Should a Christian go to War?

[kjat32]

Hi all,
I was confronted with this question during a discussion with a Muslim friends' friend. As a person who believes Christian non-resistance is the most Biblical stance, I was kind of nudged by God to continue the discussion into a fully developed look at whether or not Christians should go to war...or even shoot/harm someone else in self-defence. This is the article:
war26.1.09.php

Please, please read all the way through the article before responding. I have had lots of "Join the Army" knee-jerk reactions and I am hoping that since the people in this forum are very thorough, everyone will see what I'm saying before responding. I would love to hear some thoughts on this.
Thanks,

 

[MW]

I have read through both parts of your article. It is necessary to point out that the article fails to state what is the Christian's relationship to the State. It seems to suppose somewhat naively that the Christian exists in a kind of separated spiritual realm and therefore any allegiance to the State is voluntary. The fact is that every human being is born into a society and bears social responsibility. When a person becomes a Christian he is not taken out of the world but is required to live and participate in it. He is to show loyalty to his fellow man and engage in all the activities of life which preserve and promote the wellbeing of human society. Resistance of tyranny and oppression is required throughout the Bible as an act of justice and love. It would be irresponsible and selfish to relinquish the duty to resist oppression and simply leave it to others to perform on our behalf. If Christians ceased serving in this capacity it would create a realm of civil justice which was completely void of Christian light and life, and this would be contrary to Christ's teaching to shine our light that our good works might be seen of men and our Father in heaven glorified thereby.

 

[Edward]

whether or not Christians should go to war...or even shoot/harm someone else in self-defence.

You show that you follow the Westminster Standards. So let's look at what they have to say about use of force.

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; ....

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence ...

So a rejection of the doctrines of just war and self defense is clearly in opposition to the Westminster Standards.

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

Which brings up another question Edward: how do we know any particular war is "just"? The Bible teaches that, while we must submit to the government, they are just as corrupted as a single person is. Governments in general have a reputation of hiding true intentions. Take a look at Nazi Germany for example. Hitler went into a peace treaty in 1939 with the Soviet Union in full awareness that he wanted Moscow as the capital of his empire, and would thus have to invade it at some point. I doubt any of the lower-ranked soldiers under his command knew he was going to betray the USSR one day.

To put it into a Christian-based perspective, it is like determining if a person is Christian or not. Matthew 7 teaches that we will know genuine Christians by the fruits they bear. I know what I'm about to say is unrealistic, but bear with me for a second. What if we can't see that fruit? If we can't see if they possess fruit, how can we determine if they're Christians?

In the same way, if we can't see the true intentions of the government, how do we know any particular war is "just and lawful"?

 

[rbcbob]

Which brings up another question Edward: how do we know any particular war is "just"? The Bible teaches that, while we must submit to the government, they are just as corrupted as a single person is. Governments in general have a reputation of hiding true intentions. Take a look at Nazi Germany for example. Hitler went into a peace treaty in 1939 with the Soviet Union in full awareness that he wanted Moscow as the capital of his empire, and would thus have to invade it at some point. I doubt any of the lower-ranked soldiers under his command knew he was going to betray the USSR one day.

To put it into a Christian-based perspective, it is like determining if a person is Christian or not. Matthew 7 teaches that we will know genuine Christians by the fruits they bear. I know what I'm about to say is unrealistic, but bear with me for a second. What if we can't see that fruit? If we can't see if they possess fruit, how can we determine if they're Christians?

In the same way, if we can't see the true intentions of the government, how do we know any particular war is "just and lawful"?

See http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/military-snipers-special-forces-54570/#post705307

 

[Blueridge Believer]

What did christians in the 1rst three centuries of the church believe about war?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance40.html

 

[matt01]

What did christians in the 1rst three centuries of the church believe about war?
Are You a Christian Warmonger? by Laurence M. Vance

We are not going to get the answer to the question from that article or Vance in general. He seems to be very foolish, and fond of torturing scripture.
Here is his article on the view of the early church. It might be more fitting to the conversation.

 

[TimV]

John the Baptist told the soldiers they were in an illegal profession and not to receive pay, but to leave the military ;-)

Sorry! Couldn't help it. Seriously, if John's telling soldiers to keep working but do so honestly, and Christ assumed His audience took it for granted that a thief can't enter the house of guy with a gun or he'd get killed, then one's left with what Pastor Winzer pointed out about naivete.

Luk 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;

There are some interesting differences in European cultures when it comes to dealing with conscientious objectors.

 

[Peairtach]

God is portrayed as a warrior ( e.g. Zechariah 14)

Jesus, Who is God, and God revealed, is portrayed as a warrior (e.g. Revelation 19)

Surely if it was always immoral or never positively good to be a warrior, they would not be portrayed as such?

Jesus implicitly gave advice on common sense military tactics in one of His parables:-

"Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:31-33, ESV)

I'll read your items later.

 

[Edward]

Which brings up another question Edward: how do we know any particular war is "just"? The Bible teaches that, while we must submit to the government, they are just as corrupted as a single person is. Governments in general have a reputation of hiding true intentions. Take a look at Nazi Germany for example. Hitler went into a peace treaty in 1939 with the Soviet Union in full awareness that he wanted Moscow as the capital of his empire, and would thus have to invade it at some point. I doubt any of the lower-ranked soldiers under his command knew he was going to betray the USSR one day.

...

In the same way, if we can't see the true intentions of the government, how do we know any particular war is "just and lawful"?

I edited the quote to delete a portion which might take us off track.

I'd look first at how the war began, and second what the aims of the war are. While there are always mixed motives, the cause and the purpose can be objectively evaluated.

US direct involvement in World War II - just. Triggered by Pearl Harbor as to Japan, and by Germany's declaration of war in Europe. Was the US fully neutral prior to December 7, 1941? No. Would they have committed to war if not attacked? probably not. And was the war, for the US, for territorial gain? No, although there was some incremental accretion. It was a just war.

German involvement in World War II - for territorial gain. (Same for Italy). Was Germany provoked? Yes. Did the provocation justify the response? No. Not a just war.

Pick a country and a war. There are always mixed motives, but there can always be an analysis as to motive and proportionality.

On the self defense side, I'd refer you to the Castle Doctrine as it exists in Florida, Texas, and several other states.

And, by the way, I don't accept your history where you say that Hitler wanted Moscow for his capital. Berlin was to be the capital of his new empire.

 

[kjat32]

I have read through both parts of your article. It is necessary to point out that the article fails to state what is the Christian's relationship to the State. It seems to suppose somewhat naively that the Christian exists in a kind of separated spiritual realm and therefore any allegiance to the State is voluntary. The fact is that every human being is born into a society and bears social responsibility. When a person becomes a Christian he is not taken out of the world but is required to live and participate in it. He is to show loyalty to his fellow man and engage in all the activities of life which preserve and promote the wellbeing of human society. Resistance of tyranny and oppression is required throughout the Bible as an act of justice and love. It would be irresponsible and selfish to relinquish the duty to resist oppression and simply leave it to others to perform on our behalf. If Christians ceased serving in this capacity it would create a realm of civil justice which was completely void of Christian light and life, and this would be contrary to Christ's teaching to shine our light that our good works might be seen of men and our Father in heaven glorified thereby.

Hi again,
I'll list my thoughts in order.
(above) In my article I thought I made it clear that Christians are citizens of heaven first, the state second. I then said that "Now some have made the argument that we have certain duties to the state, that include going to war in defence of that state. This argument is based on verses that call for Christians to obey the laws of the land; what some have called “being good citizens.” However, unless compelled by a military draft that allows no conscientious objection or position of non-combatancy, joining a military unit is a choice, made by the person." I then looked at what military service requires and compared it to a form of slavery; voluntarily enslaving oneself even to the state is not Biblical, neither is being yoked with unbelievers and I don't think anyone here is going to accuse the State of being Christian.
Christians are certainly called to actions of social justice; but most of them don't kill people.
And finally, II Corinthians 10:3-5 “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

2) I admit that I do not follow the Westminster standards on this issue as I do not ever see a case for lawful "just" warfare in today's world. And Christians can serve in positions of non-combatancy if they do believe a war is just. There is no requirement to pull any triggers.

3) Early church history: I put a link with a much better history by Cadoux on the first part of my article. It's so much clearer than my article (and Vance's, no offense).

4) God, and Jesus specifically, is a warrior. With what sword? His WORD.

5) I covered John the Baptist's instructions in my article so I won't rewrite that, you're free to read it there. And Jesus mentioning that a strong man guards his house is not exactly Jesus telling us to go out and get a gun to defend our houses!!! He's talking spiritually here! We are to engage in warfare, SPIRITUAL warfare, which is exactly what Jesus is talking about since the "strong man" here is Satan - do you really wanna be copying that particular person in the metaphor?!??

Please understand, I'm not saying that serving your country is bad. This is how I ended my article:
This is not to say that we cannot serve our country of residence; if we truly live as Jesus did, we would be such a blessing to others that God would be mightily glorified! Let us be true soldiers of God in the short time we have here. Let us finish with Ephesians 5:15: “Be very careful, then, how you live - not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.”

Can anyone find some verses that show that the ones I've used are wrong or misguided? Other than John the Baptist, unless you think my response to that itself was misguided.

Thank you,

 

[PuritanZealot]

4) God, and Jesus specifically, is a warrior. With what sword? His WORD.

I just have to comment on this, because I've heard it said before.
How exactly do you propose, before Jesus came that God's word could be called a sword? And post Birth/Death/Resurrection how is the Word of God a sword? And when Jesus returns how will his word be a sword? We need to understand these because all are part of the Trinity and all are warriors, and all contain the Word of God in some fashion. The Word of God in the Law as given to Moses was a system of legal and moral commands that when followed should result in a Godly and Holy Nation set apart for his will. How was this achieved? Did Moses just walk up to people and say 'you've sinned' and they fell down howling in repentence? No, God commanded they use violence to execute judgment, Exodus 32
"And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."
God gave laws and rules, when an adulterer was found, execute him, when an idolator was found, execute him, when he sent Joshua into the Promised Land he commanded the wholesale slaughter of countless thousands because they had betrayed his moral code written on the hearts of men.
When Jesus came, he spoke the Word of God, by his words people were condemned and by his words men are condemned still, he came to fulfill the Law to make it complete, to give it flesh and justice and life. Now when we condemn people by the Holy Spirit and that Spirit moves to force them unto repentence (should they be so moved) then that Sword has cut through them and slain the sinful nature.
When Jesus returns he will be coming with a sword from his mouth, now no one can be so foolish as to think the Messiah will ride forth with an actual sword coming from his mouth, this is the Word of God as you rightly insinuated. But how will the Word of God slay the people, how will Jesus rule by a rod of iron so stiff that blood spatters his robes as he treads the winepress of the wrath of God? By that same Law which his Father in Heaven sent to condemn the sinner in the first place, the Law of the Word of God. He will judge the nations and he will execute his wrath upon them, by the Word of God they will be slain, but by a physical blade their life will be ended.

 

[kjat32]

Interesting point. I'm with you to the end of that, but I don't think that Revelations is clear enough to assume that Jesus or his forces will actually physically slay his enemies. It only took a word to bring the world into being and I think there exists enough "grayness" to say that it's possible Jesus can physically slay all his enemies with just a word. But details. The point here is, does Jesus command his followers to take up arms against their enemies and slay them physically? Right now? In the service of a fallen state? I don't think so, but I'm open to hearing more....

 

[PuritanZealot]

I don't think there's a COMMAND to rise up against a fallen state, nor do I think there's much to be said for the Christian who tries to use the Bible to excuse the imperialist actions of his government (i.e. Iraq/Afghan). But in certain situations, i.e. the protection of the state itself from an unchristian enemy and the forced change of leadership due to anti-christian message is supported by scripture. We are only to support our magistrates/kings/leaders when they support God and God's word, there is a hierarchy in the world and that hierarcy should go, God - God's Word - King/Leader - Magistrates - Christians - Unbelievers. If any of the Magistrates break or subvert Gods word then they should be removed by the King, if the King goes against Gods word then they go against God and the Magistrates should demand his removal. If the Magistrates and the King go against Gods word and a section of the people, then you have grounds for Civil War supported by the Bible, as we saw in Scotland/England/Ireland during the 17th century.
As for modern day warfare, I don't think we can assist in the wars our governments fight (Britain/USA) because our governments are full of unbelievers, freemasons, Satanists, Muslims, apostate Christians and Papists. These people cannot make decisions and technically should be taken out of office.

 

[matt01]

2) I admit that I do not follow the Westminster standards on this issue as I do not ever see a case for lawful "just" warfare in today's world. And Christians can serve in positions of non-combatancy if they do believe a war is just. There is no requirement to pull any triggers.

Do you have any evidence of this being the case? Other than a Chaplain, I can't think of anyone who has the option of being considered a non-combatant.

 

[kjat32]

Hi Matt,
My understanding of the military is undoubtedly much less than yours and pretty much anyone else's on this board. Within the military, I am sure Chaplains can be called non-combatants; perhaps medics, clerks, etc are not usually expected to be in combat but are still considered combatants, I don't know. I was thinking mostly of serving as a conscientious objector. My husband's family is Canadian Mennonite and during WWII the Mennonites built the Trans-Canada highway up to Alaska, the first road building project to be completed on time, under budget and without problems (maybe the last too? . I consider that those men who stay behind keeping the country built (and running) are serving even if they are not in the military; it beats leaving the country to avoid military service although I do not think the CO's were treated all that nicely....thus the parallel between serving as a CO for Christ and the NT's verses on suffering for Christ (mentioned in my article).
Of course, CO is not the norm since there is no draft currently in North America. So Christians can serve their country in pretty much any way they feel led; the main thing I am questioning is the willingness to join the military (or stay in it) as a Christian "combatant".