Archive: Is War Ever Justified?

YES!

says Elizabeth Richman, Lay Member, Oregon/Idaho Annual Conference, Alsea, Oregon

A recent Judicial Council decision makes it clear that the Social Principles statement (Discipline, pp. 86-104) does not have the force of law in our church. Yet every step United Methodists take is shadowed by statements in Social Principles! We see this in annual conference resolutions on political matters and in political statements which are justified in terms of our Social Principles. We see that often when United Methodists speak on certain moral issues, as well as foreign relations and military defense.

Is it possible, we are justly asked, to be a true follower of the UM Church and at the same time to favor a strong national defense for the United States? Does our church have a theology of war and peace? Should it?

In this article I am not trying to define a position but rather to raise a basic question which has already been placed by others on the United Methodist agenda. Examine the Social Principles statement. Even though this is not binding law, nevertheless it serves widely as a guideline for inner church teaching. And very importantly, it is a part of what those outside our church see when we talk United Methodism to them.

Notice ¶74 G, Military Service (Discipline, p.101). It makes a stab at carrying water on both shoulders but not unexpectedly winds up slightly off balance. And ¶75 C, War and Peace (p.102), is either pacifist or says nothing; I’m not sure which.

Consider the resolutions adopted in 1979 by a number of United Methodist annual conferences. Newscope for July 6, 1979 made a summary of these pronunciamentos. It reported:

At least 33 conferences passed statements on reduction of military forces, 13 conferences called for ratification of SALT II and one asked to study the treaties. Another eight urged arms reduction; three called for studies on disarmament; and seven opposed any draft reinstatement.

In 1979 the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference recorded its opposition to any “proposal to further institute or increase civil defense activities against nuclear war …” fearful among other things lest such activities “… might alarm Soviet leaders.”

According to Newscope for Sept. 28, 1979, the UM Board of Church and Society presented to General Conference resolutions opposing any form of military draft and supported SALT II. The UM Boards of Church and Society and Global Ministries both have been acting as sponsors of the Religious Committee on SALT which seeks ratification of SALT II. As a church, we have been up to our necks in lobbying for SALT II!

I wonder what are the ethical/theological grounds by which our church is advocating both (1) decreased military defense for the United States and simultaneously (2) ratification of SALT II. This proposed treaty would not lessen the arms deployed by the two countries involved. But it would have an effect upon the relative military strength—to the disadvantage of the United States.

The frequently-cited standards for judging doctrinal correctness among United Methodists are Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. These might well be used also as a framework for judging stands on SALT II, and other military-defense positions taken by our UM Church.

Scripture is often used as an argument for pacifism. I know this not because of anything I read in the Bible but because, in my own personal experience, I have often heard such arguments. There is Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.” However, this is closely followed by laws relating to the death penalty and later on in the Old Testament by quite a lot of non-pacifist material on the subject of war. Should not the word “kill” in Exodus 20:13 be more properly translated “murder?” Clearly this text is not referring to war, otherwise God Himself would not have sanctioned war as right for His people of the Old Covenant—and in fact ordered them, in some instances, to kill His enemies.

Pacifists often quote the well-known “… They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” (Isaiah 2:4) and Isaiah 11:6: “The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.”

How many illustrations against war have I seen on these themes? But how many farmers would keep a wolf in the sheepfold or a lion in with the cows? And climbing into the lions’ den at the zoo is strictly a no-no! When we properly consider the context of these proof-text pacifist Scriptures, it becomes clear that Isaiah is prophesying concerning the Day of the Lord, still in the unpredictable future. He refers not to the present, but to the time yet to come, a blessed time of peace and tranquility. Jesus taught us to pray for this and we do every Sunday: “Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). But until that blessed time arrives, and sin shall be no more, we will live in a world that is not yet made perfect. For this reason, war and violence are very present realities which Christians must deal with realistically. To confuse the future age of Kingdom- completeness with the present evil age is an error constantly made by idealists who do not “correctly handle the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15b).

In the New Testament, Matthew 16:52 warns: “… all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” But if we take time to read this entire chapter we can see that war is not under discussion. So the use of this text to validate pacifism involves some real distortion.

In the closely related Luke 22:36 we read: “… if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” What is the significance of that non-pacifistic word of Jesus?

Probably the most important Scripture passage related to Christian understanding of war is often ignored by the promoters of pacifism:

Everybody must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1-7).

This passage has a depth of complex meaning and a long history of difficult interpretation. But one thing stands out clearly in it: God has ordained structures of authority and government in our fallen world. Their purpose is to keep evil in check. Think about it—without police, murderers and robbers would kill, terrorize and steal uncontrolled. And without opposing military force, the Hitlers, the Pol Pots, the Idi Amins, and the Kremlin dictators would be able freely to commit genocide, invade, and pillage. Obviously, governments often do abuse their authority. But think what our world would be like without police and military power to control aggression against people and nations?

This passage from Romans teaches that God has ordained armies and police. They are entrusted with the awesome right to use ultimate force in order to restrain evil while the world waits for Jesus Christ to return and bring an end to war and violence.

Tradition. St. Augustine comments in a sermon:

If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel [from John the Baptist in Luke 3:14] would rather have been counseled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary they were told: “Do violence to no man; …and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14 KJV). If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering (quoted from Ep. ad Marcel., CXXXVIII, Chap. 2, as quoted in Aquinas, Summa Theolog).

Furthermore St. Augustine, whose writings show his dedication to peace and his horror of war, often refers to “a just war.” Few Christian thinkers have exerted so great an influence as St. Augustine.

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, Question XL, Of War, asks “whether some kind of war is lawful?” He goes on to say:

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First the authority of the sovereign by whose command war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private person to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. …

 

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. …

 

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a right intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.

So there is ancient church tradition supporting the use of force under certain circumstances. But to listen to the pronouncements and policies of our denomination, it sounds as if pacifism is the only tradition that ever was!

Experience. Winston Churchill, in his Memoirs of the Second World War, and Gen. Telford Taylor in Munich, The Price of Peace, both made clear how military weakness on the part of the democracies led to the aggressions of Hitler. But where in United Methodist publications and/or policy statements can you find any acceptance (or even discussion) of the “peace-through-strength” approach to national defense?

Lack of military preparedness may actually encourage war because aggressors think they can safely break the world peace unopposed. Therefore, in a fallen world, strong military force may be one of the best means of being a “peacemaker” (Matthew 5:9). Failure to recognize this suggests a defective sense of awareness concerning the fallen condition of our world. I believe pacifism rests upon a fatal naivete and idealism which fails to take sin and depravity as seriously as all Scripture and the lessons of human history require.

Reason. By what reasoning do our church bodies consistently advocate reduction of U.S. military strength? Certainly no one living in today’s world can be ignorant of the logistic realities of modern warfare. Well, maybe someone, but whole conferences of church leaders?

I can see only three possible reasons why our church advocates a weaker United States defense. One is a creeping in of the pacifist fog. Second is a belief that the threat to world peace today comes mostly from the United States—a swallowing whole of that Marxist, third world propaganda line about “imperialistic Amerika.”

There is, however, a third possibility. It is probably closer to what is actually happening. Perhaps we are not approaching the question from any logical point of view. We may be simply “going along” with the liberal mindset of those who for long have dominated the structures of our church. To object to their “official” views is to be considered “disloyal.” And rather than bear this awful stigma, many church leaders and people just go long as a course of least resistance. It is to precisely this possibility that I address my final comments.

I can see three fairly logical alternatives: (1) that we are, indeed, a pacifist church; (2) that we base ourselves upon the “just war” concept and accept the duties inherent in it, namely of supporting the strengthening of our national military; or (3) that we, as a church, consider the issues of national defense to be outside our realm of competence. Therefore, we would take no official position as a church; we would confine ourselves to explicitly spiritual matters.

There is “pluralism,” I suppose. It should allow United Methodists to hold various opinions of war, peace, and national defense, but the “powers-that-be” in our church do not play that game! Instead, they promote only one view and will tolerate no other. How else can we explain the total absence of views such as mine from the official statements of a church with 9,400,000 members?

As I said at the beginning, I am not defining a position but rather am throwing out some questions which need desperately to be studied by the whole church. Take it from here.

NO!

says Scott Andress Pastor, Forest Hill United Methodist Church, Amarillo, Texas

My final year in seminary I spent three weeks in Israel. My course of study included a trip to Yad Vashem[1], the Holocaust memorial. Yad Vashem stands a somber testimony to the consequences of the church allowing the state to be its master and conscience. It marked the final step for me in seven years of study and prayer. I could no longer reconcile Christianity with violence and silence. From that time I considered myself a pacifist, as well as a Christian committed to the authority of Scripture over my life. Indeed, my belief in the authority of the Bible first led me to question the acceptance of war and violence as a necessary part of Christian lifestyle in the world.

United Methodists subscribe to the interpretation of their faith by Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. I wish to share some thoughts on non-violence and peacemaking as a Christian lifestyle and vocation.

Scripture. The Old Testament is a bloody book. Men of God not only used violent means but, we are told, were enjoined by God to do so. Yet the taking of life, whether of criminals or enemies, was not casual. The prophets speak out against the idolatry of trusting military power supremely. Isaiah tells us security comes to Israel through faithful obedience to God—not in foreign alliances.

God’s sanctioning of violence in the Old Testament cannot be understood apart from its context. The heathen worship practices presented a danger to the people of God in their immaturity. Yet no Christian today (I hope!) feels divinely guided to kill his neighbor who holds to pagan views and lifestyle. One has shown us a more excellent way. We need not destroy our enemy, for Jesus’ death purchases for him or her the possibility of conversion.

Jesus never directly addressed the attitude his followers should take toward war. Some argue from his silence that violence is not forbidden. A similar reason lent support for slavery a century ago. The Gospel proclaims the arrival of the Kingdom in this world. His followers repay no man evil for evil, but love their enemies, bless those who persecute them, and seek to bring all men to Christ through the life they live submitted to Jesus.

What evidence confirms Jesus’ identity? It must be the love His disciples show to one another and t the world, and their commitment not to live for themselves but or Christ and the lost. Christians are called to live ordinary lives in extraordinary love and obedience. I may consider no man my enemy if Christ died to make him my brother.

Tradition. For most Christians in America, participation in war is traditional. This tradition does not stem from the 1st century Church. Noted church historian Roland Bainton states, “From the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D. 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army.” Rather, the pagan Celsus rebuked Christians for their refusal to serve in the military. The idolatry of the Roman army offers one explanation for their refusal. Early Church fathers Tertullian, Origen, Athenagorus, and others testify to a concern for loving enemies and an aversion to killing as a primary cause for not serving in the military. Some early Christians sanctioned military services so long as it entailed only police functions and no bloodshed.

With the wedding of Christianity and the Roman Empire under the Emperor Constantine, pacifism halted abruptly. Constantine “defended” the faith and the faithful were expected to defend the empire. The Bride of Christ became the bride of the state.

Justification for Christian participation in war often centers on variations of a “just war” theory. Early Christians such as Augustine drew from Greek and Roman philosophy to define the situations which would allow Christians to fight.

A “just war” must be fought for a righteous cause with the purpose of securing justice and peace, and then only as a last resort. Christians are to control their violence, using the minimum necessary and never against civilians. The just warfarers act from pure motives—never greed, hatred, vengeance, or selfish interest. The good achieved should outweigh the evil of war. Victory and the goals of just war must be obtainable.

Yet all men believe their cause to be just! One can argue that all wars fought by the United States violate the just war theory, especially our American revolution. Even in World War II, massive bombing of civilian populations such as the fire-bombing of Dresden, violated just war principles. The destruction of Dresden served no strategic purpose save to placate our Russian allies who desired vengeance for the destruction of their civilian populations. The U.S. policy of demanding total surrender fell outside the just war ethic by giving the enemy no hope in early negotiations of peace.

Modern warfare cannot be made to conform to just war. Likewise the church has consistently proved unwilling or ineffectual in calling “Christian” nations to adhere to just war. No nation recognizes the right of Christians to refuse to participate in unjust wars. The local church fails to prepare its young people adequately to make the moral decisions called for by a belief in the theory of just war. Instead, a simple-minded national idolatry takes the place of an informed Spirit-directed conscience. We are left with a situation ethic in which everyone does what is right in his own eyes.

Reason. The secular world relies on reason. As Christians we acknowledge that sin corrupts man’s reason. Therefore reason is subject to Scripture. Yet the justifications of Christian participation in war generally echo those of the secular world. This agreement with those who do not recognize Jesus as Lord deserves reconsideration.

Christian reason presupposes the belief in Jesus as the resurrected Savior and that all men are sinful and in need of salvation. God charges all Christians to respond to evil with love, the intentional willing and seeking of our enemies’ highest good. “Reason” which denies God’s purpose in Christ Jesus cannot be trusted as the basis for Christian action.

We praise a Jim Elliot who died taking the Gospel to savages. We applaud his wife whose forgiveness and love reached out and brought a people (her husband’s murderers) to Christ. But we fear to put into practice such an attitude when we, as a group or nation are threatened.

Let us admit the truth. We’re afraid. Supporting a television evangelist to broadcast the Gospel comes easier than developing a relationship with individuals. It is simpler to plead the righteousness of our cause as an excuse for war than to pay the price in time and lives to reconcile men through Christ. We would rather kill to preserve our way of life in this world than die to save the souls of men.

Experience. The Nazi death camps appear persuasive arguments for just war. Yet the documented horrors of Uganda, Cambodia, and Chile indicate some other basis for engaging in war. In these cases it wasn’t in the national interest.

Thousands of European Jews were denied refuge in America prior to World War II. The Allied Air Force refused to bomb the gas chambers of death camps. Not one country entered the war to save the Jews.

At Yad Vashem, pillars commemorate the number of Jews killed in each occupied country. In Denmark 95 percent of the Jewish population survived. When Danish Jews were ordered to wear the Star of David, King Christian called on all Danes to wear one. The Germans rescinded the order. Risking death and torture, Danes hid and smuggled Jews to Sweden.

The tragedy of World War II lies in the abdication of moral authority by the church. Experience teaches that war begets war, hatred begets hatred. Good fruit cannot come from bad seed.

Nuclear Pacifism: Many today feel they cannot reject all use of force, but class nuclear war as morally wrong. Noted evangelical John R. W. Stott writing in the February 8, 1980 edition of Christianity Today says nuclear weapons violate the just war principle of discriminating between combatants and civilians:

…the same principle is sufficient to condemn the use of strategic nuclear weapons. Because they are indiscriminate in their effects, … it seems clear to me that they are ethically indefensible, and that every Christian, whatever he may think of the possibility of a “just” use of conventional weapons, must be a nuclear pacifist.

A few men reserve the decision to use nuclear weapons. Should Russia attack us, those who instigate the war will be least likely to die. Our retaliation would be against innocent men, women, and children, including our fellow Christians (many who suffer for refusal to serve in the Russian army). Billy Graham compares such a holocaust to the hell of Auschwitz. The United States no longer rules out initiating such a conflict.

Waging Peace: The word pacifism creates an impression of passivity and a willingness to do nothing to halt evil. A Christian peacemaker cannot run from conflict or, acquiesce to evil. Neither will he willfully participate in evil or call it good. The peacemaker seeks by his witness to convert his adversary. Sadly, Christians fail to reflect a clear example of living in peace even with each other. Our disagreements exhibit the same bitterness and malice which plague the world. As Daniel Berrigan puts it, “There is no peace because there are no peacemakers. There are no peacemakers because the making of peace is at least as costly as the making of war.”

Peacemaking demands involvement and a willingness to let the Bible stand in judgment over our actions. Belief requires positive action. Christians bear a responsibility to mirror Jesus’ life to the world. Likewise, Christians share the responsibility of showing what it means to live in a Christian community. Christian peacemaking is a way of life, not a political belief.

Questions surrounding Christian pacifism cannot be adequately answered in so brief a space. If all evangelicals cannot accept pacifism as Biblical, consider John Wesley. Although he supported military service, Wesley also defended John Nelson, a Methodist preacher, who refused military service. I hope the reader will go beyond old preconceptions and wrestle with the implications of Jesus’ call for Christians to love their enemies.

[1] A memorial in Israel for Jews who died in Nazi Death Camps. It is a repository for evidence of what happened.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

*1.  Bainton, Roland H. Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace, Abingdon Press, 1960, (page 67-68).

*2.  Ellul, Jacques Violence, Seabury Press, 1969.

*3.  del Yasto, Lanza Warriors of Peace, Writings on the Techniques of Nonviolence, Alfred A. Knopf Press, 1974.

*4.  Holmes, Arthur F. ed. War and Christian Ethics, Baker Books, 1975.

5.  Hostetler, Paul ed, Perfect Love and War, Evangel Press, 1974.

6.  Lynd, Alice ed. We Won ‘t Go, Personal Accounts of War Objectors, Beacon Press, 1968.

7.  Macgregor, G.H.C. The New Testament Basis of Pacifism, Fellowship Press, 1954.

8.  Merton, Thomas Faith and Violence, University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.

*9.  Ramsey, Paul The just War, Force and Political Responsibility, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968.

10.  Sider, Ronald J. ed. The Chicago Declaration, Creation House, 1974.

*11. Stott, J.R.W. “Calling For Peacemakers in a Nuclear Age” Part I and II, Christianity Today, February 8, 1980, (page 44-45), March 7, 1980 (page 44-45).

12. Stringfellow, William Conscience & Obedience, the Politics of Romans 7 3 and Revelation 13 in Light of the Second Coming, Word Books, 1977.

*13. Yoder, John Howard The Politics of Jesus, Eerdmans, 1972.

*Designates the more important sources.