Is God ‘pro-war’? Ex 15:2-3 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Eccl 3:1-3, 8 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
From these passages it appears that God is ‘pro-war’.
(The following is by Charles P. McGathy,Chaplain U.S. Navy-Retired)
But what about the rest of the good and ethical Christians who recognize the war as unjust and yet continue to participate? Can they be just soldiers in an unjust war?
The answer to that is yes. Here is why. When volunteers join the military they take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, follow the orders of the president, and defend the nation against all enemies. It is not the burden of the individual soldier to figure out the justice of every combat situation. He or she must follow orders and act according to the Code of Conduct which is designed to codify ethics within their functioning as a warrior. They may even disagree with the course of war, however as long as there remains a means for corrective action they can still serve with good conscious. As long as citizen soldiers are afforded the right to express their opinions through a free press, to legislative representatives, and certainly through the ballot box there remains the power of democracy controlled by checks and balances. Thus they can feel confident that in the end the nation will end the war. The Constitution will allow the will of the people to prevail. [Hopefully that will is better than it was in Nazi Germany…]
Of course the same cannot be said for the Christian soldier who voluntarily serves in a totalitarian state. Where there is no form of redress, no reasonable hope of course correction it may be impossible to serve without ethical compromise. To serve as a warrior is to further a dictator’s lust for blood. [Thus, it might be permissible by God for a Christian to serve their country in the military if that country is generally based upon a bible-based morality, with a democratic ‘check and balance’ type of government; but, it probably is not permissible by God for a Christian to serve their country in the military if that country’s morality is not based generally on the bible, and the country is run in a dictatorial fashion.]
(The following is taken from RaptureReady.com)
Over the centuries, Christians have debated the issue of the correctness of war and many have believed that pacifism is the only way. For example, the Mennonites believe so strongly in keeping peace that they would rather die, themselves, than take the life of another person. While the intent seems pure and is difficult to argue with, much scriptural evidence indicates that pacifism isn’t the only option for a Christian and, at times, may not even be the best option.
In spite of the corruption and the decadence of the polytheistic Roman government, the Apostle Paul supported the basic principle that government is God’s agent to maintain the rule of law on Earth. In Romans 13:1-4, Paul wrote, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Paul, writing to the Christian community, clearly dismissed the idea that a corrupt government forfeits its right to be respected as the authority. Furthermore, Christians [were not] told not to join the armed forces, even though the Roman army served a government that was corrupt and not focused on attaining true justice. [It is clear from Romans 13 that God has set up government to protect the citizens from evil; thus, it is very obvious that that government would need people to help protect; and it states that they would use the ‘sword’ and be a ‘terror to evil works’ and ‘to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil’. How praytell could a government do that without an official law enforcement organization and an official military?!…. They would have to have those to do this.]
The fact that early Christians served in the military with no disapproval from Jesus, Paul, the New Testament, or the early church fathers clearly shows that Christians are not ethically forbidden from joining the military.
(The following is an article by Steven M. Collins)
I believe we all agree that God is consistent in his nature and in his laws. In Malachi 3:6, God said: “I change not.” The New Testament echoes this principle as Hebrews 13:8 states that Jesus Christ “is the same yesterday, today and forever.” James 1:17 adds that the Father has “no variableness neither shadow of turning.” Jesus Himself asserted in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law…till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” These passages tell us that, unless there is canonized evidence that changes God’s previous laws and dispensations (as in the New Testament’s abolition of the Levitical Priesthood and animal sacrifices), God’s laws in the Old Testament are still valid in New Testament times. The Apostle Paul affirmed that principle in II Timothy 3:16 when he wrote: “All scripture is…profitable for doctrine…” Obviously, the “scripture” to which Paul referred were the books of the Old Testament. These scriptures beg the question: “Did God command all his people to be conscientious objectors in Old Testament times? The clear answer is “No.”
While there are rare cases in the Old Testament when God “did all the fighting” for the Israelites (as in the Exodus against Pharaoh’s host), God usually required his people to fight their enemies in warfare.
I think that we as a church have overlooked the fact that God made no provision for people to declare themselves “conscientious objectors” when he ruled Israel in the Theocracy.
Jesus Christ himself stated in John 15:13: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Jesus’ statement is not limited to martyrdoms. Many soldiers have “laid down their lives” for their friends and countrymen during combat as well.
[But, what about,
Matt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
When Jesus was being seized in the Garden of Gethsemane, one of the disciples (Peter) used his sword to try to kill an attacker (Matthew 26:47-56). This speaks volumes. It reveals that Jesus had never told his followers to “put away their weapons” during his three and one-half year ministry with them! It also implies that other disciples were armed as well. When Jesus told his disciple: “Put up thy sword,” he was not making a sweeping doctrinal statement that forbid his followers to use deadly force in self-defense in all times and in all future circumstances. Jesus explained in verse 56 that he specifically forbid armed resistance in that one exceptional instance (the effort to seize him) because “the scriptures of the prophets” had to be “fulfilled.” Jesus limited his non-violent command solely to that one unique instance. Later, Jesus even affirmed to Pilate in John 18:36: that “…my servants would fight” if prophecy had not required him to be crucified at that time.
Matt 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. 52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
It is obvious that Peter (and probably other disciples) carried a weapon around (the sword). It’s like your Senior Pastor carrying around a loaded 44 Magnum in a holster on his belt.
(The following is by John Salvatore, Faith Church of the Valley. The Just War Theory section of this article was adapted from an article by Commander Timothy J. Demy, Th.D. and Th.M. (Dallas Theological Seminary), Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy.)
There are two dominant positions on war that conscientious Christians have embraced throughout Christian history. There are variations on each, but, for the sake of brevity, this answer will focus on the two main views and explain them in general terms: Pacifism versus Just War Theory.
The pacifist tradition
Definition: A pacifist is someone who believes that under no circumstances is war justified.
This position has a long history in America and as well as throughout the Church. It dominated Christianity during the Church’s first 300 years. Early Christians perceived two roadblocks that prohibited a devout believer from joining the military, voluntarily or involuntarily.
In order to become a soldier in the Roman army, one had to offer a sacrifice, swearing an allegiance to Caesar—swearing ultimate allegiance to him as a god. Of course, all Christians agreed that this was not possible for a devout believer. So believers were prohibited from joining the military, based on this requirement.
Soldiers may be called upon to pick up the sword and use it. Many Christians believed that this too was against the teachings of Christ.
Here is a sample of what some early Church Fathers said about joining the military:
Justin, who was martyred for his faith, wrote: “We refrain from making war on our enemies, and [we] cannot bear to see a man killed, even if killed justly.” Clement of Alexandria wrote in 217 A.D.: “He who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier, he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God.”
Tertullian, in the early third century A.D. makes this statement: “For even if soldiers came to John and received advice on how to act, and even if a centurion became a believer, the Lord, in subsequently disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier” (Treatise on Idolatry 19; Ante-nicene Fathers 3:73).
Here are the major elements of the strict pacifist viewpoint, based upon their interpretation of Scripture:
According to pacifism, war is inconsistent with the law of nonresistance preached and modeled by Jesus Christ. The pacifist tradition is based on its interpretation of part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said:
Matt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
This is the “law of nonresistance.” Following Christ’s command to turn the other cheek, many pacifists believe that it is better to suffer violence than it is to commit violence.
Pacifists have said that our obligation as believers is to follow the example of Jesus who turned the other cheek—and did not return evil for evil. They say we are to “resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39). They interpret this to mean that we are never to resist evil under any circumstances or under any conditions. Just as Christ did not retaliate against violence, but rather he suffered on the cross taking suffering to Himself and snuffing it out. The pacifist sees the death of Christ (an innocent victim in the face of injustice) as a pattern for all Christians to follow.
[I believe that the context of this passage is dealing with how an individual Christian should deal with other fellow individuals who are angry and offensive towards the Saviour. And, that this context should not be applied to a nation’s army… a collected group of individuals with the sole purpose of protecting its nation’s interests. A Christian can help fight with his country against an evil country; but, a Christian should not fight individually against another individual over issues related to the truth of God.]
Pacifists believe that war is inconsistent with the ethic of love. Again, quoting from Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matt 5:43 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;
Mennonite Pacifist Myron Augsburger asked, “How can we kill another human being for whom Jesus died? How can we adopt the attitude that ‘Jesus loves you, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to kill you?’”
Was Jesus really a ‘pacifist’? A comprehensive study proves that He was not.
John 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
This was a physically violent response on the part of Jesus. This makes it abundantly clear that Jesus was not a strict pacifist. The Bible is also clear that Jesus was sinless. Even in this situation, he did nothing wrong.
In Luke 22, Jesus is preparing His disciples for His departure. He knows that the Jewish leaders are decidedly against Him. In the past, when He sent His disciples out, He took care of all their needs. But now things are going to change.
Luke 22: 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
What is the context here? When traveling from city to city, people of that day often had to carry a sword in order to fend off robbers. Jesus told His followers that He was going to send them out there, and warned them to be prepared to defend themselves when appropriate. Clearly, Jesus was not a pacifist.
[This appears to be the ‘standing orders’ for Missionaries today; carry a weapon. For a group of men that were doing the Lord’s work, it appears that Jesus thought it was reasonable to carry 2 weapons (swords).]
[And a short perview of Revelation will see that Jesus Christ surely is not a pacifist; in fact, there He is all about war and destruction and killing…!]
John Calvin emphasized that a Christian soldier should never use force to gain self-advantage, but “use force out of love for thy neighbor.” As someone else has said, “War can be a means to a just peace, and to break an unjust peace.”
[Having one’s “Christian” nation ‘fight for’ righteousness…morality…freedom of religion… is a good thing… for if we did nothing we would very soon become a wicked nation where it would be illegal to speak the name of Jesus. I am definitely for our country having a military… and, I believe it to be God’s will for a righteous country to have a military… and, thus, it is irrational to suppose that it only be unbelievers that would be used by God to make up that righteous country’s military. Amen?!]
The Just War Theory
Just War Theory is the other dominant position held by many Christians. This position was first formulated by Augustine of Hippo and later refined by Thomas Aquinas. It is based on the following assumptions:
War is never good. But it is sometimes necessary. Why? Because sin is an ever present reality that has to be dealt with.
James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
At the forefront of much war and conflict is an idolatry that says, “I want more. I want what you have.” And so there are wars and rumors of wars. Much of it is rooted in human sin. Political parties and institutions are not evil in themselves. Evil is ultimately rooted in every human heart.
Necessary wars are to be conducted within the limits of justice.
The purpose of Just War Theory is to give us a common terminology, so that nations that wage war will operate within certain parameters that are just.
As Christians, we need to be realistic, not naive. We need to get past the common white hat versus black hat assumptions about war. When it comes to war, there is rarely pure good versus pure bad. There are usually gray hats versus gray hats, with different shades of gray. We are all guilty sinners. The hope of Just War Theory is that by applying just principles we can be as righteous as one can be when it comes to waging war.
Within Just War Theory there is a seven-fold criteria.
There must be a just cause. All aggression is condemned in Just War Theory. Participation in war must be prompted by a just cause or a defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Preemptive war can be legitimate in some circumstances, according to Just War Theory, if it is known that a grave act of aggression is imminent. If a government knows that their nation or another is about to become a victim, it can act to prevent the injustice before it takes place.
Just intention. The war must have a right intention to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. One must have just motives for going into war. It is a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been reasonably exhausted before war.
Formal declaration. The war must be initiated with formal declaration by a properly constituted authority. Only governments can declare war, not individuals or militias or terrorist organizations—only governments.
Limited objectives. Securing peace is the purpose and objective in going to war. War must be engaged in such a way that when peace is attained, hostilities cease.
Proportionate means. Combatant forces of the opposition may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace.
Noncombatant immunity. Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them.
Based on my studies, a strict pacifist position is not only unreasonable, it is unbiblical. The presence of sin in the world means that it is sometimes regrettably necessary to use force in order to secure justice for the innocent and the helpless. However, when war is considered, its legitimacy must be carefully evaluated.
In doing so, Christians should remember that their ultimate allegiance is not to the State; it is to the commands of God. Unfortunately, history shows that individual Christians and churches have rarely stood up effectively against the State when the war is unjust. It is too easy for people to get caught up in patriotism. It is all too easy to buy into nationalistic interests. People are often so close to the situation that they cannot objectively judge the legitimacy of taking action against another nation. That failure was evident in Nazi Germany, where the Church became a lapdog to the State.