|
Some of the most outstanding Christians I've met have been in the military. Just as the Centurion was commended by Jesus (Matthew 8), a military career does not seem to stop a man having great faith. I hold all servicemen in high regard, particularly Christians. Whilst I recognise that the problems of their calling have increased with the growing investment in nuclear weapons, my respect for them as individuals has not diminished.
Conflicting views and reconciled relationships
On the other hand, my understanding of Jesus' mind regarding peace and violence has developed over the years and is in some degree in conflict with the position that someone in the military would probably take. I would not allow this conflict to destroy fellowship, because God is a God of reconciliation and this means that I must be reconciled to those whose ideas are alien or even hostile to mine, even if I can't be reconciled to their doctrines.
However Jesus is the Prince of Peace, and one of his first comments in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5) is, 'Happy are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God'. Undoubtedly they receive this name because they express his character.
How can we understand war, particularly in this age of nuclear threat? In answer it is first necessary to look at the Church's response to warfare.
The early Church: soldiers not acceptable
For the first two and a half centuries of its existence, you were not acceptable in the Christian Church if you were a soldier. Some have argued that this was because soldiers were particularly debauched, and implicit in the job was obedience to the Emperor in terms of worship by taking an oath. I do not think that is the whole case. The evidence weighs strongly to suggest that congregations would not have accepted soldiers because of their trade — they were in the business of violence, much of which was directed against the church.
But there were of course those soldiers who became believers, but by and large they would either buy themselves out of the army, wait until they retired to be accepted as full-blooded church members or else put up with criticism from their leaders (eg Tertullian).
A new animal: the Christian State
Things changed round about the turn of the fourth century, when the whole Roman empire became Christian. Indeed the turn came through a battle, when Constantine, fighting against Maxentius from the east, won the battle of the Milvian bridge. Before the battle, he had a vision, he claimed, of a flaming cross in the sky and the words In Hoc Signa Invicta: 'in this sign you will conquer'. (The first three initials (IHS) have since become a Christian symbol but existed earlier than this in paganism.) Constantine put the Christian cross on his shields and indeed he did conquer. He continued to live as a pagan but favoured Christians. On his deathbed he was baptised as a Christian.
This threw up a new animal — the Christian State. The ruler clearly had to have some level of military and policing in order to maintain the state. That, I would argue, is legitimate. Governments and states are God-given, and they require power in order to implement their decisions and protect their people. The first 11 chapters of Genesis give us some of the theology of the nations.
In order to look at warfare, we must tackle the whole issue of the relationship between Church and state. When a so-called Christian state came into being, soldiers became acceptable because they served a Christian emperor. They even got their own patron saint, Martin, who ironically was canonised because he refused to fight with these words, 'It is not lawful for me to fight'.
It would be too easy to say that was where things went wrong, and that believers should have withdrawn from the world. When the majority of the Western World was at least nominally Christian, how could you possibly let the whole business of government be carried on by non-Christians?
Gradually the whole relationship changed. Christians began to participate in state structures and theologians began to justify the change. Augustine took violence and sanctified it for the use of the Church when he said, ‘Compel them to come in’. People have used his words to justify crusades, inquisitions, conquistadores and burning heretics. The end of producing new converts justified the means of sword, stake and eventually firearms.
Pacifist minorities: a constant stream
But throughout the history of the Church after Constantine, there have always been minority groups who have reacted to this and stood out against the use of force. Of the biblical Spirit-filled groups which broke away from the institutional church before the Reformation — Bogomils, Albigensians, Waldensians etc — the majority were pacifist. (Even their enemy church who destroyed them could name in the 12th Century over 70 groups.)
After the Reformation the main bulk of the Church, even including such leaders as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, continued to justify the use of force; but there has always been a Christian stream of one sort or another, from Anabaptists and Hutterites to Mennonites, which has said,'Non-violence is the way of the Church'.
In the 20th century those two opposite streams were brought closer together in their attitude to war by one thing — the nuclear bomb. To understand the difference this makes, you must first consider the concept of a 'just' war. This was the concept which theologians from Augustine's time onwards have borrowed from Aristotle and formulated into Christian doctrine.
The 'just war' concept: seven definitions
There are at least seven factors which define a just war:
1 . There has to be a just cause. (At least more just than the other side — these things are usually grey, rather than black and white.) The Geneva Convention, the League of Nations and then the United Nations have all used this definition and gone on to delineate its parameters.
2. The means of implementing warfare must be just, and proportionate to the crime. For example, if ten years ago, an atomic bomb had been used to blow up the whole of Argentina for stealing a few islands, that would clearly have been a disproportionate use of force.
3. It has to be discriminate. There must be the possibility of directing your violence at the war machine of the other side. It does not mean that no innocent bystanders will be hurt, but that attack must not be directed at them. Hitler disregarded this when he blitzed London and other major cities. The Allies went on to annihilate Dresden and then used the atomic bomb. In this they were playing the same game. That is where the just war theory becomes fallacious because it provokes the use of greater force.
4. There must be a recognition of the neutrality of non-combatants. The Communists such as Tito in Yugoslavia changed this, saying it was 'the people's war', because reprisals against innocent citizens were perpetrated in response to Tito's sabotage. Guerilla warfare such as in Vietnam also clouds the boundaries.
5. There must be a just intent and attitude in what you are trying to do. Deuteronomy talks of offering peace to a city when you surround it. You must fight not for retaliation, or the satisfaction of crushing someone else, but to bring peace to the land. It is often said that the harsh penalties extracted from Germany after the First World War laid the seeds of the Second.
6. There must be grounds for disobedience. You must not force people to fight against their will. They must be allowed to exercise conscience and be non-combatants.
7. You must also believe you have the means to win. Otherwise you are embroiling people in suffering that will accomplish nothing. Vietnam taught a hard lesson on this.
However, when in 1946 thousands of people disappeared in Hiroshima within minutes, the just war concept became redundant and meaningless. It was disproportionate and it was indiscriminate. This is why many find the just war theory impossible to apply in the 21st century.
Another aspect of war that immediately renders it unjust is the financial consideration. It has been calculated that one fifth of the world’s money goes into the military machine, and 50 per cent of the world's top scientists are engaged in producing weapons. In 1975 it was worked out that a five-year programme to bring improved health, birth control, literacy and agricultural schemes worldwide would cost less than the United States and Russia were spending on their atomic missiles in one year.
The Christian role: participant or prophetic?
So how should we as 21st Century Christians react to warfare? Firstly we must decide whether or not to participate. We must consider the Church/State relationship and particularly Paul’s words in Romans. In chapter 13 he talks of Christians being subordinate to higher powers. But submission does not necessarily mean obedience. It may mean refusing to obey but submitting to the punishment just as Jesus did. It can mean non-violent resistance but certainly not violent opposition.
'The authorities that exist have been established by God,' says Paul. Does this mean that God raised up Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein? No, it does not mean that. It simply means that the whole concept of order and government is God’s idea.
We must not forget that chapter 12 precedes these words in chapter 13, with its injunction to 'Overcome evil with good', and 'Do not take revenge . . . for vengeance is mine, says the Lord'. Romans 13 adds that it is the magistrate's job to execute revenge (v4), and continues with the reminder that we are to 'Love our neighbour as ourself’.
Our next reaction as Christians to warfare must be prophetic. We are those who follow the Prince of Peace. Wouldn't you think we ought to have something to say?
Kingdom people: living out ‘shalom’
We must speak out clearly, but we cannot fully engage in a prophetic role unless we as believers are living in love and peace towards each other. If the Church of Christ is divided and squabbling — I do not just mean denominations, but a spirit of division and disarray — how can we speak prophetically?
It is a Holy Spirit inspired church, living 'shalom' and speaking 'shalom', that can and should speak out against the ludicrous situation of modern warfare where the destruction of the world lurks just around the corner. As we live now the value and character of his Kingdom, we show that we want a world where the war machine is destroyed and peace exists among the nations.
Isaiah 2:4 states 'And He will judge between the nations and render decision for many people; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.' The Church has a clear calling to be peace making on behalf of the Prince of Peace, by love, service, prayer and suffering. Mostworld leaders have never been confronted with this instrument — Jesus' body and these weapons. May the time of his kingdom come.
|