Christians have been vexed for the past two millennia over the issue of war. As one would expect after such a long period of time, the problem is not that there are no answers but rather too many.
The battle lines of argumentation have become neatly drawn and positions deeply entrenched. It is only a matter then of choosing which side to defend, from ‘just cause-just war’ to ‘unjust cause-unjust war’ and every combination in-between.
With the rise in humanism on the one hand, and political participation on the other, ‘doves’ (those for peace) have possibly increased in numbers but given the numerous conflicts around the world, there are still enough ‘hawks’ who subscribe to violence as the answer to their problems.
Augustine was the one who originally said that Jesus’ admonitions against violence were not to be taken literally but were a state of mind. If the mind is conditioned first and always by a love for God, he said, even forbidden acts are permissible. In any case, the individual never had a James Bond-like personalised licence to kill. He could only do so if instructed by God or by those in whom God had invested legitimate authority.
Aquinas likened the person who engages in a just war as a mere instrument of the state. Paul Ramsey, a 20th century Catholic theologian credited with rediscovering the tradition, could say that it was not an exception to the command of "thou shall not kill (murder)" but an expression of "moral and political responsibility."
The reformed church also bought into the idea that there is a morally and ethically right time to kill. During the Second World War, Reinhold Niebuhr, a disillusioned pacificist, developed the concept of ‘Christian realism’ to mobilise church support against the Nazis. Embedded in this concept is the idea that Christ’s teachings can only be approximated in the world. It represents an ideal towards which Christians strive but never grasp in a sinful world. Logic and common sense would seem to rule that we really cannot do otherwise.
If Niebuhr had not been successful in convincing the large numbers of pacifist American churchmen that fighting the Nazis was right (or if Pearl Harbour had not happened) we might have ended up under German-Japanese rule.
On the other side of the Kingdom of God are the so-called ‘peace churches’. Brethren, Quakers and Mennonites, for example, have all maintained a consistent peace stand, occasionally at great sacrifice to themselves. Their insistence is on the literal and specific application of scriptures.
The evangelical community itself seems to be divided into a war school and a peace school. (Indeed, there are those who positively jump for joy at the prospect of war since this "heralds" the Second Coming of Christ.) The former argues that Romans 13:1–5 gives nations the right to prosecute wars and to require Christians to fight in them. Like the early church fathers, a distinction is made so that what applies to the individual does not necessarily also apply to rulers and those in authority.
Unlike times past, however, the citizens of many countries elect their governments and have the right not only to express a view against war but also demand that the government of their choice does the same. It is now no longer possible to so easily draw the line between governor and the governed.
Perhaps, the most damning indictments of just-war theorists (and Niebuhr for that matter) is one which Alan Johnson made in his 1985 article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Proponents of just wars, he says, just do not engage and reflect on the whole scriptures, not even highly respected theologians and churchmen writing on the subject.
A month before the Iraq war started, I had the eschatological imagery of Christians being ‘powerless sitting ducks’, oppressed and defeated in the flesh so that only Christ was able to save. As I delved deeper, this view changed.
First, God has, in the past, engineered or allowed wars in order to serve His purposes. There are also suggestions that He will continue to do so. Thus, I have no right to adopt an absolutist position that rules out war in a way that transcends His sovereign will.
Second, I must make a clear distinction between what is truth and belief. Often, when I say that something is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or bad’, I am expressing values, preferences and incomplete knowledge rather than any objective and verifiable truth. Only He is omniscient and infallible.
Third, even with the benefit of ‘God-breathed’ truth (2 Tim. 3:16), we can only see but a poor reflection as in a ‘mirror and know (only) in part’. (1 Cor. 13:12). I have been guilty many times of being so sure of myself that it amounts to unfounded pride and arrogance.
Fourth, those who allow just wars are constantly faced with having to make decisions about the boundaries. In the end, it is always someone’s call and the term ‘just’ can be no more than a religious salve to kill without guilt. I should not wish to be responsible or party to such decisions.
Fifth, notwithstanding the above, Christians of every persuasion are equally loved and capable of fitting into His divine plan. If Cyrus, the Persian king, could be His Anointed One, I have no grounds for disrespecting and ridiculing those who seek different goals using different methods.
Sixth, my divinely-ordained mission is not to judge for others what is just or unjust or righteous or unrighteous, as if that authority were ever invested in me. My commission is to love God with my whole being and my fellow man as myself.
Seventh, He has called me to bring healing, freedom and encouragement even if that conviction costs me freedom and my life. It is something I must be prepared to pay. His assurance is that it will be worth it.
|
