The Blog - SATURDAYNIGHT.org

Christianity and War

Hi my name is Aaron Henes, I am a small group leader and friend of Rob. Rob asked me to answer an email surrounding the Christian view of war and post the contents on the Saturday Night Blog.  What follows is the main section of that email. 

   

There is no one passage in the Bible that definitively, or even directly, deals with the issue of war. What we are left with is trying to deductively take different portions of Scripture and distill them into a Christian worldview. This is what we will try to do now.

      

History of the Debate:

War has been a part of human existence as far back as there is recorded history and theologians have wrestled through this thorny question for almost that long. Two camps have emerged: the first is the pacifist and the second is what I will call the just war camp.  In my opinion, we must live as Christians in the tension that these two camps create.  Looking at the Bible, we have a transition from the Old Testament where it was perfectly acceptable to love one’s friends and hate one’s enemies to the New Testament where Jesus commands his follows to love one’s enemies.

      

The Pacifist Camp:

This camp sites this scripture in addition to the entire Sermon on the Mount where Jesus blesses the peacemakers, who are called the sons of God. Finally, we have the command that vengeance is God’s and not ours. Some of those who take this position are quick to point out that pacifism is not passive.  A pacifist can stand up for what he or she believes, and actively engage evil in the many places it can be found.  There are some pacifists who believe that non-lethal physical action is sometimes very necessary.

      

The Just War Camp:

There are those who believe that while war is never desired, it can be justified.  I think the most powerful argument that comes out of this camp is from the beginning of Romans 13.  In context, Paul is stating that we should submit to governing authorities because they have been established by God and have been given the legitimate use of violence to promote what is good and punish what is evil. The governments of the world are instituted in part to promote the good of its citizens and to that end they have the responsibility of protecting their citizens from those who would harm them in both domestic and foreign areas.   Augustine was the first who articulated the conditions that would result in a just war.  These include the idea that it cannot be a war for vengeance, unrelenting violence, or lust for power.  We must be peacemakers, and while we cannot seek peace in order to be at war, we can go to war to have peace. Even in war, we must be conscious that our goal is not to annihilate the enemy, but to ultimately bring them peace, as well.  From what seems to be at best an oxymoron, we have developed the idea of the protection of non-combatants, the concept of a proportional response, and the final choice being violence as a last resort.  This Christian worldview does offer a stark contrast to the third worldview that is not usually discussed, but assumed all to often: one where all is fair in war.

      

The Ten Commandments and Warriors:

The answer to those who would point to the Ten Commandments as a reason for not engaging in war is that most scholars understand that the Hebrew word used there is to murder, rather than the English translation of kill.  God commands wars and even raises up nations to serve as His instrument of judgment.  In Habakkuk, God is clear that there are rules in war and punishes the nation who violates these rules even as He sends them to punish Israel.  In addition, we have godly men and women who make war and are commended by God for their virtue in both the Old and New Testaments: Abraham, Moses and David were all warriors and are our heroes of the faith. Cornelius was a warrior and was singled out by God to hear the gospel as one of the first gentile believers.  Soldiers asked John the Baptist directly how they should live their lives and were not told to quit their posts.

 

On a Personal Level:

So what are we to make of the command to love our enemy, not resist an evil person and to turn the other cheek?  Honestly, every Christian must wrestle through these issues on a personal level.  War and violence is ugly even in its justified form, but loving our enemy does not mean that we allow that enemy to have free rein to harm others.  A judge can love his daughter even as he is forced to condemn her to jail for a mistake made.  However, not resisting an evil person and turning the cheek is an opportunity for one’s enemy to leave satisfied and to not give occasion for a fight. As Paul says, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with all those around you. This does not necessarily mean that we submit to every and any torture that an evil person would seek to inflict on us or the world.  Jesus chose carefully the time and place where we submitted to death and other times He escaped from such abuse.

Overall, I hope that I have shown that there is biblical support for pacifism and for the idea of a just war. I fall in to the latter camp because I believe that one of the roles of government is to protect its citizens and work towards peace, which in our fallen world, sometimes means war. Those in our country who voluntarily choose to live by the sword have to make peace with the idea that they may very likely die by the sword. Those men and women who do serve to protect us deserve our honor and respect and in my opinion, may serve in the military as Christians with a clear conscience.

 

Additional Resources:

Here is a well-written pamphlet on why Christians can serve in the military. I apologize that after a quick Google search I did not find a similarly well written piece to defend the other side of the debate.

http://ocf.gospelcom.net/pubs/mayachri.php

You Gotta Love the Irony...

I saw this today, and couldn't pass it up...

A RADICAL Muslim cleric had his bid to evacuate Lebanon aboard a British ship rejected when officials blocked his return to the United Kingdom.

British authorities turned down a request from Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed for a one-month visa to Britain.

The preacher, who called for Muslims to rise up against Westerners, was frightened he would be bombed by the Israelis

Re-introducing: The Blog

We're changing things up a little on the-blog-formerly-known-as-the-roBlog. You may have noticed that this blog is sporting a new title -- no, not elvin runes symbolizing the roBlog -- simply, "The Blog." The reason is that we're expanding our horizons beyond the vast brain of our beloved Pastor Rob and are going to hear from the whole SATURDAYNIGHT pastoral team and even some guest authors as well. A hearty thank-you to Pastor Justin for getting us kicked off (below).

So that you'll know whose thoughts you're reading, you'll find the author's name at the bottom of each post. Feel free to comment on the ideas that evoke an emotional or intellectual reaction, and be part of our online representation of the SATURDAYNIGHT community we all have come to love.

Giving It Away

Exodus 18 is one of my favorite passages on leadership.  It's the story of Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, who comes to visit Moses and his family in the desert.  While there, Jethro observes Moses during a typical "day at the office," judging the disputes of the people of Israel from morning until night.  Jethro is not impressed.  He gives him some good, old-fashioned, fatherly advice:

What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.   Ex 18:17-23 (NIV)

We've all heard the stories about pastors and ministry leaders who get burnt out from trying to meet everyone's needs.  Jethro clarifies that Moses' role is to teach and train the people, but day-to-day judging (or pastoral care in today's parlance), should be delegated to capable men and women who serve people in smaller groups. This makes sense to most of us at New Life who live and breath small groups, but what's interesting to me is the other side of the equation...the people.  The people "go home satisfied" when we give away leadership.  Their needs are met more effectively.   I love that! 

If you're not already, jump into a small group, and if you're ready, start leading your own.  Take the leap and start serving people.  It's an exhilarating experience like nothing else.  And trust me, we're ready to share the load with you. There are more than enough needs to be met.   Volunteer in one of our ministry teams, or start a small group this fall.  Watch for our upcoming information campaigns at the SATURDAYNIGHT Service for more details.

...just a little good, old-fashioned, fatherly advice. 

Going Apostate

An insightful analysis of the recent tension surrounding a Christian convert from Islam in newly quasi-democratic Afghanistan:

Going Apostate
How the rest of the world handles apostasy laws.
by Joseph Loconte

LAST WEEK MUCH OF THE WORLD learned of the plight of a lone convert to Christianity, Abdul Rahman, on trial for his life in Afghanistan. Jailed on charges of apostasy, Rahman was released on a technicality and spirited off to asylum in Italy--only after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressed President Hamid Karzai for a favorable outcome. The Rahman case underscores the conflict between Islamic law, or sharia, and democratic norms. Yet it also hints at a growing argument among Muslims over religious freedom, a subject Americans know something about.

On the issue of religious liberty, Afghanistan's new constitution tries to have it both ways. Though it says that "followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith," it declares the country an Islamic state. While it endorses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--which specifically protects a person's right to change his religion--it supports a judicial culture that criminalizes blasphemy and apostasy. The country's supreme court already has invoked blasphemy laws to jail newspaper editors and intimidate political rivals.

The typical liberal solution to this problem--to quarantine government from religious values, replacing militant religion with militant secularism--is foreclosed in tribal, traditionalist Afghanistan. Rather, the history of religious freedom in America suggests a way forward--a frankly theological approach that could appeal to faithful Muslims.

It's often forgotten that the political leader most responsible for ending church establishments in America argued from an unabashedly religious standpoint. In his "Memorial and Remonstrance" of 1785, James Madison opposed tax support for churches in Virginia as an assault on individual conscience, which he regarded as a sacred realm. "Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator . . . can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence," he wrote. "If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man." Only by freely following one's conscience, he reasoned, could a person mature in his understanding of spiritual truths.

Read the rest of the story here.

Campos: Prayer study never had one

Last week the Washington Post asked me to comment on the recent Templeton Foundation study on the effectiveness of prayer. The conclusion of that research, of course, was that there is no positive correlation between prayer and healing, and possibly even a negative one. My comments reinforced both evangelicals' appreciation for science, sociology, and the other research disciplines and our ardent belief in the effectiveness of prayer. Studies suggest all kinds of conclusions, but we know prayer works because we have experienced its power.

We know, too, that the effectiveness of prayer is a function of two variables that are intrinsically difficult to measure: the faith of the praying person and the faith of the recipient. Jesus told one who received prayer and believed, "According to your faith will it be done to you" (Mt 9:29), and he told others, "Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe...and it will be yours" (Mt 11:24).

Here is an interesting column from a CU prof that appeared in the Rocky Mountain News. He adds a thoughful perspective to the discussion surrounding the prayer study:

Imagine a scientist who undertakes the following experiment. He has heard of something called "falling in love," which many people claim has great benefits for emotional and physical health. Although he has never had the experience himself, and indeed doubts whether it actually exists, he decides to test the hypothesis that falling in love is good for one's health.

To do so, the scientist studies the behavior associated with falling in love. He discovers that people who fall in love think constantly of the beloved, write love letters, buy gifts, and engage in various other rituals that indicate the depth of their attachment. Being a university professor, he decides to test his hypothesis by employing his students. He randomly assigns each student a person in another country with whom the student is to fall in love. The students are given the names and addresses of the assigned objects of their affections, and are told to think constantly of these persons, write them love letters, buy them gifts, etc., so that the professor can measure whether all this will improve the students' health.

Obviously, such a bizarre experiment could only be designed by someone who is utterly ignorant of what it means to fall in love, and who indeed is fundamentally incapable of even imagining what the phrase signifies.

Yet this experiment is less bizarre and misguided than a recently completed 10-year study, funded by the Templeton Foundation at the cost of several million dollars, to study the effectiveness of prayer.