Jesus and the Case for War
(This is a column posted today on www.TownHall.com)
I like to strike up conversations with people I meet while traveling. Last Tuesday, on the way back to San Francisco airport, I asked the driver where he was from. āJordan,ā he replied.
In an effort to make a connection, I mentioned that I havenāt gotten to Jordan, but I went to Iran in 2006 and served in Saudi Arabia with the Navy twenty years ago.
āWhat do you do?ā he asked.
āIām a writer and a speaker. I co-authored a book defending the truth of Christianity called I Donāt Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.ā
āIām a Christian too,ā he said. Then, just as we were pulling into the terminal, he asked, āWhat do you think about the Iraq war?ā
With less than 90 seconds left in the ride, I quickly said, āI think it was the least bad choice we had. Saddam used WMD, invaded Kuwait, and then violated 17 straight UN resolutions and the cease fire. What other choice did we have in a post 9-11 world?ā
He didnāt answer the question. Instead, he claimed that Iraq had nothing to with 9-11, and that we just should have gone after the bad guys in Afghanistan. He then said, āJesus told us to love our enemies.ā
Leaving the issue of 9-11 aside, was his inference correct? In light of what Jesus said about loving our enemies, should Christians be pacifists?
I donāt think so. In fact, sometimes the use of force is not only justified, it can be a dereliction of duty not to use force.
First, āloving your enemies,ā like āturn the other cheek,ā is a command for individuals in personal relationships. It is not a command for governments or for individuals put in grave bodily harm. As individuals we should pray for our enemies and āturn the other cheekā instead of returning insult for insult. Such behavior demonstrates supernatural love aimed at securing the offenderās conversion to Christ. But those commands do not mean that we have no right to personal self defense, nor do they mean that a nation shouldnāt protect its people from other hostile nations.
With regard to self defense, not only does the Old Testament affirm the right to self defense (Ex. 22:2), Jesus himself told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Jesus later told Peter āput your sword awayā so Christās sacrifice would go forward and the scriptures would be fulfilled (Mt. 26:54). But the very fact that Jesus told Peter and the other disciples to buy a sword shows that its use for personal protection is appropriate. (By the way, Jesus never condoned the use of the sword as a means of religious conversion. Itās impossible anyway. Genuine conversion, by definition, is freely accepted. It cannot be coerced.)
With regard to war, the New Testament does not order newly baptized soldiers to get out of the military. Instead, John the Baptist told them not to abuse their power and to be content with their pay (Luke 3:14). Soldiers are needed because, as Paul pointed out in Romans 13, governments have a God-given responsibility to use āthe swordā to protect their people from harm. In fact, Paul himself accepted military protection when he was in danger (Acts 22:25f), and Jesus affirmed the right of governments to impose capital punishment, saying that such a right was given by God (Jn. 19:11).
Second, ālove your enemiesā cannot mean that all use of force is prohibited because such an interpretation would contradict the passages just cited and result in absurd conclusions. It would be absurd to say that ālove your enemiesā means āallow them to kill your family.ā How would that be loving to your family?
It would be absurd to say that ālove your enemiesā prohibits all wars. What about the war against Hitler? Not justified? Please. How would that be loving to the Jews or the countries overrun? (Notice that even my driver friend isnāt against all wars. He thinks that the war in Afghanistan is justified. But if ālove your enemiesā meant you could never use force, then how can Afghanistan be justified?)
With such an absurd interpretation, we couldnāt even have police protection, a court system, or prisons. Why believe that police can use force but not Armies? Thereās not much of a difference. Police use force to protect people from enemies inside a country. Armies use force to protect people from enemies outside a country.
Without the proper use of force, weād have anarchy, and innocent people would be hurt or killed. Thatās why complete pacifism is not only unbiblical, it is a dereliction of duty. Individuals have a responsibility to protect themselves and their families from harm, and governments have a similar responsibility to protect their citizens.
Christians can and should, of course, oppose specific wars that donāt meet what theologians call ājust-war theory.ā As I mentioned in my last column, I believe the Iraq war is just. But I didnāt get enough time with my driver friend to hear his complete case against the Iraq war. Maybe he knows something I donāt, but it didnāt seem so.
One thing is for certain: Christians contradict scripture and common sense when they say no war or use of force can ever be justified. As terrible as it is, war is sometimes the least bad choice available. In other words, itās not that Christians are for war; itās that weāre against the alternativeāthe oppression and death of the innocent. And in a fallen world like this, sometimes the use of force is necessary to protect the innocent. Without it, we wouldnāt even be able to love our friends.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!