PACIFISM VS. "JUST WAR": BIBLICAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS
1. Jesus' Attitude A. Our Lord Jesus acknowledged the right of civil defense: " . . . let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one" -- Luke 22:36.
B. Jesus accepted the notion of obedience to civil government in general when He said: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (in this particular instance, taxes, which, no doubt were used in part for maintenance of the Roman armies -- Matt. 22:21; Mk. 12:17; Luke 20:25).
C. In Jesus' short parable about counting the cost of discipleship, the example of a king going to battle was used (exceedingly strange, if warfare was an absolute evil -- Luke 14:31-33).
D. Jesus didn't rebuke a Roman centurion for being a soldier, but rather, strongly commended his faith and healed his servant -- Matt. 8:5-13 / Luke 7:1-10.
E. Lastly, Jesus, being the Messiah, who had largely a military function throughout the Old Testament, will come again in great power as an all-conquering warrior. He Himself taught this on several occasions: Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64, etc. For those accustomed to viewing Jesus as the meek and mild type who wouldn't hurt a flea -- which wasn't true His first time here, either -- the account of His return will come as quite a shock: ". . . in righteousness He judges and wages war and the armies which are in heaven . . . were following Him . . . And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations . . . and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty" (Revelation 19:11-21).
How can all this be explained according to Christian pacifism? Non-Christians also continually misrepresent Jesus by ignoring this information.
2. John the Baptist
John's emphasis in his preaching was on repentance from evil-doing. Here is a man who unhesitatingly addressed a whole crowd of Jews who came to him as "You brood of vipers"! (Luke 3:7). Yet when Roman soldiers came to him and sought his counsel John said: "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14). The significance of this cannot be minimized. Why in the world -- if pacifism is the true biblical outlook -- would John not tell these men to get out of the army immediately, to renounce all use of force, etc.? For the pacifist, this would be the moral and logical equivalent of not telling theprostitute to stop selling herself, or not telling the thief to stop stealing. Thus, the concepts of military service and war cannot be unmitigated evils.
3. St. Paul and the Early Christians
The Apostle Paul: the greatest missionary of all time, and author of most of the New Testament, appealed to his Roman citizenship in protest of his beating and imprisonment (Acts 16:37-38), and to avoid being scourged (Acts 22:25-29). In fact, most of the last seven chapters of the Book of Acts, the history of the first Christians, is devoted to Paul's defense of himself before the Jews and various Roman authorities (the Jews had sought to kill him ). During the whole legal process, Paul accepted the help of Roman military escorts and guards,in order to protect his life (Acts 23:12-33; 28:16), and appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11).
This is all highly relevant to our discussion. The pacifist often argues that Jesus' injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount are absolute and normative for all situations ("Do not resist him who is evil . . . " -- Matt. 5:39). If this is true, then Paul failed quite miserably to apply this teaching in his own life. This is unacceptable for any Christian who accepts the New Testament as authoritative. The logical alternative view, then, is that Matthew 5:39 does not have a universal application. This is clear from the facts in #1 above.
We also hear so much about the early Christians dying for their faith instead of resisting. However, in most cases they had no power to resist, as Paul did by virtue of his Roman citizenship, and the issue was usually a situation where the Christian had to renounce Christ and worship Caesar. Obviously, the Christian had no choice but martyrdom if he or she was to remain a Christian under these circumstances. This does not require that a Christian must die in a situation where there exists a moral escape from such injustice. Thus, Paul's actions are altogether moral and ethical, according to New Testament teaching. His example also shows the wrongness of those pacifist strains which denounce Christian involvement in government.
The Christian is to obey the present governmental authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; I Pet. 2:13-15), but not to the extent of transgressing God's moral law, which transcends man's law and provides the basis for justice. The first believers, including Peter, immediately engaged in civil disobedience, when necessary (Acts 4:18-20; 5:27-29).
We also find that some of the early Christians were soldiers (Acts 10:1-4,22,30-31). Cornelius, one of them, is called "a righteous and God-fearing man" (10:22) and Peter himself showed no qualms whatsoever as to the notion and fact of a Roman centurion being a Christian.
4. Military Heroes in the New Testament
Hebrews 11:32-34: " . . . Gideon, Barak, Samson, . . . David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight." These men and their military acts are extolled as examples of faith, a fundamental New Testament concept.
5. Military Metaphors in the New Testament
These are quite common and are used in reference to spiritual warfare. Some of the more notable examples are: II Cor. 10:3-4 ("weapons of our warfare"), Eph. 6:10-17 ("Put on the full armor of God "), I Tim. 1:18 ("Fight the good fight"), and II Tim. 2:3-4 (". . . a good soldier of Jesus Christ"). Again, it makes no sense to use such terminology if such things are absolute evils. This would be the same as saying "Be a good mass-murderer of Jesus Christ" (since pacifists consider all wars, as far as I can tell, as just that). The very existence of such metaphors is inexplicable if the New Testament teaches total pacifism. I believe it is clear, for all who honestly look into the matter, that there is no radical break in morality and teaching between the two testaments of the Bible. The underlying reason for this is simple: God does not change. He merely reveals Himself more fully and progressively in history.
6. "Thou shalt not kill"
Unfortunately, an extraordinarily simple-minded pacifist argument is based on the one word kill, from the sixth commandment. Many have said that all killing is prohibited, based on this one verse (Exodus 20:13). The problem here derives from unfortunate translation of the original Hebrew into English. The original word in Hebrew here is ratsach, which is much more accurately translated as "murder." Ratsach is always used in a disapproving sense in the Old Testament. Other words are used for killing which is morally justified (there are at least 21 Hebrew words for various types of killing, and 13 Greek words in the New Testament). Webster's Dictionary defines "kill" as "To deprive of life; to slay"; whereas it defines "murder" as follows: "The offense of unlawfully killing a human being with malice aforethought, express or implied." This is a legal definition, and implies moral wrongdoing. I have 12 translations of the Old Testament and 8 of them use "murder" for Ex. 20:13. The standard King James Version and three modern translations have "kill". In any event, it's obvious that the Old Testament teaches the correctness of many types of killing, usually in the sense of ultimate lifesaving for the many, and the protection of the innocent. Examples: Gen. 9:6; Ex. 22:2; Gen. ch. 14; Lev. 18:24; Numbers 25:8; Josh. 7:25 and 10:40.
7. War as Judgment in the Old Testament
This is a bit more complex idea, and is often greatly misunderstood by those who don't interpret the Bible on its own terms, and in its totality. Various nations in history, according to the Bible (which is an impeccable historical source), were judged by God for their evil, in the sense that He allowed them to be defeated in warfare. The secondary purpose of such "judgmental wars" -- when they were against Israel's enemies -- was to ensure the survival of God's chosen people, with whom He established a covenant. Such wars were to eliminate all extreme forms of immorality which might corrupt the life of the Jews, whom God was using as His saving instrument for the world. This theme of God's "chosen" people runs through the entire Old Testament. The Jews, however, did not, by any means, receive preferential treatment. They were subject to even more severe judgment if they rebelled against God, because so much was revealed to them. Now, if God's right to judge is questioned from the outset, then the ethical issue becomes an entirely different one.
The Nations: Ex. 23:23-24, 32-33; Lev. 18:3, 24-30; Deut. 9:4-6; 18:9-14; 20:17-18;
Isaiah 10:1-19; 13:17-19; 45:1-2; Jeremiah 25:12-13; 43:10-11.
The Jews: Lev. 26:14-17,31-39; Deut. 28:15,25,36,45-52,58; Judges 2:14; II Kings 15:37;
I Chron. 5:25-26; II Chron. 24:23-24; 33:10-13; Ezra 5:12; Jer. 25:3-11; 27:6; Ezek. 29:18-20.
8. The "Just War" as Classically Formulated by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (3rd-4th cent. A.D.)
A) There is an organic connection between justice and necessary and just warfare.
B) War must be declared by the proper governmental authorities (Rom. 13:4).
C) War is to be fought only if all peaceful negotiations fail to attain justice
(Deut. 20:10-12; Hebrews 12:14).
D) Both the cause and the motive for a war must be just.
E) War is engaged in only for defense purposes and the protection of the innocent (Gen. 14:14-16).
F) War is fought only with a realistic expectation for success, and must be justly
waged:
i. Fought against soldiers, never civilians (Principle of Discrimination).
ii. Only as much force as is necessary to secure a lasting and stable peace is used (Principle of Proportion).
It would appear that nuclear war, by virtue of its nondiscriminatory nature, would always be immoral. Perhaps mere possession of nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence is not necessarily immoral, given the malevolent character of many of the governments of the world. Part of the reason deterrence works, is the self-preservation instinct. One tends to not
want to fight a war when annihilation of one's entire country (as opposed to mere defeat)
looms as a distinct possibility. This prospect unites all kinds of people -- good and bad.
9. The "Police" Question
For the pacifist to be consistent with his or her own position (the total renunciation of lethal force as immoral), all use of force within states must be condemned along with force between states. Police forces, judges, and politicians are all involved, directly or indirectly, in the maintenance of public safety. All states preserve order and stability by means of coercion and, if necessary, lethal force (the shooting of madmen holding hostages, riot control, prison sentences, etc.). Many pacifists do not wish to deny these societal institutions. Of course, total pacifism has even more dreadful results, especially the closer it hits home, for it would require standing by and doing nothing while a close relative, spouse, good friend, or child (God forbid) was being tortured and killed. It seems utterly obvious that a viewpoint which violates our most basic instincts of justice and honor and love must be a false (and ultimately immoral) view. And the pacifist will generally quickly forget his or her intellectual concept of pipe-dream peace and togetherness once in a horrifying position like the ones above. The Bible certainly doesn't advance such a concept, as has been shown. This is why pacifism in the Church has always been a minority view.
10. Gandhi's Follies
Incidents in the life of the famous pacifist Gandhi illustrate the moral illegitimacy of the total pacifist outlook in the real world, where those who would hate and harm others are never lacking. During World War II, Gandhi urged the Viceroy of India to stop fighting, saying "Hitler is not a bad man," and suggested that the English should accept Hitler's fate for them, that the Czechs should face the German armies unarmed, and that India should let the Japanese overrun the country and then "make them feel unwanted." What was his comforting advice to the Jews of Europe, who were being slaughtered mercilessly by the millions? He thought that they should have committed collective suicide, so as to leave a "rich heritage to mankind". He reached the very pinnacle of the heights of folly, perhaps, when he wrote to Hitler, starting out, "Dear friend," and made a heartfelt appeal for him to embrace all mankind!
Of course, Gandhi's tactic of nonresistance in striving for independence from England,
was a success because it was directed towards a people who had a measure of conscience
and magnanimity. Likewise for Martin Luther King in the American South. Nonresistance, needless to say, would be absurd in Nazi Germany or Lenin's and Stalin's Russia, where marchers would immediately have been gunned down without the batting of an eyelid. Pacifism, like consistent atheism, once thought out in all its implications, will collapse from within, because it simply cannot be lived out. While I admire anyone's nobility in being willing to die for a cause, I do not admire a willingness to let so many other people die (literally millions when tyrants aren't stopped).
SHOULD A CHRISTIAN GO TO WAR?
Romans 13:5 by Dr. Jack L. Arnold
In the last sixty years or so, America faced three wars in which its young men died by the tens of thousands. One was a declared war; two were undeclared. World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam have sapped America of much of its physical and moral strength.
Needless to say, Vietnam was the most unpopular war in America s history. It divided our Congress into hawks and doves, and it splintered our nation. There were those who burned their draft cards, those who marched in protests, and even some who fled to Canada. Possibly as never before, America was faced with the right or wrong of war. Many Christians were pricked in their consciences to evaluate the biblical position on war.
The Bible says that until Christ returns in his second advent, there will be wars and rumors of war. We can expect that America s sons, and perhaps her daughters, will face the war issue again.
Romans 13:1-7 teaches that the Christian is to be subject to the government that God has sovereignly put over him. The Christian is to be subject, not only for fear of punishment, but for conscience sake. That is, subjection to government is part of a Christian s true worship of God. The question arises, "Does this include military service?" Is there such a thing as conscientious objection, pacifism, or non-resistence taught in the Bible? Throughout history Christians have been divided on this issue, but the vast majority of them have not been pacifists.
CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINTS OF WAR
There are four basic viewpoints on war that have been held by the historic Christian church. Of course, there are also many modifications of these views.
Crusade War: This view says one should wage war in the name of religion. In the Middle Ages, the Crusaders, inspired by the Roman Catholic Church, felt it was right to spread Christianity by the sword. They made war in the name of the man who gave his life for others, believing it was commanded to take life. This period is a dark spot in the history of the church, and Christians often hang their heads in shame when reading about the Crusades. Jesus Christ made it clear that Christianity is never to be spread by the sword, but in love and by the power of God.
Non-resistance: The other extreme says that Christians are not to participate in any type of war whatsoever. Those who hold this view believe that all killing in war is wrong. Some would not oppose killing in self-defense or fighting a defensive war. Others would enter military service as non-combatants. There is a great deal of latitude in this position. The Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker groups have tra ditionally been pacifists. Many Methodists are also of this persuasion.
Blank-check War: This viewpoint says Christians should go to war whenever their government tells them to do so. It makes the state an idol and would cast Christian morality and ethics to the wind. There may be times when Christians cannot fight for their country, such as when the country is an aggressor or when the Christian is required to do unchristian acts.
Just War: Those holding this view evaluate a war and the activities involved in it to see if violence is justifiable. This group feels that Christians, like all other men, have social responsibilities and that war may be justifiable on a political basis in some cases. Their criterion is: Is the war less harmful than the evil it hopes to prevent? This theory has been held by the Reformed groups, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and most Baptists.
MAJOR ARGUMENTS USED FOR PACIFISM
The Sixth Commandment Forbids Killing (Exod. 20:13): The Lord said, "Thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew word is ratzach, which refers to murder with premeditation. When Jesus repeated this command in the New Testament, he used the Greek word phoneuo, which means "murder" (Matt. 5:21). The Bible student realizes immediately that this cannot refer to all killing because: 1) God ordained capital punishment (Exod. 21:12); and 2) God told Israel to carry out war against her enemies. Surely God would not contradict his own command. The sixth commandment refers to premeditated murder, not to the killing done in military service in defense of one s country.
Turning the Other Cheek (Matt. 5:39): "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." In context, this refers to personal insults to a Christian and is put on an individual basis. These words have no political implication and are not to be applied to national situations. When evil is done to an individual Christian, he is not to fight back but to turn the cheek, but this verse says nothing about military service on a political basis. This is very similar to Paul's teaching in Romans 12:19 which forbids Christians to take their own revenge, and his teaching in Romans 13:4 that God has ordained the state to take revenge in some cases. God's commandments to nations are different from his commandments to individuals.
MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR CHRISTIANS PARTICIPATING IN WAR
No Scripture: There is no Scripture to prove pacifism for the Christian. All wars are terrible, but they are under God s sovereign control, and the Bible nowhere teaches neutrality by Christians.
Obedience to Government: Romans 13 teaches obedience to government, and part of this obedience is military service. For example, a Christian in America does not go to war because he believes that America is a Christian nation, but because as a citizen he has a duty to be obedient to government and he has a social responsibility to his state.
Teaching of John the Baptist (Luke 3:14): "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." This should be translated, "Extort by violence from no man"; it means that soldiers are not to intimidate others because of their authority. Notice, however, that John did not instruct the soldiers not to fight or not to serve in the military. Rather, he told them to serve honorably.
Teaching of Jesus: Jesus spoke to many Roman military men and he never told them to resign their commissions or to get out of the army to follow him.
Cornelius (Acts 10): Cornelius was an officer in the Roman army who was a godly man and knew Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour. Apparently, pacifism was not a teaching of the very early church.
Men of History: Great men such as General Stonewall Jackson of the Civil War were good soldiers and maintained a positive Christian witness to men.
For Testimony: A Christian may have a poor testimony with men if he refuses to go to war. The unsaved may conclude him to be a coward and may mock Christ. The Christian should be a "rock" in battle, for he is not afraid of death. This in itself can be a great testimony to unsaved men.
Sinfulness of Men: Non-resistance is idealistic; it is held often by those who do not believe strongly in the sinfulness of all men. Greedy men and nations will always attempt to conquer others. If attacked, we must be willing to protect our country, home and family.
Most pacifists, who decry all war as sinful, would not hesitate to pick up the phone and call the police if their homes were being robbed. Police protect towns and cities. Why not carry this further? State militia and police, under the hand of the governor, protect life, liberty, and order in the state. A national army does likewise for the nation.
God s Plan: All wars today are simply steps in God s plan for the return of Jesus Christ to this earth. There will always be wars and rumors of wars.
"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet" (Matt. 24:3-6).
The rising and falling of nations is part of God s sovereign plan. This evil world and wars will go on and Christians living on the earth may have to participate in war. However, Christians can never be warlike or enjoy war. They must remember that they are left on this earth to be a witness for Jesus Christ in this present evil world.
Now the questions will be asked, "What is a justifiable war? What happens if our nation becomes the aggressor?" Only the conscience can decide, and when making such decisions, the Christian must keep in mind that he is to be in subjection to his government.
CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR?
The first question a person must ask himself when considering the issue of conscientious objection is, "Do I choose not to kill because I am afraid to be killed or because I abhor killing another man?" Some so-called conscientious objectors are simply cowards.
I have a friend who was from a strict Mennonite family who were pacifists. During World War II this friend left his Mennonite home under terrible pressure and became a medical non-combatant in the Canadian Army. He did not want to kill nor did he want to stay neutral. I respect him for this. When he was shipped overseas he went to France. Being a Mennonite and from a German home, he spoke the German language fluently. He was stationed behind the lines in a hospital for the recovery of wounded German prisoners of war. He found the Hitler youth hardened to spiritual things, but many of the older soldiers were Christians. My friend found sweet fellow ship with these German Christians, and they would read the Bible and pray together. He also had the privilege of leading several of the younger Germans to Christ. But he had a high price to pay for his convictions: the American soldiers turned him in as a collaborator with the enemy because he had so much in common with some of these German Christians. My friend later told me that he had more in common with his German Christian brothers in Christ than with his godless American comrades in uniform. Why? Christ transcends all political boundaries.
What if a Christian's conscience really does tell him not to kill in war? Should he disobey his conscience? Absolutely not. He should not kill, but this does not always keep him from military service. For example, the United States and Canada allow a conscientious objector to go into the military as a non-combatant. In such instances, there is no need for a true Christian to avoid military service.
I had another Mennonite friend who refused to go to war, but who was really not doing much for Jesus Christ. He was a poor soldier of Jesus Christ and a disgrace to the Lord.
CONCLUSION
All Christians should hate war and we must never be warlike, but if our government calls us to go to war, most of us will go. We will become part of the military not only to protect our country, but to be a witness to those in the military service of the saving grace that is in Christ Jesus. Christians are first citizens of heaven and then citizens of the state. A Christian s religious convictions, as a soldier of Jesus Christ, transcend his political convictions. Wherever God, in his sovereignty, places the follower of Christ, the Christian must tell all that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, that everyone without Christ will pass on into a godless eternity and be judged forever.
If you have never trusted Christ as your Saviour, he will save you when you commit your life to him. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
|
