War vs. Murder - Chaplains

Status
Not open for further replies.

RobertPGH1981

Puritan Board Sophomore
I always wondered how Chaplains handle a specific question. From watching TV shows on the war in Iraq it seems as if the soldiers carry guilt with them. If a soldier asked you, "Am I violating the one of the ten commandments if I kill somebody in battle?" How would you respond to a solider that asks that question? How do we as Christians define murder?
 
Last edited:
I then ask the question is it up to the the individual soldier to decide if the war is just?

Good question. I certainly don't think that the individual soldier has the right or obligation to make such a declaration. The OP, however, was framed in terms of individual guilt being carried around by soldiers. I know that soldiers must do their legitimate duties. But, we have an all-volunteer military. How do you suppose all these things mesh? Again, no implied answer here; just thinking about this very serious issue.
 
I always wondered how Chaplains handle a specific question. From watching TV shows on the war in Iraq it seems as if the soldiers carry guilt with them. If a soldier asked you, "Am I violating the one of the ten commandments if I kill somebody in battle?" How would you respond to a solider that asks that question? How do we as Christians define murder?

Very good questions... and ones I am asked by servicemembers on a relatively frequent basis.

Unfortunately, I've got to get going. I'll give my answer - what I tell them - when I get the chance.
 
I then ask the question is it up to the the individual soldier to decide if the war is just?

Good question. I certainly don't think that the individual soldier has the right or obligation to make such a declaration. The OP, however, was framed in terms of individual guilt being carried around by soldiers. I know that soldiers must do their legitimate duties. But, we have an all-volunteer military. How do you suppose all these things mesh? Again, no implied answer here; just thinking about this very serious issue.


So if it is not the individual's right or obligation, should the soldier still feel guilty?
 
It's definitely a tough subject. As I watch this on TV I also see how tough it is for the soldiers. There is evidence in the OT in support of war, but I am at a loss to show this proof in the NT. The main verse I think of is:

Matthew 5:39 - But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

However, when I think of some of the terrible things that could happen, and the depravity of man (Rom 3:10-18), it seems as if war is inevitable. Imagine what could of happened if the United States did not get involved during World War II. Even though the price paid was immense I believe that War saved many lives, but once again I can't back up war with scriptural proof from the NT. Does anybody know how to speak to this subject using the scriptures?
 
So if it is not the individual's right or obligation, should the soldier still feel guilty?

It is certainly within the right of an individual to decide what he/she thinks is a just war. It is not up to the individual to decide whether the nation declares a war to be just. The assumption is probably that if a nation is involved in a war, somebody in the government thinks it is.
I still don't know the answer to the individual feelings of guilt, however.
 
WLC:
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 ourselves721 and others722 by resisting all thoughts and purposes,723 subduing all passions,724 and avoiding all occasions,725 temptations,726 and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;727 by just defence thereof against violence,728 patient bearing of the hand of God,729 quietness of mind,730 cheerfulness of spirit;731 a sober use of meat,732 drink,733 physic,734 sleep,735 labour,736 and recreations;737 by charitable thoughts,738 love,739 compassion,740 meekness, gentleness, kindness;741 peaceable,742 mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;743 forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;744 comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.745

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,746 or of others,747 except in case of public justice,748 lawful war,749 or necessary defence;750 the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;751 sinful anger,752 hatred,753 envy,754 desire of revenge;755 all excessive passions,756 distracting cares;757 immoderate use of meat, drink,758 labor,759 and recreations;760 provoking words,761 oppression,762 quarreling,763 striking, wounding,764 and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.765
There are few things that irk me more than the false piety from a distortion of the Word that enjoines Christians to retreat from their responsibilities toward their neighbor. "God bless you, be at peace" while your neighbor's life is taken..such a person is wicked.

War is horrible but is the extension of the idea of preserving or protecting life under the appropriate circumstances. In other words, it is sometimes necessary to take life in order to preserve it. The person who retreats into the monastery or commune to pray while his neighbor is being pillaged and killed by the wicked will be judged by God for a grave violation of the 6th Commandment. By failing to protect life, we violate the 6th Commandment.

All that said, not all wars are just so there is discernment but the question was posed very broadly.
 
Thank you all for you answers.
The person who retreats into the monastery or commune to pray while his neighbor is being pillaged and killed by the wicked will be judged by God for a grave violation of the 6th Commandment. By failing to protect life, we violate the 6th Commandment.

I agree with you but even when a soldier kills in war for what appear to be right reasons he feels guilty. That is the part that confuses me.
 
I agree with you but even when a soldier kills in war for what appear to be right reasons he feels guilty. That is the part that confuses me.

I was responding to your question in the OP asking for the distinction between war and murder.

The real question about guilt is not how we feel about something but whether or not we are, objectively, guilty. I think the first thing to determine, with guilty feelings is to determine if guilt actually exists and then work from there.
 
I think the police and military ought to make sure that soldiers who kill justly in the line of duty are praised for doing a good job.

One police officer I read of states that he had to kill a robber in a violent confrontation and he went home sort of dazed. His wife asked why he was quiet, and when the husband explained she asked, "Well, was your shot well-aimed and did you respond quick" to which he affirmed. And she told him, "Good job." This officer wrote that that was the very best thing anyone could have done for him at that point.
 
Killing another person is for most people something from which they naturally recoil. Most people are taught that killing another person is bad, and even when that conditioning hasn’t occurred there is still the moral law imprinted on our hearts which typically informs the conscience to the extent that people understand that killing a human is a more consequential matter than, say, swatting a fly. Even though our society fairly commonly reinforces the idea that under certain circumstances it is permissible to kill another person (i.e., they’re about to attempt to kill you), and despite intentional training both psychological and moral on the acceptability of killing in times of war, US history is rife with examples and statistics demonstrating that when push comes to shove there are many who will never fire their weapon at the enemy. The issue isn’t one of cowardice – these men don’t run away – but instead there is a mental “block” that keeps them from firing.

However, most service members are able to bring themselves to engage the enemy. But something very commonly happens when they look down the iron sights of their rifle, squeeze the trigger, and then watch their target react to getting shot: The person doesn’t usually die instantly. They fall on the ground and squirm, spit up blood, cry for their mom, and all other manner of very human responses. This in turn causes the service member to break down the wall of dehumanization that they’ve built up towards their enemy and they realize this could just as easily have been them and they’ve killed someone’s loved one. Yet even when the service member doesn’t begin reflecting on the personhood of the person they just killed, it is a very common phenomenon that men in uniform will be able to recall the faces of the people they killed. For these people they have “guilt” not in the judicial sense but rather in the sense that they are overwhelmed with the gravitas of having killed someone. Sometimes it manifests itself in terms of questioning the legitimacy of how the military will work very hard to paint a picture of the enemy as these really bad people who need to be killed when in fact until our leaders had a squabble with their leaders we never had a problem at all with those folks.

There are, however, some for whom combat turns them into brutes and they find great enjoyment in not only killing the enemy, but also killing them in slow painful ways (I’ve heard multiple stories from Soldiers and Marines about intentionally aiming for things near the enemy that would explode or burst into flames so that they could watch the enemy burn to death), or desecrating their bodies post mortem. I’ve heard more than a few stories of people being shot for looking or acting in a suspicious manner without ever being able to determine whether or not the person was actually an enemy or not. But these folks will come back and (some of them) will have their conscience pricked and they’ll feel guilt for having done wrong.

As a result, when I am asked by a service member about the morality of killing in combat, it is my practice to NEVER just say “it was war, you were just doing your job.” Instead I always ask for their story. Before I can address the issue properly I have to find out what is the real matter. When they have done their job faithfully and yet have sorrow about killing, I rejoice that they have a normal conscience that understands that human life is sacred and it should not be taken away lightly. And then I try to lead them to help them see their situation in light of God’s word. On the other hand, sometimes they have guilt because they have in fact acted immorally – even though the military slapped a medal on their chest – and their conscience is bearing witness against them. For those I confirm the wrongness of whatever immoral thing they did, but I express hope because of the sheer fact that they know they did wrong and want to fix it. For those I try to lead to Jesus as their only hope for forgiveness while at the same time providing glimpses of a more biblical way of thinking and acting in war (for their subsequent deployments). My biggest challenges are with the ones who don’t come to me on their own, have done horrible things, and want to go back so they can do more. Thankfully these are the exception, but I’ve talked with more than I’d like to admit. With these I have to be very grave – the military may honor you now because your misdeeds haven’t been exposed by the media, but you have given vent to your depravity and you have treated with contempt the image of God and you can be certain that the Lord will visit upon you the sin you have committed unless you repent.
 
Great Post Ben! As prior military and 20+yrs as a State Trooper you said it very well. I really appreciate you guys on this board...
 
I remember a few things from my infantry course that were somewhat disturbing in light of all this. I seem to recall that one of the many reasons that the calibre was shifted to 5.56 is that the 7.62 killed too often, and that both the psychological effect and the effect in terms of materiel and manpower is magnified when a soldier is wounded, and not killed outright. And yet we were taught to aim for the center of mass, not to wound intentionally, and it was very much 'one shot, one kill' being taught on the range for the C7s (M16s).
 
Great response, Ben. Thanks.

Kevin, to help assuage your concerns over the shift from 7.62 to 5.56 one of the primary reasons was that a great deal more ammo may be carried. That and it is an easier calibre for most to fire accurately. The 7.62 causes many men to develop a flinch. Even for those that don't flinch it is almost impossible for most to fire a 7.62 calibre assault rifle accurately in a full auto mode, or even in a limited burst. The decreased recoil of the 5.56 helps to eliminate this problem.
 
Thanks, Pastor Underwood. I was never sure if the bits I mentioned were an opinion or policy. In the end, I was the section gunner anyway and not a pure rifleman, but it was likely a lot easier on the shoulder firing 5.56 and concentrating on where the tracers were going than getting beat up by it.
 
Ben and Rich,

As an Infantryman (currently serving) I appreciate what you both have posted.

There are men that i serve with that have combat experience. Most of these men do not speak about what they've done. I've learned that the ones who do speak about their situations either: aren't telling the truth or have a "murderer's mentality". The one who doesn't speak about what they have done (i've learned) carries the guilt that accompanies their past actions. I can physically see this guilt.

So if it is not the individual's right or obligation, should the soldier still feel guilty?

It is certainly within the right of an individual to decide what he/she thinks is a just war. It is not up to the individual to decide whether the nation declares a war to be just. The assumption is probably that if a nation is involved in a war, somebody in the government thinks it is.
I still don't know the answer to the individual feelings of guilt, however.

They do have a right to define a just war (even though I believe Rich has defined it well). Also, Congress "declares" war. So, you are right in those regards. Are you saying that a Christian cannot rightly declare a war "just" if it clearly violates God's Word? Hitler declared war for the pursuit of his cause. Would the soldiers have been wrong in declaring to Hitler that this was an unjust war? I guess another question would be: who has the right to declare a war just or unjust?

I remember a few things from my infantry course that were somewhat disturbing in light of all this. I seem to recall that one of the many reasons that the calibre was shifted to 5.56 is that the 7.62 killed too often, and that both the psychological effect and the effect in terms of materiel and manpower is magnified when a soldier is wounded, and not killed outright. And yet we were taught to aim for the center of mass, not to wound intentionally, and it was very much 'one shot, one kill' being taught on the range for the C7s (M16s).

We don't use a rifle that shoots 7.62. We are trained to shoot them however(e.g AK series weapons). Yet, line companies still use 7.62 weapons (i.e. 240G/B).
 
We don't use a rifle that shoots 7.62. We are trained to shoot them however(e.g AK series weapons). Yet, line companies still use 7.62 weapons (i.e. 240G/B).

No, but we used to. The C7 is the replacement of the FNC1A1, a 7.62mm rifle. I also assumed that the M16 was basically replacing the M1 Garand (I know, not really, but kinda sorta), and 30-06 is basically the 7.62, no?
 
Kevin, the M-1, which fired the .30-06 (which is a good bit more powerful than than the 7.62 NATO) was replaced by the M-14. The M-14 was a 7.62 NATO rifle. In a way it was like a select fire, bottom magazine fed Garand rifle. It was in service from 1959 to 1970. I know at one time it was still in service in some capacities a few years ago. It was replaced by the M-16.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top