should Christian participate in war (defense or offense)

[ochotseat]

Love is the central theme of NT....unlike in OT, the nation of Israel was asked to drive out all the bad people.

Of course war's justified in many cases, especially self-defense. that's why the israelites led by Moses were allowed to battle the wicked. if imperialism benefits both parties, it's usually ok. that's why God gave Western Christians manifest destiny in the past, and that plan's extended to all Christians now.

[Felgar]

We further learn this:
"Romans 13:1-5 (NIV)
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. "

Here it is written that God has delegated some of His authority to the government, and as such, the government has the right to pursue wars against evil and to administer justice. The passage above gives the government the right to bear the sword against these people.

Good passage, and agree with this point: that governments do have the right and even responsibility to protect their citizens from harm, even at the cost of going to war. God has given governments that right. Further, we are to submit to the government in so much as that submission does not pose a direct conflict to our higher submission to God.

So if my government goes to war I still pay taxes, but I do not fight because that would put me in a position where I would be killing rather than loving my enemies and one's duty to God must supercede one's duty to government.

And MM, I gave you quote of Jesus' kingdom not being of this world so His disciples didn't fight. And since our first priority is to seek the kingdom of God, we are part of Christ's kingdom and not of the world. You said you had been given no verses, but I gave you that one.

You'll notice one conclusion from my response to that passage is that it maaayyy not be possible for a true Christian to hold a public office which would require him to give an order to go to war.

[Mastermind]

And MM, I gave you quote of Jesus' kingdom not being of this world so His disciples didn't fight. And since our first priority is to seek the kingdom of God, we are part of Christ's kingdom and not of the world. You said you had been given no verses, but I gave you that one.

You'll notice one conclusion from my response to that passage is that it maaayyy not be possible for a true Christian to hold a public office which would require him to give an order to go to war.

Your quote means nothing. I asked for something that specifically says Christians should not engage in battle FOR ANY REASON. Using the apostles as an example is ridiculous simply because:

A- They were killed by the government. they couldn't fight back because they had to submit to secular athority like you just noted.

B- The real reason why I think they died was to prove that they believed in what they preached and were afraid of nothing. This means the world to people who are persecuted, knowing that the apostles were too.

[Felgar]

Your quote means nothing. I asked for something that specifically says Christians should not engage in battle FOR ANY REASON.

And I'm asking for something that specifically says that Christians (the body of Christ) ARE warranted in killing others for any reason. Something that at least Dan and August tried to do but you have not at all.

As far as I'm concerned whether to kill or not is the question, and the position that does NOT require justification is to never kill. For that reason the burden of proof is on you.

At this point I don't think we'll get anywhere. It would be great if someone else was able to find more scripture about the subject in support of either position.

[Mastermind]

And I'm asking for something that specifically says that Christians (the body of Christ) ARE warranted in killing others for any reason. Something that at least Dan and August tried to do but you have not at all.

I'm sorry but setting a goal in life to only do what God says is absolutely ridiculous. I hope you don't scratch when you're itching because it's not in the Bible. As far as I'm concerned, if Jesus wanted to say war was bad and Christians shouldn't participate in it, he would have done so.
Oh, and I want a bible verse where it says we're allowed to shower, watch tv and listen to the radio because if we do and it's not in the bible then it's wrong.

[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned whether to kill or not is the question, and the position that does NOT require justification is to never kill. For that reason the burden of proof is on you.

Oh really? Letting children die while you do nothing does not require justification?

At this point I don't think we'll get anywhere. It would be great if someone else was able to find more scripture about the subject in support of either position.

Yea. For example, you could bring some scripture yourself instead of criticizing me for being lazy and doing the exact same thing. All you've done is quote completely unrelated verses from Hebrews thinking that war had something to do with Mosaic law. Oh, and you might want to read through Revelations, because there is a lot of ass kicking involved. just read these verses:

14: And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses.
15: From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

7: He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.
8: But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."

Yep, God sure hates war.

[August]

So if my government goes to war I still pay taxes, but I do not fight because that would put me in a position where I would be killing rather than loving my enemies and one's duty to God must supercede one's duty to government.

Couple of points here. Is it not your Christian duty to protect the innocent? Do you just let evil steamroller over you? We are citizens of 2 kingdoms, the heavenly and the earthly, and we should follow what God tells us to do in both cases.

"1 Peter 2:13-14 (NIV)
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, [14] or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. "

This verse confirms the earlier verse from Romans, while adding that these authorities appointed by God are the ones that punishes those who do evil. And the instruction is clear, we must submit to them for the Lord's sake. So if you are required by your government to go to war, you should submit to that, provided that it is a just war.

It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role.

What, now, are we to make of Jesus' radical commands in Matthew 5:39-41? "Do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two." How does this fit with what we have seen above? I believe, Felgar, that this is also the main point of your argument?

First, we need to clarify what the problem is not. The problem is not that Jesus appears to be telling us to lie down and let evil overtake us. That is clearly not what he is saying. Instead, he is telling us what it looks like "not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21)

So the problem is not that it looks as though Jesus is telling us to let evil steam-roll over us. The problem is that it looks like Jesus is telling us that the only way we should ever seek to overcome evil is by letting it go and responding with kindness. It looks as though he leaves no place for using force in resisting evil.

Part of the answer to this difficulty lies in understanding the hyperbolic nature of much of the Sermon on the Mount. I don't think that Jesus is telling us never to respond to evil with force (such as in self-defense) or always to literally turn the other cheek when we are slapped any more than his command later in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:6 means that we should only pray when we are completely alone or his command in 5:29 means that some should literally gouge out their eyes. Jesus himself drove the thieves away from the temple with a whip (John 2:15) and Paul at times insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11; cf. also the interesting instance of 16:35-40). Jesus is using hyperbole to illustrate what our primary disposition and attitude should be, not to say that we should literally give in to every attempt to do evil against us. That is part of the answer.

The main part of the answer, however, lies in remembering that Jesus is speaking primarily to individuals. He is not mainly addressing governments here, but is primarily speaking at the personal level. This text, then, shows that an individual's primary response to evil should be to "turn the other cheek," while the other texts we have seen (e.g., Romans 13:3-4) show that government's God-given responsibility is to punish those who commit civil crimes (murder, terrorism, acts of war, etc.). While it is sometimes appropriate even for individuals to use self-defense, it is never appropriate for individuals to seek to punish others. But it is right, however, for governments both to take measures of self-defense and to execute retribution.

There are, in other words, various "spheres" of life. God has willed that some spheres include responsibilities that are not necessarily included in other spheres. Personally, it would be wrong for us to execute retribution on people who harm us. But passages like Romans 13:3-4 and John 18:36 show that Jesus is not denying governments the right to execute retribution on evildoers. Therefore, when a Christian is under the authority of the government and authorized to fight in a just war on the nation's behalf, it is appropriate for him to fight. For he is not fighting as a private individual, but as a representative of the government to which God has given the power of the sword.

I want to add a piece here about the just war criteria, since this is what defines the cases under which war can be justified. It was written by Augustine (no relation )

1) Proper Authority - Augustine meant by this that war is not to be waged by private citizens but rather by properly constituted governments.
2) Proper cause — We are not to go to war for revenge nor as Augustine put it 'the lust for dominating'. The primary reason for going to war is self defence.
3) A reasonable chance of success
4) Proportionality - This has come to mean that non-combatants should be kept from harm, as far as possible.

This has been a pretty long answer, but it is a complex and very important issue for Christians.

[Felgar]

Wow... Terrific post August - certianly a coherent and persuasive argument based upon scripture, which is exactly what I was asking for.

2 further questions to help me clarify the specifics of your position:

1) To what extent ARE we required to protect the innocent? Are you convinced that we have the right to kill (possibly millions of unprepared souls) to do it? Consider that we are told how Christians will be persecuted throughout the ages for their beliefs; is it really our place to kill another to free them of that? Consider that one of the places where the church is strongest and growing the quickest is in China where they are persecuted, does God really want all of China to turn into atheists and/or away from God like the rest of the West? Does God really promise lives of freedom on Earth to His followers? (another verse would be awesome)

2) At what point do you draw the line of submission; because don't you believe that our submission to God's kingdom must be placed before submission to our Earthly kingdom? When standing before God I just don't feel it will fly to tell him, "I was only following orders."

[Mastermind]

I highly doubt you're "on the fence" Felgar.

[Felgar]

I highly doubt you're "on the fence" Felgar.

What do you mean? Do you think that I'm misrepresenting myself? To what end?

[Mastermind]

I highly doubt you're "on the fence" Felgar.

What do you mean? Do you think that I'm misrepresenting myself? To what end?

I think you're asking questions that you could easily answer yourself, and that nobody who was actually listening to both sides would ask. I know you know better than that and the only reason why you would do it is if you either:

A) Are a pacifist in disguise.
B) Want the bible to portray a pacifist image.

I think the latter is more likely. A lot of people have an image of God and Jesus laying down in a field full of flowers with butterflies flying around and a rainbow in the sky. They don't like the idea that maybe God isn't like that, feel that a more war-like notion of God doesn't sit well with what they like, so instead of fixing what they like, they try to fix what God is like. I've been guilty of this myself numerous times, until I actually sat down and thought about it.

[Felgar]

I think you're asking questions that you could easily answer yourself, and that nobody who was actually listening to both sides would ask.

I will glady clarify my personal opinion on any direct question that you ask. For clarity here are a few:

1) To what extent ARE we required to protect the innocent?

Only to the extent that we can do in accordance with the Bible. I honestly feel it a distinct possiblity that a government like China's was specifically chosen by God for the purpose of bringing people to Jesus. God is much more concerned with our eternal fate than our mortal one.

2) At what point do you draw the line of submission; because don't you believe that our submission to God's kingdom must be placed before submission to our Earthly kingdom?

I absolutely believe that submission is only appropriate to the extent that it is possible while still being in submission to God and our instructions from His Word. So the real question here is where does the authority of the government end and the authority of God begin. In fact, God's authority does not end, so the question is where is the line that delineates the authority that God has conferred upon our governments. This is what I would like August to answer with his own views.

I'm not even sure what you're really accusing me of, so I guess I'll leave it at that for now.

[Mastermind]

Only to the extent that we can do in accordance with the Bible. I honestly feel it a distinct possiblity that a government like China's was specifically chosen by God for the purpose of bringing people to Jesus. God is much more concerned with our eternal fate than our mortal one.

Christ has given us the Holy Spirit for a reason. It's there to help us make decisions, and it's there to guide us when the Bible cannot (I think it can but the OT is not to your satisfaction). I guess you wouldn't feel right about using violence, but if I saw somebody rape a little girl and did nothing to help her because of pacifism, I don't think I could live with myself.

I absolutely believe that submission is only appropriate to the extent that it is possible while still being in submission to God and our instructions from His Word. So the real question here is where does the authority of the government end and the authority of God begin. In fact, God's authority does not end, so the question is where is the line that delineates the authority that God has conferred upon our governments. This is what I would like August to answer with his own views.

I'm not even sure what you're really accusing me of, so I guess I'll leave it at that for now.

Then I'll just let August answer.

[August]

Hi Felgar

1) To what extent ARE we required to protect the innocent?

Proverbs 6:16-17 (NIV) There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:[17] haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood...

Jeremiah 21:12 (NIV) O house of David, this is what the Lord says:
" 'Administer justice every morning;rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done...

In this passage God instructs David to administer justice and to rescue those who have been robbed from oppressors, and not doing so will cause God to be angry. In addition, we see that God hates those who spill innocent blood, thereby imploring us to protect the innocent. We also need to consider the question of abortion here, do we have the right to kill in order to save the unborn, the ultimate innocent?

Are you convinced that we have the right to kill (possibly millions of unprepared souls) to do it? Consider that we are told how Christians will be persecuted throughout the ages for their beliefs; is it really our place to kill another to free them of that?

Your question here presupposes the answer, and somehow seems to miss my earlier point. War can only be justified if it is against evil, and that those souls are unprepared is down to the choice of following that evil. How and where Christians will be persecuted is not relevant to the issue for me, it strays a bit far from the original point.

Anyhow, let's discuss it. Are we not to consider that God sent the 10 plagues to free His people from Egypt, including the killing of the firstborn? There are many places in the OT where God sends His people into battle to either pre-empt attacks on them, gain land or to protect them. While this does not relieve us of our personal duties, we are to submit to the power of the God-appojnted leadership, provided it is a just war, but also on a personal level to love those who wrong us.

Consider that one of the places where the church is strongest and growing the quickest is in China where they are persecuted, does God really want all of China to turn into atheists and/or away from God like the rest of the West?

I'm not sure how that follows from your previous point?

Does God really promise lives of freedom on Earth to His followers?

Only on the new Earth .

I assume here you mean if it is justified to go to war to ensure freedom from persecution? Since persecution is one of the ways that Christians and Christianity are tested and proven, you can arrive at a conclusion that it is not, but it is highly hypothetical. The reason I say that is because as long as man has free will, we will see persecution of Christians, regardless of how many persecutors are killed.

Of course freedom of the spirit from death is emphasized much more in the Bible, and so it should be. I don't however see the relevance of this to the issue, maybe you can rephrase it a bit?

2) At what point do you draw the line of submission; because don't you believe that our submission to God's kingdom must be placed before submission to our Earthly kingdom? When standing before God I just don't feel it will fly to tell him, "I was only following orders."

You are right of course, that is why the Christian guidelines of a just war need to be followed, so that we can be sure we are compliant with the Scriptural conditions for war.

The criterion of just cause classically and explicitly included one or more of three possibilities:
1- Defense against wrongful attack,
2- Retaking something wrongly taken,
3- Or punishment of evil.

The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things:
1- Taking human life is seriously wrong,
2- States have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice,
3 Protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence.

A war is only a Just War if it is both justified (Jus ad Bellum), and carried out in the right way (Jus in Bello). Some wars fought for noble causes have been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought

The Just War:

A- Jus ad Bellum: The conditions under which the use of military force is justified:

1- The war must be for a just cause:
- Self-Defense: Invasion: The clearest example of a just cause is self-defense against an aggressor.
- Assassination of a prominent person - a monarch or president.
- Attack on national honour (e.g. burning the flag, attacking an embassy).
- Attack on state religion.
- Economic attack (trade embargo or sanctions).
- Attack on a neighbour or ally. Assisting an invaded friendly nation.
- Preemptive strike: attacking the enemy to prevent an anticipated attack by them...Preemptive strikes may no longer be acceptable by UN members, since the Charter says that short of actual attack, "all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means" (Article 2:3)
- Human rights violations: Another common example is putting right a violation of human rights so severe that force is the only sensible response.
- To punish an act of aggression. This is not accepted by everyone. Some people would say that a war of punishment can never be a just war.

2- The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.
- Only a war lawfully declared, by a government with the authority to declare war, can be a just war.
- It prevents sneaky attacks in advance of a declaration of war:.The example usually quoted of an attack before a declaration of war is the Japanese attack on the Americans at Pearl Harbor.
- There are two obvious problems with this: First: there can sometimes be doubt as to which group is the lawful government of a country, and second: if a government behaves in a way that is arbitrary and unjust does its 'lawful' authority have the necessary ethical force for it to be entitled to wage a Just War?
- The UN has the lawful authority. However, the idea of the UN as the final authority is very legalistic since in practice the actual power to do things such as wage war remains with individual states.

3- The intention behind the war must be good:
- Good intentions include: creating, restoring or keeping a just peace, righting a wrong, assisting the innocent.
- Bad intentions include: Seeking power or imperialism, demonstrating the power of a state, grabbing land or goods, or enslaving people, hatred of the enemy, genocide, personal or national glory, revenge, preserving colonial power.

4- All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried fist: War must be the last resort!:
- The alternatives might include diplomacy, economic sanctions, political pressure from other nations, withdrawal of financial aid, condemnation in the United Nations, and so on... These alternatives should be tried exhaustively and sincerely before violence is used.
- It is argued that sometimes it will be morally better to go to war sooner rather than later. This might be because waiting too long would allow the enemy to do much more damage, or kill more people than an early war would have done; or may allow the enemy to become so established in another country's territory than far greater force will have to be used to remove him than would have been needed earlier... like Hitler!.

5- There must be a reasonable chance of success:
- Only winnable wars are just. A State should only go to war if it has a reasonable chance of winning. Going to war for a hopeless cause may be a noble act, but it is an unethical one. This comes from the idea that war is a great evil, and that it is wrong to cause suffering, pain, and death with no chance of success.
- A war among two countries with large nuclear weapons arsenal would be a disaster.
- It is sometimes morally necessary to fight against a much larger force, for national defense, for example.
- This condition could be a bullies' charter, in that it means that big powerful countries can trample on little ones, and the little ones can't ethically retaliate, because they can't win.

6- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace.
More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

B- Jus in Bello: How to conduct a war in an ethical manner:

7- Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed:
- This question has become more important during the last 100 years because of the weapons of mass destruction.
- At the beginning of the twentieth century only 10%-15% of those who died in war were civilians.
- In World War 2 more than 50% of those who died were civilians.
- By the end of the century over 75% of those killed in war were civilians.
- The "doctrine of double effect" is sometimes put forward as a defense:
- For example if an army base in the middle of a city is bombed and a few civilians living nearby are killed as well, nothing unethical has been done, because the army base was a legitimate target and the death of civilians was not the intention of the bombing (even though their death could be predicted).
- The "doctrine of double effect" can't be used to defend the use of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, area bombing, or chemical or biological weapons used against a population in general, since these are so indiscriminate in effect that civilians casualties can't be regarded as a secondary result.

8- Only appropriate force should be used. This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used:
- The means used must be in proportion to the end that war seeks to achieve:
- Not just the aim of the war, but the means used to fight it must be in proportion to the wrong to be righted.
- Destroying an enemy city with a nuclear weapon in retaliation for the invasion of an uninhabited island would make that war unethical, even though the cause of the war was just.
- The war must prevent more human suffering than it causes.
- It must prevent more evil than it causes.
- Weapons that are intrinsically evil should not be used: Chemical and biological weapons.
These were banned by the Geneva Protocol in 1925. Many writers argue that nuclear weapons are inherently evil, and I personally think so.
- Landmines, because they are indiscriminate weapons which cause great harm to civilians, are inherently evil.
- Genocide, mass rape, torture and so on.
- The Hague Convention of 1907 bans:
- poison or poisoned weapons
- killing or wounding treacherously
- killing or wounding an enemy who, having lay down his arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion
- declaring that no mercy will be given to defeated opponents
- using arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

9- After the fighting is over:
- There must be respect and mercy for the defeated.
- There may be no acts of vengeance, nor cruelty, nor deeds of imperialism.
- If possible, the nation defeated should be helped to its complete restoration, physically, economically, and the welfare of the citizens... The USA did a good job after victory in Japan, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and it is trying to de the same in Afghanistan, Iraq... North Korea is now a hell compared with the bliss of South Korea!.

Again a long post, so please comment.

[Felgar]

You've earned the last word based on those two posts. Well done August.