The Christian’s Response to War

What Scripture Says

 

        In the Old Testament, God enacts just wars against His enemies, sometimes fighting Himself (Exodus 14:13-14) and sometimes empowering His people to fight (2 Samuel 22:33-43). The people of Israel enact just wars (Judges 7:9-14) or refrain from war through diplomacy (Joshua 22:11-34) or when God tells them not to fight (2 Chronicles 11:1-4). Conversely, nations may enact unjust wars and pay the consequences for doing so when God is against them (Judges 2:14-15). God will even use wicked nations to accomplish His just cause through war (see Habakkuk 1:5-17).

        While finding just purpose in war, God prefers peace. The speaker of Psalm 120 is weary of war and prays for peace (vv. 6-7), and God ultimately promises an end to war through Christ, the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:4-7). Ultimately, the Old Testament stance on war is paradoxical: In Isaiah, they “beat their swords into plowshares…” (2:4), but in Joel they “beat [their] plowshares into swords…” (3:10).

        The New Testament, is equally complicated. Jesus says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44). He tells us to do good to people who hate us, pray for them, and ‘turn the other cheek’ to them (Luke 6:27-31). The epistles say the same: Paul tells us to bless those who persecute us, avoid paying evil for evil, live at peace, “overcome evil with good,” and allow God to take vengeance on evil men (Romans 12:14, 17-21).

        Nevertheless, several New Testament passages suggest a place for just violence and war: Paul and Peter both say that governments exist to “bear the sword” in order to reward good and punish evil (Romans 13:4; 1 Peter 2:14). John the Baptist instructs some Roman soldiers not to give up their jobs but to carry them out justly (Luke 3:14). Cornelius, the first gentile Christian, was a captain of the Roman army. We know that anger is not necessarily wrong (Ephesians 4:26, James 1:19) but that it is dangerous (Matthew 5:22). We also know that Jesus made a whip and used force to overturn tables and drive con artists out of the temple (John 2:13-17).

Conclusions?

        While God prefers peace to war and intends peace as an ultimate goal in His creation, I do not think we can argue from scripture that war is automatically evil or that Christians should not participate in earthly governments as soldiers, police or politicians. Romans 13:1 says all earthly governments comes from God (even corrupted ones; remember that Paul was writing to Christians in Rome, the heart of a wicked, pagan empire; governments, however, preserve order, which is always preferable to chaos, even if their leaders are corrupt). Imperfect, earthly governments, therefore, have their proper good which includes punishing evil. What happens, then, when God raises up a government the majority of which are Christians? What is the Christian responsibility for making peace and/or war when Christians are part of a sword bearing government?

        To claim that Christians cannot be involved in government or its military is to argue that pagans and secularists are allowed to participate in a God given activity from which Christians are prohibited. That argument is pretty weak; it leads to the absurd conclusion that a Christian nation should turn its government and military over to non-Christians. Having said that, however, I can’t forget that David, was not allowed to build the temple because he was a warrior with much blood on his hands. Instead God had Solomon, a “man of peace” build the temple (1 Chronicles 22:7-10) which suggests the possibility of Christians being called to “higher” goods.

Ambiguous Answers

        And this is where I find the heart of the problem: taken alone, the Bible passages above are usually clear in what they say about our role in violence and war. Taken together, however, their clarity fades. Consider the problem of Gethsemane: When Peter cuts off the priest’s ear, Jesus says, “Put up your sword. Do you not know that he who lives by the sword will die by it?” (Matthew 26:52). Sounds pretty straight forward. But let’s back up a few hours and look at that same night again in Luke’s Gospel: In Luke 22:35-38, Jesus asks the disciples if they lacked for anything when he sent them out without a “purse, bag or sandals.” They say no. “But now,” He says, “if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” The disciples tell Jesus they have two swords; He replies, “That is enough.” On the same night Jesus told Peter that those who lived by the sword would die by it, He told the disciples to buy swords. Why?

        Mark doesn’t even mention Christ’s response to Peter in the garden, Luke notes that Jesus said, “No more of this” (22:51), and John records Jesus saying, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). I am sure Jesus made all of these statements. What, then, do they mean together? There are several possibilities (and that’s the problem).

        The first few verses in the Luke 22 passage seem to suggest that Jesus is telling his disciples to buy swords in order to defend themselves in the weeks ahead. But then why say two swords are enough (especially when He knew they would be scattered after His arrest)? And why, then, tell them later to put their swords away? Matthew and John use strong language in this regard while Luke’s account could even be read as Jesus wanting a little bit of violence (but then “no more”) in order to show everyone present that He was surrendering to the authorities out of choice rather than weakness. In other words, while the first half of the Luke passage suggests Christ was telling His disciples to buy swords to defend themselves, the second half, especially coupled with the accounts in Matthew and John, suggests that the swords may have been for the purpose of an object lesson about the limitations of violent response or the futility of violent response (or even a third option: for genuine self defense and an object lesson).

What Is God Telling Us?

        That I’ve raised so many questions is part of my answer. Christians on both sides pick and choose their Bible passages, explaining away the ones that don’t fit their beliefs. Instead we should embrace the possibility that God is being ambiguous on purpose in order to say that the answers depend on our relationship with Him and our individual circumstances and calling. Here’s what I mean: While I’m convinced that governments exist to carry “the sword” and fairly certain that Christians can participate in lawful government (including serving in the military or as police officers), I wonder if our individual responses to attack depend on our individual walk with God.

        Two years ago a group of Amish girls were held hostage and then shot one by one by a maniac. One of them first said to him something like, “Kill me and let the others go; it’s alright, I know where I’m going.” That is not a testimony Christians can ignore. Conversely, I remember reading a story about a man in prison who came to Christ and, because he had trained as a boxer, protected a physically weaker prisoner from assault by punching out his assailant. Both the girl and the prisoner acted with heroism to protect others. One used loving words, the other physical force. And perhaps the ambiguity of scripture on the issue of violence and Christian responsibility shows something very definite: that both the girl and the man were right.

What About Today’s War?

        That still leaves some very specific, very contemporary questions: How should we view the war in Iraq? How should Christians living in America respond when our nation is at war? And how should Christians act toward those whose views are different?

        In regard to the war in Iraq, I think we are free to either agree or disagree with its reasons and our actions there for the last four years. The Bible says God uses war to reward good and punish evil. Whether this particular war is accomplishing that purpose is something God knows better than I. But if we disagree among ourselves about current events, we must do so with that fine balance of love and honesty that’s always so difficult to maintain.

        What we must not do is disparage American soldiers or terrorist enemies. We made the first mistake after Viet Nam and the result was a generation of men who felt lost in their own home towns. Nor are Christians free to indulge in hating Muslims in general or terrorists specifically. We must love them; even Christian soldiers must do so by doing their best to honor the rules of war and deny hatred in their hearts. Christians at home (even if we believe this war or all wars to be wrong) should pray for American troops and offer whatever acts of support they can. We should also pray for the enemies of our nation: not for their military success, but for their hearts and souls.

        And as we support Christian soldiers who go to foreign battle fields to protect us, we should equally support every Christian soul who feels the call to go to those lands in the name of peace. There are American (and other) Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan without guns. They are missionaries, Red Cross workers, and philanthropists; they are there having accepted the call to help bring peace, rebuild, and/or spread the gospel. They have chosen to go and not retaliate if attacked—even if that means they die. Perhaps it is a greater calling, but, having never gone into the dangerous places of the world myself, I would never look a soldier in the eye and tell him that what he has done in sacrifice for others is less important than what men of peace do. I don’t have the right to.