Of Christians and War
Posted by Francesco Scinico on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008
(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...A few days ago, george w. bush accused Iran of being a threat to the world. Speaking in Abu Dhabi, the third stop of his tour of Arab allies, Bush said Shi’ite Muslim Iran was the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism.
As a Christians, I am saddened to hear news about war. Soldiers and civilians loose their life, families get decimated, a country’s economy gets destroyed; a war’s physical and psychological wounds take years, if not decades, to heal.
How are we Christians to approach the topic of war? The Scriptures are clear on the subject; the revolutionary teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:43-47Matthew 5:43-47
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
was that His followers were not to engage in wars; they were not even supposed to hate their enemies, but to love them and pray for them.
Following the teachings of the Scriptures, the early fathers of the Church wrote extensively on this subject; the Palestinian Christian Justin Martyr wrote:
We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies. (c. 160), ANF 1.176.
Irenaeus, bishop of the church at Lyon, Gaul stated:
The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will rebuke many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they will no longer learn to fight.” … These people [i.e., Christians] formed their swords and war-lances into plowshares,… that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting. When they are struck, they offer also the other cheek. (c. 180) ANF 1.512.
Clement of Alexandria, an highly educated Christian scholar, wrote:
It is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.” (c. 195), ANF 2.234.
Other early fathers of the church such as Tatian, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius stress that Christians should not engage in wars, but love and pray for their enemies.
If as Christians we are not to engage in war, what should our position be when our country faces one? Should we be unfaltering in our condemnation of any war? Or are there situations when a war is morally justified?
It’d be interesting to have a debate on this point. I am convinced that an invasion by an enemy justifies the right to defend one’s country.
Modern politics, however, has seriously undermined our ability to discern what wars are justified. Current politics is deeply entrenched with the interests of international bankers who profits handsomely by lending governments the money to wage those wars; Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild family banking empire, once said, “Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes her laws.”
Our ability to rely on tv and other mass media as sources of dependable information is also weakened by the progressive concentration of these media in the hands of few owners. For example, could we trust nbc as a credible source of information on the Iraq war considering that it is owned by General Electric, one of the top us defense contractors—a company that is profiting from that very war?
Also sometimes the mass media themselves are caught up in embracing a war based on information that later proves to be unfounded or even fabricated in the case of the (in)famous Tonkin Gulf incident, the casus belli of the Vietnam War.
With so much misinformation and even deception all around us, we Christians need to rest in the Scriptures as the ultimate authority on our decisions, especially on crucial matters such as war. Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us:
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. (Mt 10:16Mt 10:16
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. harmless: or, simple )
© 2008 Francesco Scinico
References
ANF = The Anti-Nicene Fathers (edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 1885-1887; reprinted in 10 volumes: Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994). Each reference above indicates the volume and page number in the ANF.
(4.67 out of 5)
Christians and non-Christians alike must struggle with the morals (or lack thereof) surrounding the ugly realities of war. Christians needs to come face-to-face with the following verses (cf. Eccles. 3:1, 8; Matt. 5:44; 24:6-7; Acts 10:1-23; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). How those passages are interpreted determines the position that one holds.
Seven things to remember about war:
There are seven principles or criteria for the just war. The first five principles apply as a nation is “on the way to war” (jus ad bellum) and the final two apply to military forces “in the midst of war” (jus in bello). Briefly, they are as follows:
1. Just cause–All aggression is condemned in just war theory. Participation in the war in question must be prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only defensive war is legitimate.
2. Just intention (right intention)–The war in question must have a just intention, that is, its intent must be to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. Therefore, revenge, conquest, economic gain, and ideological supremacy are not legitimate motives for going to war. There must be a belief that ultimately greater good than harm will result from the war.
3. Last resort–The war in question must be engaged in only as a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been exhausted.
4. Formal declaration–The war in question must be initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities. Only governments can declare war, not individuals, terrorist organizations, mercenaries, or militias.
5. Limited objectives–The war in question must be characterized by limited objectives. This means that securing peace is the goal and purpose of going to war. The war must be waged in such a way that once peace is attainable, hostilities cease. Complete destruction of a nation’s political institutions or economic institutions is an improper objective.
6. Proportionate means–Combatant forces of the opposition forces may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace. The types of weapons and amount of force used must be limited to only what is needed to repel the aggression, deter future attacks, and secure a just peace. Therefore, total or unlimited warfare is inappropriate. (”You don’t burn down the barn to roast the pig.”)
7. Noncombatant immunity–Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them. Since only governments can declare war, only governmental forces or agents are legitimate targets. This means that prisoners of war, civilians, and casualties are immune from intentional attacks.
One of the very sad facts about current war (my facts are a bit dated) “In the first half of this decade, from 1990 to 1995, 70 international states were involved in 93 wars which killed five and a half million people. Most of the casualties were civilians, noncombatants. At the beginning of this century, most of the war casualties were military (85-90%). In World War II more than half of all war deaths were noncombatants. Today, at the end of the twentieth century, more than three-fourths of all war deaths are civilians.”
It seems (to me anyway with my limited conclusions without all the facts) that the Iraq War has some added complications and ones we should really think about.
The ultimate outcome in Iraq has come at a great financial and life losing cost.
1) Terrorists drove two planes into buildings on American soil.
2) No weapons of mass destruction have been found; therefore there are massive needs to reengineer our government’s highest divisions to provide our President with proper intelligence in the future, mediocrity is not accepted.
3) Iraq was clearly a terrorist encouraging and supporting nation.
4) Iraq civilians were being tortured and killed by a bully government.
5) Iraq can’t stand on its’ own against terrorists (at least for now).
6) They are a country filled with people that need the real Jesus Christ.
7) The terrorist tactics place civilians at a very high risk; in very different ways so does our occupation.
9) Iraqi people need our assistance.
10) I’m very proud that one of my sons signed up for the Marines with the sole purpose to help the Iraqi people.
Personally I believe we should complete the freedom objective of the Iraqi people and this means some war activities are necessary. I believe we have not had another serious attack on our homeland since 9/11 because of our aggressive stance in Iraq and Afganistan (even though these two countries aren’t the “Terrorists”). Also we live in a sinful world and force of some type will always be necessary leading up to Armageddon. War is certainly one reason why we must pray for our leaders. Peace must be the objective.