Friday, July 11, 2008

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 6

As we saw last week, the just war theory is not without difficulties. It is a complex position on war because it requires the government and citizens to think very carefully concerning all the issues involved. Some have said the just war theory is not only about war, it’s about “a way of thinking that refuses to separate politics from ethics.” Jean Elshtain has noted that the just war theory has made positive contributions in our contemporary civic life. It rejects utopian fantasies, protests abuses of power, calls for proper action against injustice, fosters respect for other nations, and acknowledges the need for self-defense. It also is realistic about both human dignity and human depravity. Some wars are justifiable and some are not; the just war theory is an attempt to understand the difference.

As we conclude this series, we need to ask if the just war theory is compatible with the New Testament. Does the New Testament call for Christian pacifism? If so, it would be strictly forbidden for a Christian to serve as a soldier or governmental official possessing the power of the sword. However, the New Testament writers many times place soldiers and government officials in a positive light. John the Baptist told the soldiers gathered around him not to engage in extortion and to be content with their wages (Luke 3:14). John was not known for being timid; if being a soldier was immoral or an illegitimate profession he would have told them. In Matthew 8, Jesus praised a Roman centurion for having greater faith than anyone in Israel (8:5ff). In Acts 10, Peter was directed to the house of Cornelius, an active-duty centurion described as a devout man who feared God. Cornelius and his household became the first gentile converts to Christianity, and yet Peter did not command Cornelius to leave the military. There were also Christian men who served in the Roman government and possessed the power of the sword. Sergius Paulus was a proconsul (Acts 13:7, 12), Erastus (Rom. 16:23) was a city treasurer, and Zenas (Titus 3:13) was a lawyer. In all of these events, there is never a hint that being a soldier or serving in the government is incompatible with the Christian faith

Other examples that do not support pacifism include Jesus instructing his disciples to buy a sword for self-protection (Luke 22:36), his approval of a king who used the sword against wicked men (Matt. 21:33-41), and his suggestion that if his kingdom were an earthly kingdom the use of the sword would have been proper (John 18:36). One should not miss the metaphors of soldiers, warfare, and armor in the Christian life (Eph 6:10-20; 2 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Cor 10:1-6), or Paul’s appeal to military protection on several occasions (Acts 16, 22, 23, 25). If being a soldier was immoral, and the use of force always wrong, the numerous metaphors and appeals would have been inappropriate.

We live in a fallen world in which evil men desire to do bad things. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” This is why God has given governments the power of the sword to punish evil (Rom 13). War is a terrible thing, but unchallenged evil terrorizing the world is worse.

In the meantime, we have hope in Christ who promises that after the final battle of good and evil, there will be no more wars, no more pain, and no more death (Is. 2:4; Rev 21:4). That’s the day we long for.

Labels:

posted on  Friday, July 11, 2008    |  0 comments

Friday, July 04, 2008

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 5

Over the past several weeks we’ve discussed the Christian dilemma of war. It is difficult to justify killing our enemies when Jesus commands us to love our enemies. It is important, however, to make a distinction between the responsibilities of individual Christians and the role of governments. Individuals are not to retaliate or take vengeance on evildoers because God has given that role, at least in this life, to governing authorities (Romans 12:19; 13:4). According to Romans 13, God has given governments the power of the sword to punish evil. But in order for governments to punish evildoers, it must commission individual citizens, such as police officers and soldiers, to carry out this task. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles all had encounters with Roman soldiers, and none of them commanded the soldiers to leave the military service. It is therefore not wrong for Christians to fight in wars under the authority of the government, provided the war is just.

As we alluded to last week, the just war theory seems to be the best way to approach the issue of war. The just war theory is more difficult to consider than activism or pacifism, which require very little thought. The activist says war is always right if the government declares it and the pacifist says war is always wrong. The just war theory, however, requires a great deal of thought and discernment in order to decide if a particular war is just—and there lies the problem. When deciding if a war is just, who must decide and what ethical criteria should be used? What happens if a government claims a war is just and the citizens who must fight the war decide it is unjust?

There are also other difficulties. The just war theory is primarily concerned about defensive wars. Historically, all offensive wars were deemed unjust. But in this day of weapons of mass destruction, can a country afford to wait until it is struck first? Is a preemptive strike ever just? These questions have led some ethicists to call for a modification of this ancient theory in order to keep up with modern warfare. Some have suggested that a preemptive strike, especially in the case of WMDs, would be considered a defensive act. There also may be certain circumstances in conventional warfare in which a preemptive strike would be considered defensive. Consider the Six Day War in 1967. Israel understood that its Arab neighbors were massing armies to invade and ultimately destroy them. Deciding not to wait until the Arabs delivered a devastating first blow, Israel delivered a successful preemptive strike. Many just war theorists consider this preemptive strike an act of self-defense.

There is also a question of nuclear weapons. Many suggest that the use of nuclear weapons can never be justified because of the massive killing of civilian non-combatants, complete damage to a nation’s infrastructure, and permanent damage to the environment. This is a difficult question, but it is even more difficult to think about how to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. In this age of nuclear proliferation, unilateral disarmament would leave a nation open to nuclear blackmail, which may even increase the chances of nuclear weapons being used. Over the past half century, the idea of mutually assured destruction has actually kept the nuclear option in check. There are, however, no easy answers to this.

Labels:

posted on  Friday, July 04, 2008    |  0 comments