Is it permissable for a believer to be a soldier in war.

[Guest]

The question that I am raising here is whether a Christian can in good conscience engage in activities directly or indirectly relating to the conduct of modern war. This includes direct activities as working as a combat-soldier, through to indirect activities such as munitions production or other activities that support the conduct of violent activities. [as opposed to activities such as tending wounded, feeding/serving refugees that technically are also part of the conduct of war - but with which there is no concievable Christian objection]

I have listened with very great interest to the sermons given by Gregg on the topic of war, and the Christian's attitude to war, and whether a Christian can in good conscience be involved in any aspects of the conduct of war in modern society.

I found the two sermons at this web-site for those who wish to know what sermons I refer to: http://www.digitalministries.us/page10.html

I will start out by saying I am strongly inclined to agree with the vast bulk of what Steve has to say, which - as far as I have understood it [correct me if I have misunderstood the sermons] - is that a Christian has no place in being involved in material way in the conduct of war - other than prayer.

I hesitate however to make a blanket prohibition for the following reasons:

1. While Jesus does indeed tell us to 'turn the other cheek', the context is clearly that it is on the occasion that we are [personally] being assaulted in some way. This does not necessarily [although it might] mean that we turn the other cheek on someone else's behalf [I think it is probably acceptable to not violently resist violent persecution of fellow believers, however in other circumstances refraining from violent resistance may be the wrong thing to do]. That is, what does one do when either another individual is being assaulted in some way, or at the international level - some other group or nation is being subjected to injustice to a greater or lesser degree.

2. While it is [intellectually and theologically] comforting, and even desirable to take a hard-line stand one way or the other, historical experience and personal experience seems to indicate that the moral decisions we are faced with are coloured in shades of grey rather than black/white. There are some things that are flat-out wrong. But there are other things which do not leave us with moral clarity. Sometimes [not always] war is a grey issue rather than a black/white issue. Of course, other times, war can be very black/white - in regards to whether there is a moral case for Christians taking up arms.

My own view [at this time] is that war is not justified by Christians to stop persecution against the Church. It *might* be justified to stop large scale evil [particularly genocide against entire people-groups [which is of course the actual meaning of genocide]] in some circumstances [not clearly defined].

3. While it is true that God is able to intervene 'if he so chooses', that does not release us from the responsibility to make moral decisions with the information that we have at hand. Certainly God can do what he wants - but God's ability to act is not constrained by our action or inaction. To use the much over-used but nonetheless 'classic' example of the Nazi threat [at the risk of invoking Godwin's law - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law ] while it is true that God could have defeated the Nazi's any time he so chose through supernatural means, the observable history indicates that Nazism was defeated by millions of men and women [many of whom professed Christianity] rallying to a military cause, and taking violent military action to defeat it. My own view is that God empowered them, to defeat Nazism - but without the human activities Nazism would almost certainly have been successful in taking over the world.

Furthermore, while true Christianity would still have prevailed ultimately - despite what would most likely have been Roman Empire [33AD-400AD] level persecution - the other costs to our 'neighbours' would have been appalling - to wit the very likely extinction of multiple races of peoples including Gypsies and Jews - all of which need to live [if for no other reason that they need to hear the Gospel ].

Therefore, any ethical discussion needs to deal with ethics in the world in which we find ourselves living rather than an idealised world. If the essence of law is love, then the commandment to turn the other cheek, must only apply in the case where to do so is the most loving thing to do. Turning your own cheek is one thing, turning the cheek of your neighbour something altogether different - and so far as I can tell - not clearly addressesd in scripture

I hasten to add, that I am - on Christian grounds - exceedingly reluctant to take up arms. I do not know if I would be able to bring myself to actually kill another human being except under the most extreme of circumstances. However recent [the last 100 years] world history shows that extreme circumstances are not necessarily unlikely or impossible circumstances.

It is the history of World War 2 [primarily] that stops me from taking a 100% non-violent attitude to war "in all circumstances". I am still very reluctant to go to war - the WW2 experience however stops me from ruling it out altogether.


I look forward to other peoples perspectives on this.

love and regards in Jesus,

David.

[Guest]

The question that I am raising here is whether a Christian can in good conscience engage in activities directly or indirectly relating to the conduct of modern war

In my opinion a , qualified , yes.


There is a tension in the Bible between those passages that have been used to justify pacifism , Matt. 26:52 , Matt. 5:39 , and Luke 6:27 with those that admonished obedience to secular governments , Rom. 13:1–2; 1 Peter 2:13–14.

There have been , over time , three answers to this question.

1.Pacifism: It's main critisism being that it may indeed represent the courage of faith in a situation of persecution. At the same time, it may also amount to a rejection of the message of the righteousness of God by faith and allow the abandonment of the world to evil.

2.Crusade or preventive war: A view that sees the church militant , the crusade position actually asserts the dominance of the church over the world and tends to confuse God’s initiative with a human will to power.

3. Just War: This position was derived over time , beginning with Augustine.War is both a consequence of sin and a remedy for it.War is to be waged in order that peace
might prevail.

"A good ruler will not initiate wars of aggression or conquest. No wanton violence or massacre
should be committed. A war must be undertaken under proper authority." To this was added , by Thomas Aquinas , " If a tyrant violates the natural law on which authority rests, it is legitimate for those next in authority to use force against the tyrant for the common good."

Under the theory of Just War are a number of criteria:

1.Just cause. The right to self-defense against an aggressor has consistently
been regarded as fundamental. Only defensive war is legitimate.

2.Last resort. War may be waged only when all negotiations and compromise
have been attempted and have failed.

3. Formal declaration. Since the use of military force is the prerogative
of government and not of private individuals, properly constituted procedure for
declaring and waging war must be followed.

4 Just intention. War must be carried out to secure a just peace, not for territorial conquest, economic gain, or ideological supremacy. The only legitimate intention of war is to secure peace.

5 The principle of proportionality. The weaponry and force used should be limited to what is
needed to secure a just peace

6 The principle of discrimination. Since war is an official act of government, noncombatants
and civilians should be immune from attack.

7 The principle of limited objectives. Since the purpose of a just war must ultimately be peace, unconditional surrender or the complete obliteration of the social or political institutions
of a nation is unwarranted.


This is the theory under which a Christian may legitimately participate in war. The qualification however is that I know of no war that can fully fit all these criterion. WWII , after all , violated #6 & 7. Ultimately it is up to the individual to make a determination , and is largely based on their trust in their secular leadership.

It is , at times , necessary to wage war. WWII , Charles Martel at Tours , Lepanto etc. attest to the fact that evil must be restrained. War in this respect , operates on an international basis the way that police operate on a local basis. Nations have the same right of self-defense as the individual.

Thomas