The Christian & War- Are They Compatible?

Is it consistent for a person to be truly Christian and yet supportive of an act of war?

We have had some interesting blogs and resultant dialog on the issue of warfare. And, a few times, I have put in my two-cents-worth generally coming down in favor of the American effort in Iraq and the global war against Islamic terrorism. Some find it peculiar that I would write so often and so passionately about the effort and need to love others, and yet support this war.

So, this is an effort to pass along some insights about how I feel one can, indeed, be Christian and yet supportive and participative of a war.

First of all, I'm not convinced that Jesus was a Pacifist. His earthly time of ministry was only about 2 ½ years, and there are many subjects He did not directly address. Particularly, He had almost nothing directly to say about governments and international affairs. Almost exclusively He focused upon the Kingdom of God, one's personal relationship with God, and the living-out of one's love for God in relationship with his fellow man.

Does the Bible support the concept of a “just conflict”?
When Christ talks about turning the other cheek (Matt. 5:39), He is talking about personal ethics, and not national defense.

In Romans 13:4 Paul writes: “But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it (the government) does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God; an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” While it is certainly not my calling to forcibly bring about justice, it seems it can the right of the government.


Augustine, the great Christian theologian of the 4th Century, crystallized the concept of a “just war”. Here are some applicable words: “The just war is to be fought under the authority of the state and is limited to its goal to the restoration of justice or the preservation of peace. Moreover, the just war, in order to be just, must be a last resort entered into only after methods of solving disputes non-violently have been exhausted. Further, the just war must be fought justly. That is with special care taken to protect non-combatants and with the level of violence strictly limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the goal of justice; that is the restoration of peace or the preservation of justice.”


When is it proper for a person seeking to do what is moral and right to support an act of war? My understanding is...
(1) When all other alternatives have been exhausted
(2) When the absence of war presents a greater peril
(3) When liberation can be achieved in no other way
(4) When essential provisions for survival can be secured in no other way
(5) When it is limited to the goals of preservation and restoration
(6) When the level of violence is limited to the minimum absolutely necessary


Some time ago, I wrote a piece entitled Can You Love Someone And Yet Kill That Person?.  I think it is applicable to warfare.


I can envision the situation where the context of conflict would necessitate that I would kill a person for whom I have no personal animosity, for whom I personally would seek the highest good, but am forced because of support for a greater good to actively bring about his/her demise. Also, my love for others may sometime necessitate that I take action for the common good that I would not do so exclusively for self. Thus, I may not take up arms to defend myself singularly, but most likely I would to defend my family or my country.


My understanding of “just war” is continuing to evolve, grow, and change. You are encourage to join with me in what I consider to be a very important issue.

07.31.06 (5:15 pm)   [edit]


posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (12:50 pm)

"Christianity" is not a suicide pact.


posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:15 pm)

I think there are just wars too. This one in Iraq certainly doesn't qualify, and never will. NO just war can be entered into with for spurious causes, and if you STILL think we had the right to do what we did, it's not worth arguing the point.

Christ certainly was not merely talking about someone who slaps your face when he talked about turning the other cheek. That's simply absurd. He talked FAR more about living on this planet well than he did about your Kingdom of Heaven, which like so much of what he talked about was said in order to make people understand THIS life better.

I'm so tired of people giving Jesus the short shrift, which you are certianly doing with this line of thinking. On the one hand, I'm amazed, and on another, not surprised even a little. Depressing.




posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:18 pm)

By the way.... Paul wasn't Jesus and didn't speak for him.


posted by: tfruge1 (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:25 pm)

Being the liberal that I am, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I am against all forms of war because I believe in preservation of human life no matter what. I oppose the death penality as well due the fact that even murderers and sinners should still be allowed the most basic of human rights: the right to live. I think that war between countries is pointless and amounts to nothing but the deaths of innocent lives. Why can't we act like human being and respect the rights of others even in times of disagreement.

I am not anti-semetic but I don't agree with what Israel is doing right now. I think they are taking it way too far. They are using this kidnapping as an excuse to fight. Something they been wanting to do for some time now. Too many innocent civilians are losing their lives over nothing and this does not have to happen. I just don't see how a leader of a country could live with themselves knowing that they are sending their countrymen to die. I am refering to President Bush and the war in Iraq. Too many of our brave men and women have lost their lives in this unjust war.

People argue that diplomacy never gets you anywhere. I don't see how that statement hold any kind of truth in it in my opinion. Diplomacy and reasoning is the only way for peace to occur. Violence only leads to more violence which ultimately leads to the deaths many that don't deserve it.


posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:28 pm)

Reply to: surrogate
I do not see that you can have it both ways. If you believe the teaching, from the Sermon on the Mount, to "turn the other cheek" applies to political entities in international relations, then you cannot believe in the concept of a "just war". We need to turn our swords into plowshares, and let the other guy do whatever he wishes.

Now about giving Jesus the short shrift:
I believe him to be God Incarnate - you do not
I believe him to be the coming Judge of the Quick & the Dead - you do not
I believe him to be the only way to a relationship with the Father - you do not
I worship him daily
I pray to him
I serve him
I seek to center my life around him

Now we may disagree, and one point concerns just who is truly giving Jesus "the short shrift".



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:31 pm)

Reply to: surrogate
Please notice the subheading: Does the Bible support the concept of a “just conflict”? As do many Christians, I gain much of my understanding of God's will from the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, including the epistles of Paul. It's inspired scripture. It's the same source used by Augustine to formulate his concept of a "just war".



posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:32 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave
You take what makes you feel and holy good and ignore the important stuff... You are.


posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:39 pm)

Reply to: tfruge1
An interesting quote I came across:
"Let him who desires peace, prepare for war." - Vegetius
Its just a reality of human nature that, for peace to reign, both parties must cooperate. That's true on the playground and in the international arena.

I do appreciate your moral convictin and clarity. And I will say that in my personal relations I believe in seeking to be a peacemaker. I do not own a gun. I could not imagine shooting someone, although I may to protcet someone else. And I seek to turn the other cheek, although it is not easy or natural for me to do.

Keep coming around. I just may learn something.




posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:40 pm)

oh, and exactly where did Jesus say he was going to be the judge of the quick and the dead?


posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:42 pm)

Reply to: surrogate
Well, being close to Jesus does not make me feel holy and good. Just the opposite. It makes me realize how much superior he is, and how very far I have to go.

I think you admire Jesus, greatly. And I respect that about you.

I seek to worship Him. I don't believe you've yet to see the need to do so. So, we've a big difference.



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (3:45 pm)

Reply to: surrogate
Matthew 25:31-34
It's a theme, throughout the gospels and epistles, and the book of Revelation.



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (4:40 pm)

Reply to: thoolou
I agree. But, I understand the early Christians experienced the wrath of the Roman government not because of their theology per se, but because they refused to serve in the army. They chose execution because of their pacifism.



posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (5:04 pm)

Reply to: surrogate

I'm just really, really taken back by your inability to engage anyone on this subject with any degree of intellectual honesty or logical dialog. As you know, PD and I disagree very much on theolgy, social politics and many, many other political/theological topics. Your very dispostion about these topics is tacitly arrogant and devoid of intellectual seriousness. You start from the point-of-view that anyone who can't see that you're right and PD's perspective is radically flawed is either stupid, delusional, racist or some combination of the three.

I don't agree with PD either. In fact, I don't even agree with the premise that it has any consequence whatsoever whether Christian scriptures or the words of Jesus sanction war or not. Still, PD certainly makes an intellectually compelling case that the Christian scriptures seem to either not address or possibly even infer that there is such thing as legitimate military actions by governments against a political enemy. (Enemy, of course, means an enemy defined by the same scriptures that give the tacit consent for the government to act against "evil".)

I'll stay out of the content of the arguments on this one, however, since this isn't my fight and I don't give credence one way or the other to any argument using any scripture as its basis except when such so called wisdom squares with reason and human experience.

What I want to sincerely point out, again, is that you have become an blogging entity that refuses to constructively engaged those who disagree with your premises, even when the disagreement is as logical, thoughtful and compelling as PD's argument given here for a discussion of how a Christian might approach the subject of war and military actions by governments from a strictly scriptural perspective. You even dismiss his research out of hand by making a claim that you don't even attempt substantiate with facts when you say that Jesus spoke much more about living well on this earth than he spoke about the Kingdom. I'm a pretty solid New Testament scholar and I'd challenge that claim on its face. I'll leave it to someone who cares more about the scriptural argument to do the research on that one.

I find PD's theological points to be pretty solid and reasonably consistent with a rational interpretation of the scriptures he gives here for his argument.

I happen to believe the Christian fundamentalism is just as much a hinderance to democratic freedom as Muslim fundamentalist. Fortunately, the Christian militants have mostly been eradicated and Christianity today exists as a shell of its former self from a world political domination agenda point-of-view.



posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (6:34 pm)

Reply to: kurtmaddox I don't have the time or inclination to address your entire thesis since it's just more of the same "surrogate plays unfair" stuff but if you're a solid New Testement scholor, you'd know my claim is valid without even having to look too far. Even the verses PD tried to use to answer my earlier question are really about living here and now.

Oh, and in your final paragraph (I think it's on page 432 of this particular comment,) you state the following, "Fortunately, the Christian militants have mostly been eradicated and Christianity today exists as a shell of its former self from a world political domination agenda point-of-view." Well gess what? They were never "eradicated." Times changed and the vitriol subsided. I'm simply suggesting setting up a scenario where the same thing is allowed to happen for the Muslims.

Now for future reference... I understand you believe I'm intellectually dishonest. I get it. You needn't point it out again. And I understand that my believing strongly in my position is irrational to you. I also get that.

I think if you really feel so strongly about this war and it's rightness, you should do whatever you can to take part in it. There is NOTHING worse than chicken hawks in my mind, but then you fit right in with these goofs running the show. All big talkers willing to send others to do what they couldn't and wouldn't do themselves.

I'm sure PD appreciates your support.


posted by: babe4jesus55 (reply)
post date: 07.31.06 (6:43 pm)

I'm thinking like many of Jesus' standards, a "just war" as you've defined it by way of scripture is not possible because those fighting the war are human and most probably aren't interested in seeking God's help to fight a truly "just war", which is the only way such a thing could take place. Humans make mistakes. Innocents have and will continue to get hurt, maybe not physically but at least emotionally. Take the family who lost their soldier in the war; they didn't have a limb shot off and bled to death on the hot sand, but they sure feel the hurt. I'd much rather stay out of a war.

Since we are currently in one, I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend I don't hear the bombs exploding. I support the troops, because it's not their fault they're over there. Perhaps President Bush needed to think through the reprucutions of a Middle East war more before starting this whole mess, but we're there now so there's no use whining over past decisions. We can't abandon what we've started until the job's done. If we pull out now before we've got a democratic government set up in Iraq, then I'd say we're big sissies and would probably look like a ripe, sissy target for more attacks like 9/11.

"And that's all I have to say about that."


posted by: fractalmom (reply)
post date: 08.01.06 (4:21 pm)

whoo boy. good one pd.

i hate war. i hate people dying for stupid things. but, like babe4jesus55, i will support our country.

now, this whole God thingy again. notice how it keeps cropping up? how weird is that.

i'm gonna just extemporize here, no quoting scripture or anything quite that formal as i am sitting in my nightie with laptop and merlot, hubby beside me and in a good mood. don't feel like getting the Bible out to look up stuff, and having just turned 51, don't trust my memory that well anymore {grin}

i have been confused about um....three to six or so wars in my lifetime. don't understand them.

i kind of have a 'george carlin' thought on the war. it does seem that we go to war alot because of...'i don't like your God and I think MY God is better than YOUR God."

that is weird. especially since you consider that of the four major religions in the world today, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Buddism, three of the four have THE SAME GOD !! Christian's do add God as Jesus, or actually, Jesus as God I guess.

so then, (i won't go as far as george carlin and suggest that we all worship joe pesci) why the holy wars, why any war about religion?

but wait? THIS war (iraq) wasn't about religion. it was about democracy (or lack thereof). but was it? it sort of seems to me that we entered into the Iraq war as a direct result of 9/11. i have not gotten that whole thing sorted out in my mind either.
the two were apparently totally separate. one was a mindless but well thought out and planned attack on a superpower who doesn't worship Allah (except if our old testament and the koran are the same books...then isn't the God the same God? under a different name?)

and then we attacked a ruler (despot, asshole, dictator, whatever you call him) who treats his people absolutely inhumanely because the people who attacked US (that is us, as in yours, us, ours, not U.S.) sometimes are affliated with that despot.

or maybe i am confused. maybe we just attacked iraq because GW wanted to do what his Dad FAILED to do?

i don't know. i am neither a chicken hawk nor a war monger. just a small town catholic girl who votes her conscience and mostly that ends up republican.

but, i do think that Christians as a whole are supposed to love their fellow man. where that conflicts with government, is a personal decision i guess. that is why our government, being democratic and all allows for consciencious objectors. you don't HAVE to fight, but you might have to be in the military.

is there such a thing as a just war? God was solidly behind a few people in the Old Testament when they perpetrated or defended. so i think that yes, if Joshua could fight the Battle of Jericho, then there CAN be such a thing as a just war for Christians.

I think God probably despises assholes as much as you or I. God may love them for their humanity, but I am sure that He does not love their evilness.

so, yes, to just wars and Christians.

reserving judgment as to whether or not iraq is a just war, and reserving judgment as to whether or not the Israeli's are in the right or wrong.

imho.
dawn (who is mostly confused thus far in this year)


posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 08.01.06 (5:05 pm)

Reply to: fractalmom
Hey, given your current situation, I advise that you put down the laptop and forget about this blog, and do something else...

I do think the concept of holy war, in the Old Testament, is best left for that time and place. It gets confusing and challenging when you read the details of Joshua and his conquests. No mercy, it seems. The New Testament understanding of God seems far removed. Of course, who are we to even pretend that all the Bible is easy to understand.




posted by: fractalmom (reply)
post date: 08.01.06 (5:27 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave
LOLOL. that would be wonderful, but alas, the oldest grandaughter who has the same name as YOUR grandaughter, turns 7 tomorrow, and we are busily putting together (against my better judgment) an electric motorcycle, motocross style. country kids. parenting at 51, what a hoot.

still, hubby appreciated the thought. LOL
dawn


posted by: seochris (reply)
post date: 08.01.06 (7:35 pm)

I feel war should be the last option yet the most powerful one bringing out a true result> While most of the times its almost difficult to figure out a viable solution to the dilema faced.

But this can be changed if good talks are help and things are viewed from a larger perspective viz. Humanity alone.

I agree its becoming increasingly difficult to cope up with the islamic militants though there are a few from Islam who love peace. Let the leaders deal wisely so as not bring doomsday for the human race in totality.

Your Name:


Your Comment: