War. What is it good for?
After a few silly days, I’d like to return to my political questions for discussion. Because right now, I have just that. Questions.
Question of the day: can or should Christians engage in war?
When Peter cut off a soldier’s ear to defend his Lord, Jesus told him, "Put your back sword in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword."
Earlier in that same evening, however, Jesus told them to make sure they had a sword as they went out into the world:
Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or
traveler’s bag,or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.” So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.”
Seriously, Jesus. Which one is it? Should I carry the sword or put it away?
And even if Jesus told them to take their swords, we have no evidence throughout Acts that they used them for protection. In fact, we see just the opposite. We see Jesus’ followers persecuted and martyred unjustly and without physically defending themselves.
Let’s throw another monkey in the barrel. Jesus and his disciples came into contact with soldiers in their
In other words, do your job well and with integrity.
He did not tell them to stop being soldiers for the Roman empire.
Finally, in Isaiah 3, when Isaiah is talking about the future glory of Jerusalem, he says, "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." In other words, the instruments of war will be used for production. One might argue that this is a future time. It does not characterize today. But throughout the book of Isaiah, the prophet argues that we should live in light of the future. Our character should reflect what we know to be true about the future.
Does this mean we live as pacifists now?
The heart of this, I believe, comes from how we understand and live out two ideas: (1) Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you, and (2) protect the helpless.
Here, in specific, are my questions regarding war:
Is there such a thing as a just war? If so, what constitutes a just war? What does this mean for
the war in the Middle East, specifically against terrorists, especially
since they oppress others in their own countries? (I admit that the
reasons for this war are complex, and not all the reasons include
protection of others. But for my purposes here, I’d like to examine only
this reason.) Also, in light of the past and continuing terrorist attacks across the world, are we mandated to protect loved ones from possible
threats? (If the Bible says to take up the case of the helpless, I would
assume that his includes one’s own children, as well as the children of
strangers both in this nation and in other nations.) How far do we go to
protect loved ones? How far do we go to free the oppressed? What does
it mean to free the oppressed? Is God asking us to set up democracies
across the world?
Discuss.
I’m in the midst of reorienting myself after a busy weekend, but after scanning through what you have to say here, I’d like to offer quick summary of what I’ve said in my blog and in one of my study guides.
My sense is that national war is out but self-defense is OK. Whenever it came down to acting on a national level, Jesus would not allow his followers to identify themselves with anything other than the Kingdom. However, he didn’t seem to bat an eye at the thought that his followers were carrying swords in order to protect themselves or one another.
This would hopefully make sense of the scene in which Peter was rebuked for using his sword. Remember, the disciples were expecting a physical Kingdom to come, rather than the Kingdom being within them through the Spirit. So Peter’s actions were along the lines of fighting for God’s Kingdom to come, but God’s Kingdom does not advance through violence. Based on the prophetic writings, God’s future Kingdom will be without war, a world in which swords are beaten into farming tools. So we’d better get moving in that direction now, even if Jesus still makes provision for personal self defense.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Ed
I see what you’re saying, and I agree that our citizenship is God’s kingdom. But I also think Paul sets a precedent for using our citizenship in wordly kingdoms for God’s work when he claims his Roman citizenship for his own protection. Also, Romans 13 points to the fact that God appoints worldly kings and kingdoms to govern. While our ultimate allegiance is not to them, we’re called to obey them and pray for them. God uses them for his kingdom work. Granted, sometimes he does so in unexpected ways (e.g. the hardening of Pharoah’s heart). Other times, as in the case of Cyrus, he does so to free his people in what we might call expected ways.
And I keep questioning whyJohn the Baptist , Jesus, or any of the disciples tell soldiers and officers in the Roman empire to abandon their position for Christ.
I want to clarify that I don’t believe a human government (or any human) initiates God’s kingdom on earth through their own efforts, especially through violent ones. But does this mean that we don’t concern ourselves with anything regarding national governments, whether national or international policy?
I find it interesting that you believe self-defense to be okay. What about turn the other cheek? Or love those who persecute you (by doing so, you heap burning coals on their head)? Or the fact that we never see the apostles use swords in self-defense (but, indeed, follow Christ’s lead in accepting persecution meekly)?
Ed,
While your thoughts aren’t fleshed out fully in a simple short post, I do wonder how you reconcile the Old Testament with your statement, “My sense is that national war is out…”
There does seem to be many, many instances in the Old Testament where God orders the Israelites (i.e. nation) to go attack another nation. Just wondering how that fits into your view.
Ryan
Of course, your comment was directed to Ed, and while I’m not Ed, I’d like to chime in here (seeing this is my blog, I suppose I don’t leave you much choice!
)
One of the things I want to protect against is seeing America or any nation along the same lines as the theocracy of Israel. America as a nation isn’t chosen by God in the same way that Israel as a nation is.
That being said, the OT is also full of examples of God using other nations, idolatrous though they may have been, to accomplish his will. (My translation of Habakkuk’s reaction when God informed him that Babylon would appropriate the justice for which Habbakkuk yearned: "Milkawhat?")
If I believe that God can and has used nations, violent and against him though they may be, to accomplish his will, should we actively pursue this? I may not know God’s will in specific, but I know God calls us to free the oppressed. To Ed’s point, if this is God’s kingdom work, and God’s kingdom grows not by violence or in ways other kingdoms grow, should I participate in God’s kingdom work in a violent means?
Ryan,
I think you bring up a valid point. What I hinted at in my post is that God is moving us toward a future without war. I don’t quite know what to make of the OT passages about war, especially Joshua. However, I think we can agree that God’s means of saving us evolves throughout scripture. It follows a trajectory or path toward a certain destination. I think this is a bit of what Paul had in mind when he wrote about the law. It was put into place to lead us to Christ, but it is not where we should stay.
I don’t know why God would do things this way, but my sense is that his approach to war and peacemaking has been moving toward a future with peacemaking. I’m not completely satisfied with that, but I think we’ll have to settle for some mystery on this one.
As to WWII, that’s a tough call. I’m a big history student, so I’ve read a lot on WWII and the biggest what-if is what if the Czechs resisted the German invasion of their mountainous western front while the French and Poles attacked. Of course, if that had happened, the Russians may have joined the war on the side of Germany… And then there’s the what-if of the atomic bomb. As a follower of Jesus I don’t know what I would have done, but I look to Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a guide to a certain degree. Though WWII uselessly killed so many civilians and cannot be termed a “good” war in that sense, Bonhoeffer reminds us that sometimes pacifism can only take us so far. His reflections on joining the resistance against Hitler are quite chilling.
I will certainly do my best to never take up arms in a national cause, but who knows if we’ll ever face a decision such as Bonhoeffer’s…
Blessings,
Ed
Heather~I can’t agree more. America is not Israel. Period. It’s not the new Israel, a replacement for Israel, or any other kind of Israel.
I just wanted Ed to further explain his point as I tend to see many cases in which God specifically calls a nation to go and fight another nation (i.e. national war). So how does that fit into the statement that national war is out. As you mention God does it with Israel as well as Babylon and other nations. If anything there may be a stronger argument for national war in that God used (i.e. called) “pagan” nations to attack Israel in the OT.
Additionally, what do you do with instances like WWII? I think that’s a difficult test case if national war is out. Most all agree that the Nazi’s were wrong, evil, and wicked. Did someone need to stop Germany? What should countries like Great Britain and Russia have done (leaving aside the U.S. response to Pearl Harbor for the moment)? Was it wrong for other nations to stand up against Germany and fight?
Heather, I think you bring up a further interesting point regarding self-defense. If national war is out, why is self-defense appropriate given the passages you reference? Or maybe we’re more concerned with self-preservation (I know I am!
Ryan
Heather, I totally missed your reply to my comment. Sorry about that!
Tough call on the government end of things. I think I change on that one weekly! I do think we need to think in terms of who is using whom. Are we presenting ourselves as the foot soldiers of a political cause, or are we using politics as one of many tools. For example, the Not for Sale folks use government to advance a Kingdom cause, but they aren’t aligning themselves as advisors to any political cause. I know some folks are worried that certain progressive Christian groups are a little too closely allied with the Democrats.
As to the cheek and sword bit, there are two things going on in my view, but this is still a bit fuzzy and uncertain for me, so I’m still in process. A slap to the cheek does not warrant a sword. It’s humiliating. Suck it up and offer the other cheek. A sword to the cheek may be another matter. Perhaps the best move is to just take the sword and to die peacefully, but I don’t know about that. We get into all kinds of hypothetical situations. If I had to choose between someone killing my wife or killing that person, I’m not going to philosophize about that. It’s an easy decision. I will not try to find a redemptive way to help my attacker stop killing my wife. But like I said, we’re hitting onto hypothetical ground here.
I think it is worth noting that Jesus ran away when folks tried to kill him. We shouldn’t equate his sacrificial death with a blueprint for every situation. Sometimes he ran, but when the time came to offer his life for us, he did it. So perhaps the larger question is that we need to determine how God wants us to respond to violence, etc.
I will love those who persecute me. I will turn my cheek when I am slapped. However, when my safety or someone else’s safety is at stake, I think we can take pacifism too far into inaction. Peacemaking can be active, but I wonder if sometimes “swords” need to be involved. I don’t know for sure. it’s a tough topic, which is probably why the Bible left it ambiguous!
If this is true on a micro level (self-defense or defending family), then wouldn’t it be true on a macro level (say, going to war in the Middle East to defend the oppressed there)?
Oh Heather, why do you need to take my lofty ideas to their logical conclusion???
Yeah, so here’s where I can’t be a 100% pacifist. My sense is that nation to nation war is never about “liberating” anybody. I think we need to think about the ways the United Nations can bring in peacekeeping forces to do this work, but one nation should not unilaterally or with allies, invade another nation under any pretense. I think we all know that something rotten will follow.
So we should not stand by and let injustice happen. Violence should be a last resort in self-defense or with a United Nations group. In addition, with the changes to warfare using drones, imaging screens, and computers, the human element is fast disappearing. I think the very nature of warfare today makes it more urgent that we rethink how wars are entered and fought. The states today are MUCH higher.
I hope that fleshes things out a bit more…
I can get on board with this conclusion: we don’t seek out war (especially since most wars are about material things) but there may be exceptions when we’re attacked or to protect someone.
The other day I read an article surveying different books by experts on counterterrorism. While the experts had different solutions, some in contradiction to each other (I think in part because different terrorists are different in nature and/or have slightly different goals), there seemed to be a general agreement that going to war as a nation against terrorists hasn’t traditionally worked. Most argued that we need to confront them in some fashion, but not via national war.
I think the heart of my struggle is seeing articles such as this where men, women, and children are being oppressed. We need to confront this kind of evil. But I can see that full on war may not be the best way to confront it. Especially since war doesn’t fix things long-term. What happens when the soldiers leave?