting to imperfect civil powers (Matthew 5:25-26).
Therefore, felt Luther, Christians need have no qualms supporting such state actions as capital punishment and war.
Pacifism – this is total abstinence from war and combat. Conscientious objectors (COs) usually fall under this category. However, even some pacifists allow noncombatant activities such as serving in the medical corps or clerical duties, etc. It is also important to note that in World War I in America, Cos suffered greatly for their beliefs and some were killed.
Pacifists argue that Jesus was non-violent. He rejected the use of the defensive sword in Matthew 26:52. He said his servants would not fight at this time (John 18:36). He taught love for enemies and to not resist evil (Matthew 5:38-48). Brotherly love must be extended to all people (Luke 10:29-37). Final vengeance must be left to God (Romans 12:9).
Other positions linked to pacifism include Passive Non-Resistance. Jesus protested civil rights violations at his trial (John 18:19-24). He asserted his rights. As did Paul (Acts 25:11). Jesus constantly opposed evil attitudes and people (Matthew 23:13-33). He was not neutral, indeed he did cause trouble on occasion, as at the cleansing of the Jerusalem temple. He did, however, later submit to arrest without resisting but protested unjust treatment.
Also linked is Civil Disobedience. This is a strong form of protest. The Hebrew midwives are cited as one example (Exodus 1:15-22) – disobey genocide in the name of God. The early apostles said they had to obey God rather than men on an issue of conscience (Acts 5:29). The Persistent Widow in the parable of the Unjust Judge is another example – she actively promoted her civil rights rather than letting things go (Luke 18:1-8). Jesus himself ignored rules that were silly or harmful or in violation of a higher principle (Matthew 12:1-8).
At the very least, the Peace Churches, as they are called, make Christians rethink view number one more carefully.
Just War or Selectivism. This is the middle position. These arguments go back to St. Augustine in the 400s AD. The Just War position derives from such texts as the Bible’s apparent endorsement of capital punishment (Genesis 9:6). Romans 13:1-8 is also used. Therefore, say these advocates, Christians can, at times, support war if the conditions are right. Just War proponents state: In order to defend Christian values against the Nazi threat in World War Two (1939-45) the Allies were right to fight against Germany.
But Just War advocates are selective in their application. The same criterion might not apply to the Vietnam War (1965-73), for example. The clear pre-conditions in Just War theory are these:
There must be a Just Cause
There must be Just Intentions
Just Means are important – no poison gas, etc. Hence concerns over “cluster bombs”
Just Authority must wage the war – established rulers not rebel forces
Success can be reasonably expected, and fairly quickly
Lethal violence is used as the last resort
Civilians or neutrals must be given fair warning
There must be Proportionality of Response
Good results rather than evil consequences can be expected
So…where do we go from here? Romans 12:18 seems to project a biblical bias towards fervent peacemaking – “as much as lies in you be at peace with all men.” One could sketch out with the mind’s eye a triangle with “Obeying God, not men” at the top apex and have two sides coming down which lead to Romans 13 and another to John 18:36. This illustrates the dynamic tension going on. Arguments can be advanced from one side or the other – depending on separate circumstances. Today, many Christians see the war against Al-Qaeda as a just war but not the invasion of Iraq and the resultant civilian casualties. Others feel differently.
These are tough issues. The biblical evidence is not clear cut, showing the Holy Spirit is allowing us room to maneuver. It also points to the need for Christians to become well-informed citizens, those rare ones in the land who are able to discuss the issues intelligently, always allowing room for the fact that we could be wrong – “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19). War sets up anguished situations and reminds us it’s never easy being a Christian.