Complete document (with footnoting is in the printable [PDF] version).
In six-thousand years of recorded history, man has experienced a cumulative total of two years of peace. I have often thought that those two years, spread over six thousand, were merely because we needed to reload.
Because of our sinful nature, we have never known peace. Our world is largely controlled by wicked men and this exacerbates the lack of peace:
Isaiah 48:22 "There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked."
Someday, each person will be caught up in a war, if the Lord tarries. We are too good at it and too prone to it not to have an endless succession of wars. We have proven throughout our history as humanity that it is the one thing at which we seem to excel.
Our children will face a more warlike world than we do: it is inevitable according to prophecy. God is aligning the nations of the world for His return, a return that will be cataclysmic. We must prepare now for that time to know what we, as Christians, must do.
Genesis 4:8 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.
In what just may be the first general spraying of testosterone to calm the offended ego of a machismo male, Lamech escalated his revenge against some young man for doing him some otherwise unspecified injury.:
Genesis 4:23-24
23 Then Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, even a young man for hurting me.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold."
Deuteronomy 7:16 "And you shall destroy all the peoples whom the LORD your God delivers over to you; your eye shall have no pity on them; nor shall you serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.
Since God, by His nature, would never command us to sin, it must be stated at the outset that war, in and of itself is not sin; it is, however, always the result of sin.
The rules of engagement laid down by God for Israel tend to make us somewhat squeamish, and causes us to question the picture we have of God as, “Gentle Jesus,
meek and mild.” We fail to realize the offense of sin, the justice of a righteous God, and the infinitude of His wrath. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 describes the violence of
God’s rules of engagement:
10 "When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it.
11 "And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you.
12 "Now if the city will not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 "And when the LORD your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword.
14 "But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies' plunder which the LORD your God gives you.
15 "Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 "But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive,
17 "but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,
18 "lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.
In the post-apostolic church, soldiers in the Roman army could not be baptized into the church until they quit the army. This does not mean it was a correct procedure, merely that it was done. Note, however, that John the Baptist never required soldiers to stop being soldiers:
Luke 3:14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."
By the time of Constantine, the Bishop of Rome had become a religious surrogate of the political rulers: what the rulers (the Emperor) wanted, the Bishop of Rome went along with.
The historic, institutional Church has, by its violence and bloodshed, been a blot on the name of God and the nature of His Body, the Church.
Long ago, the vast majority of evangelicals became convinced that war is not always wrong. Drawing on the clear teaching of both Testaments, they concluded that there is such a thing as a moral right—even duty—to serve as a soldier. The biblical evidence is set forth in such passages as Romans 13. There the apostle Paul teaches that civil authority functions as the “servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.” Thus, when a government uses force to defend the rights of its citizens, it is doing “good” and is approved by God himself.
Throughout both Old and New Testaments, the taking of life under certain circumstances is approved.1
The Hebrew word used in the commandment, “You shall not murder,” forbids premeditated murder and manslaughter but not killing as punishment or in warfare. The larger context of God's commands about war and criminal punishment in the Old Testament also confirms this view. Jesus’ teaching about loving our enemies and his warning against personal vengeance were intended to guide personal relations but not to deny governments the right to use force. For example, it would be wrong for me to kill another or to take his property. But it is right for the government to use the sword to apprehend and punish criminals or to collect taxes from its citizens by force. It is difficult to take seriously the Book of Revelation (interpreted literally or figuratively) and fail to see that it is right to restrain the awful wickedness of this world by force. Some wars are right. In World War II, 51 million people died in a tragedy so terrible that our minds can scarcely take it in, but it was right to battle against Hitler and a world dominated by the Nazis. biblical revelation concurs with an instructed, intelligently directed love (by contrast with an unbiblical, sticky sentimentalism that often gets confused with biblical love). Accordingly, the church has seen fit not to rule out all war as wrong but to stress its moral parameters and to struggle desperately for peace.
As a result of His involvement in war, it must be stated that war, in and of itself, is not sin, but that it is always the result of the sinfulness of man.
God being God, He can do things that we are not allowed. That does not mean that
He can act immorally. All of God’s acts are moral and righteous, even when He destroys
people in warfare. As Robert Clouse states in his “Introduction” to War: Four Christian Views: The Old Testament teaching of aggressive war has encouraged many Christians to engage in armed conflict. These individuals, however, fail to realize that Israel was a theocratic state that went to war at the command of God. In modern times there is not a state whose king is God. Clouse goes on to state that Jesus, in one way, changed the rules for believers in war, since He was not speaking for His theocratic kingdom but for believers living in a wicked and thoroughly secularized world.
In the teachings of Jesus the kingdom takes on a different emphasis. It is no longer confined within the boundaries of a single state but exists wherever Christ is accepted and acknowledged as Lord. The change in the form of the kingdom means that care must be taken in applying Old Testament laws to the new situation.
Pacifism has become more of a sentiment than a position. It is a sentiment founded upon the mistaken belief that men are capable, within themselves, of “good,” while denying what the Bible clearly affirms, “There is none righteous, no, not one; . . . . Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known." (Romans 3:9, 15-17.)
"The question [what will Christians die for?], rather, concerns the best means of securing peace. And here we must beware of fads. I lived through and participated in a time of easy, faddish pacifism during the 1930s. I shudder to think of the tragedy that would be ours if we of this movement had eroded the will of the populace to fight Hitler. Thank God. Thank God for the moral toughness of Reinhold Niebuhr and Winston Churchill. Yes, that war needed to be fought—even at the cost of 51 million lives." (Kenneth Kantzer.)
Philosophic pacifism: this approach to pacifism had its greatest impact on society at the time of the Second World War. Philosophic pacifism was not founded upon biblical or religious principles, advocates insisting that war was morally wrong and not to be engaged in under any circumstances. Founded solely on human reason, philosophic pacifism is largely a personal, individual effort in its opposition to war and compulsory military service. Its advocates are willing for governments to wage war, but they reserve the right to be exempt from personal participation.
Political pacifism works in the sphere of government and international relations. This is the pacifism used by subversive organizations; regardless of whether or not they truly hold to pacifism or merely want to use pacifistic arguments to bring down governments. True biblical nonresistance derives its authority from the Bible and does not seek to undermine the government, while political pacifism is based on human reason and dubious motives alone, and is utterly subversive.
Social pacifism is perhaps the most dangerous type in existence today. Religious liberalism is infiltrated with this approach to war. The leaders are mostly theologians who deny the eschatology of the Bible. They argue for a new interpretation of the Bible in order to make great social changes and bring peace and prosperity to the world. Theirs is the social gospel. The danger of this group is that they couch the rhetoric of anti-biblical theories of peacemaking in biblical terminology, thereby confusing the undiscerning listener.
Religious pacifism is held by Christian groups who are dedicated to the Bible. Their eschatology provides the basis for teaching that war is morally wrong. They fail to realize the complete separation of the church from the state nor do they realize the prophetic picture of the end of the age, believing that it is up to them to usher in an age of peace. [Note Herman Hoyt, "Nonresistance," In War: Four Christian Views (Downer's Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1981), pp. 44-48.]
Religious pacifism is now an inexpensive position since it costs such pacifists very little. “The soldier's convictions are the most costly personally; they could mean his life. The pacifist keeps both convictions and life as well. Moral cost is one factor to consider in the validity of moral precept and, for the pacifist, there is little moral cost.
The delegates (Mennonite and Brethren Conference on Peacemaking) called for total military disarmament and an end to economic support for military programs. “The delegates passed a resolution that, while not binding on individual church members, called for carrying out peace education programs on the local level, returning to a simpler life style, and developing church support groups for persons who use nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience to “express a faithful peace witness.”
The most controversial issue in the Green Lake statement (above) was war tax resistance—the practice of refusing to pay that portion of your federal income tax that goes for military programs. The measure asked persons “to seriously consider refusal” [sic.] to pay the military portion of their federal taxes.
The term comes from the key verse on this position,
Matthew 5:39 “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.“
Nonresistance is the refusal to stand in opposition to evil with any weapons other than spiritual ones. Some early non-resistors, such as the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century anabaptists of Germany, Bavaria, and Switzerland paid a high price for their beliefs. One can understand the nonresistance of these Christians because, in their day, one was as likely to be killed by an army of the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church as by any pagan army. They saw the evil of the complete blending of the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world and non-resistance was one of the ways in which they expressed a biblical approach to separation of the one from the other.
Nonresistance is a calling for the Church, not the world; therefore, it is different from pacifism, which attempts to conform the world to what religious pacifists believe is a biblical position. Nonresistance was the dominant position of the church until A.D. 174.1 Serving in the military was not a notable problem for Christians until the Napoleonic era in France introduced nations to universal conscription. Both non-resistors and pacifists suffered through the introduction of universal conscription.
The primary passage dealing with non-resistance is John 18:36: Jesus answered [Pontius Pilate], "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."
The problem, however, is that Jesus was not giving a principle to the Church as He was in enlightening Pontius Pilate of the Roman authority being powerless in when confronted by God’s Kingdom. Jesus was simply sharing that His Kingdom was not an earthly kingdom subject to the same restrictions and weaknesses of all other earthly kingdoms. His servants had no need to fight for His Kingdom since His Kingdom was not subject to any earthly force or power. The following passages could also be interpreted as teaching nonresistance: Matthew 5:38-48:
38 "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
41 "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Luke 6:27-35:
27 "But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 "bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.
29 "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.
30 "Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back.
31 "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
33 "And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
34 "And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.
35 "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.
Romans 12:19-21
19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 1 Peter 2:18-24
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.
19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.
20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth";
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him
who judges righteously;
24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we,
having died to sins, might live for righteousness-- by whose
stripes you were healed.
All of these verses are questionably relevant from their contexts to the issue of non-resitance or non-participation in carnal strife.
Balancing this is Matthew 22:21: Jesus was responding to a trick question to entrap Him: “They said to Him [in reference to the image stamped on a Roman coin], ‘Caesar's.’ And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’”
Note also: Romans 13: 7 “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
The problem here with non-resistance is the law of infinite regression: at what point would you take action? If someone was trying to break into your house to harm your family, would you take action? If someone could easily be stopped from causing you harm, would you take the necessary action? I remember talking years ago with a good friend who held to nonresistance. He affirmed that, if someone were to break into his house to do violence to him, his wife, or his children, he would not take any action. That may seem a nice sentiment unless you are dependent upon this man for protection. It is also easy to make such a statement in a relatively safe society as we enjoy in America. This friend’s commitment was never put to the test, and, until it was, it was merely a nice theory, not a proven commitment.
to this view. There are seven criteria for a just war:
Last resort: all other means to a morally just solution of a conflict must be exhausted.
Just cause: war can be employed to defend a stable order or morally preferable cause against impending destruction or injustice. The opponent must clearly be unjust.
Right attitudes: the attitude in waging war must be to restore justice.
Prior declaration of war: was must be explicitly declared by legitimate authority. No militia action or vigilantism. A formal declaration of war gives opponent the opportunity to abandon unjust activity.
Reasonable hope of success: war to be waged only by military means which promise a reasonable attainment of moral and political objectives sought.
Noncombatant immunity: there must be protection for the civilian population of the opponent (at least those not involved in producing war materiel).
Proportionality: there must be a reasonable expectation that the good results of the war exceed the horrible effects.
By these criteria, there have been no just wars in modern history, including World War II, because of the suffering of non-combatants on both sides (the bombing of London during the blitz is balanced by the fire-bombing of Dresden). The problem with the just war theory is that, when pushed to extremes, the losing side will utilize more-desperate weapons and means, thereby escalating the conflict and its horrors. War, by its very nature is a horror, and cannot be ameliorated by humane methods.
It was a teacher at the Prussian military academies, Karl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), whose theories of warfare were accepted as the standard in modern times. He articulated the concept of “total war,” the necessity to push conflict to the “utmost bounds” of violence in order to win. As Clausewitz explained: “He who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigor in its application. The former then dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities, to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counteracting force on each side. . . . To introduce into a philosophy of war a principle of moderation would be an absurdity. War is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds.”
The just war may be determined by what, at the extreme, are you willing to die for. Are you willing to die for your freedom to worship God? For another’s freedom? For an end to tyranny?
The preemptive war would be initiated by those who believe themselves in a just position opposing others who are unjust or increasingly dangerous and must be stopped before they can realize their goals. The issues with Iraq would fall in this category.
The Crusades of the late middle ages are perverted examples of preemptive wars, not for the alleviation of suffering of others and the restoration of justice, but because violence had become so immersed in the very fabric of the institutional Church, that sanctity and brutality often defined the same acts.
It is clear from the Crusades that what finally overpowered the early Christian teaching against violence was not merely a just war theory but rather a merger of violence and holiness at all levels of Christian life. Many other examples could be given of the new favorable attitude taken toward violence in the church. The liturgy was expanded to include the blessing of weapons and standards. Knights were consecrated by ceremonies which often were a continuation of old pagan customs. There were even new religious orders established such as the Templars who promised to fight the enemies of God in addition to taking the normal vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. When violence became sacred, the enemy was believed to be diabolical. Thus the Muslims were looked on as the opponents of the kingdom of God, a fulfillment of the forces of the antichrist as predicted in the book of Revelation. It was considered wrong to show mercy to these enemies of God. The code of the just war . . . was largely in abeyance in fighting the infidel. Crucifixion, ripping open those who had swallowed coins, mutilation—Bohemond of Antioch sent to the Greek Emperor a whole cargo of noses and thumbs sliced from the Saracens—such exploits the chronicles of the crusades recount without qualm. A favorite text was a verse in Jeremiah “Cursed by he that keepeth back his hand from blood.”
The “Christian Crusade” would endorse a holy war which pits the guys in the white hats against the guys in the black hats. Few situations are so simplistic. We might have been spared World War II, however, if we had initiated a preemptive war against Germany prior to Germany’s attack on Poland.
Christians who supported the Contras in Nicaragua or the Coalition Forces in Iraq would also support a preemptive war.
After all the debate and all the Bible references, the final determination of how a believer should act in the face of the violence of war comes down to a personal decision.
Following are a few considerations as you make your personal determination:
Wars, by their very nature, are violent and always spill over into the suffering of innocents. War is a brutal business that is a government-sanctioned slaughter.
War, in itself, is not sin because God initiates wars as His primary means in the temporal world of judging nations. War, however, is always the result of sin, irrespective of its cause.
Evangelical Christians seem to lean more towards a willingness to go to war than other groups in America, also tending to a support of a strong military.
Long ago, the vast majority of evangelicals became convinced that war is not always wrong. Drawing on the clear teaching of both Testaments, they concluded that there is such a thing as a moral right—even duty—to serve as a soldier. The biblical evidence is set forth in such passages as Romans 13. There the apostle Paul teaches that civil authority functions as the “servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.” Thus, when a government uses force to defend the rights of its citizens, it is doing “good” and is approved by God himself.
Throughout both Old and New Testaments, the taking of life under certain circumstances is approved.
Nuclear weapons are a red herring, because all weapons are horrible by their very nature. As is seen in any recent war or campaign, all weapons are capable of the most
horrific results. There are no humane or “nice” weapons.
Americans generally, and evangelicals particularly, are confused and troubled by the debate over nuclear armament and the threat of nuclear war. And well they might be! In World War I, 15 million people died. In World War II, 51 million people died. With proportional increases for World War III, 150 million will die, and many Americans will be in that number. Such a dreadful prospect surely demands clear, hard-headed thinking with a heart-felt appeal to a merciful God for wisdom and guidance.
War is a brutal activity and the one who is the most violent without restraint will be so for the shortest amount of time and, therefore, will be the most humane.
As Christian non-resistors are willing to allow others to fight for their freedom, including their freedom to worship God, they may be looked upon as those who benefit from war without having to risk involvement in war. If it is not moral abdication, it at least smacks of cowardice.
Jesus promised a peace that the world could not provide. The best peace that the world gives is a peace founded upon circumstances, rather than the true peace of
which Jesus spoke.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
Jesus promised peace with God through His sacrifice of love at Calvary, peace within the heart knowing that the believer was at peace with God who was enabled to love and care for him without restraint, and peace with all others who also shared this peace.
By making war “safe,” we make war more palatable. War must be left to be as horrible as it is; it must cost us our dearest blood. Perhaps the worst thing that has happened in the United States is the abolishing of the draft and its replacement by an all-volunteer army. A nation with an army of volunteers is likely to be more adventuresome in warfare than a nation which drafts soldiers out of the general population. The population at large can sit back and say, “Go to war, teach that other regime a lesson; it will cost me nothing since I won’t be one of the soldiers heading in harm’s way. That’s why we pay those other guys.”
Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense, 1968): “It is the clear and present ability to destroy the attacker as a twentieth-century nation and an unwavering will to use those forces in retaliation to a nuclear attack that provides the deterrent [to nuclear all-out war].”
This means that we cannot outlaw war: it will be with us until the end. The pacifist holds to a failed position due to the eschatology of the Bible. Future history has already been written in Scripture and the nations will all come to their ends in a violent cataclysm of war.
I have found the Scripture to be less-than-clear on a position to hold, thereby forcing the believer to exercise humility as he comes before God to determine his course of action in light of the military actions of his government. Church history is a clutter of different positions and extremes and is not to be trusted as evidence one way or the other.
How should a Christian respond to the call of our government to war? The only position that is not supportable by the Bible is pacifism. Of the other three traditional positions, each individual believer must make his own determination. Each Christian must evaluate the claims of our government to the just-war hypothesis and judge the rightness or wrongness of the arguments and act accordingly. The pre-emptive war requires the same personal adjudication. If one believes that his government is morally wrong in its decision to go to war, he has no other fall-back position once he has voiced his objections peaceably to his government, but to be a non-resistor. If the government jails non-resistors, then the believer must accept that as his submission to his government on earth as he submits to the overruling government of His God and His Kingdom.