Decisive Issues Part 4: War

In understanding the arguments both for an against war, there is one thing that must be acknowledged first and foremost; where civilization stands at this very moment is the culmination of hundreds, maybe thousands, of wars that brought us to this point. Some of these wars were based on economics, religion, territory, food, and sheer barbarism, while others are fought in defense and to preserve liberty. Let me be clear, war is not something that should ever be glorified, rather, it should be seen as a necessary evil in order to establish or maintain freedom for all nations.

Overall, there are four accepted viewpoints or stances a person or society can have on war. These include pacifism, realism, just war, and holy war and are broken down as the following:

Pacifism: the belief that war is never justified no matter what! This is the extreme left viewpoint and is justified by some Christians by Jesus's Sermon on the Mount when he tells the listeners that when hit, turn the other cheek.

Realism: the belief that war is unrestricted and poses no restraint for how the war is fought and has no ethical concerns for their opponents whatsoever. This belief has not been adopted by any evangelical Christians.

Just War: falls between pacifism and realism, Just War believes that war can be sanctioned under certain conditions, yet maintains that it must be used as a last resort, once all other options for peace run out. It also requires ethical guidelines for the humane treatment of enemy combatants, prisoners, and civilian populations of the enemy. This is the common viewpoint among Christians in support of war.

Holy War: falls completely outside of the previous beliefs and states that war is justified based on religious grounds.

In looking at these four options for war, we can pretty much rule pacifism out based on logical implications. As countries or societies adopt pacifism, they will quickly and easily be destroyed or enslaved by another society bent on power and materialism. While it is easy to preach pacifism in a free society that is protected by a national defense, it simply isn't realistic in the world in which we live.

Next we have realism which is an anything goes approach to warfare and the extreme opposite of pacifism. In World War II, we fought against an Imperial nation that fought their wars with this type of belief. The Japanese army was known for their brutality toward their enemies, prisoners, and even their own soldiers (Kamikazes!). This type of warfare is still prevalent today in many African nations such as the Sudan and by countries who do not have a strong religious heritage rooted in sound moral convictions.

In looking for the most reasonable and logical case for war in the Christian sense, we find the Just War viewpoint. This argues that no matter how much we don't like it, sometimes, war is the best or only option to resolve a situation (picture Hitler invading Europe and systematically exterminating the Jews). But what makes the Just War viewpoint different from realism or pacifism is that it is structured around ethical principles. As Gary Ledbetter points out in "The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics," there is a guide to determining whether war is justified or warranted in a particular instance. Those guidelines are as follows:

1. Proper Authority- Engaging in war is the prerogative of governments, a right given by God as described in Romans 13:1-8. Individuals are not given the right to redress their grievances in whatever way seems right to them.
2. Just Cause- War is permissible only to resist aggression or to defend the helpless.
3. Just Intent- The restoration of peace and some level of justice should be the purpose of waging war. This would rule out wars of imperialism.
4. Last Resort- War should not be conducted until all peaceful means of resolving conflict have been exhausted.
5. Limited Goals- The annihilation of an enemy or the enslavement of a people would be examples of going beyond the limited goals of defense.
6. Proportionality- A nation must ask if the goals of a conflict are comparable in good to the cost to the combatants. Also, before a nation gets involved in a just war, it must ask if the war can even be won.

The Just War approach is used when all options are weighed an a government decides that the cost of going to war must be paid in order to avoid more suffering in the long run. It has rules and ethics that protect both the soldiers and civilians on both sides of the conflict. Some people may try and say the Just War viewpoint is contradictory in respect to the Christian view on capital punishment, yet they are two completely separate circumstances. Capital punishment deals with how we treat an individual person once incarcerated and out of the public realm where they could continue to hurt the general public. Just as a case where a person kills a man in defense of himself or his family, he is justified in the preservation of his own life, as killing on the battlefield is justified if you are on the right side of the conflict.

Last but not least, we have Holy War. This justification for war has its roots in the spread of religious beliefs by force rather than diplomacy. Now before everyone starts chiming in about the Old Testament and the wars that were fought back then, we must remember that those wars were the will of God, not the will of man. God used the Israelites to issues his judgements on kingdoms that were evil, not to spread the Jewish faith by way of the sword. Modern day Holy wars include Islamic Jihads against all non-Muslim nations in an effort to spread Islam by way of the sword. Many extremist believe that Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam and to die for a Jihad is an automatic way into heaven.

As you can see, these different viewpoints represent war in the world that we live in and know. It is important to understand that as Christians, we have responsibility to love our neighbor as our self and in the grand scheme of things, this means our nation working with our ally nations to create a stable world in which freedom can flourish. We should be ever vigilant in making sure that the Just War principles are followed if and when we are forced into action.

Divisive Issues Part 3: Capital Punishment

Being pro-life is more than just defending the lives of innocent babies, it extends to those who have committed egregious acts against humanity as well. As Christians, we are taught to see past just the false reality of this world and look towards the time when we will be with the Lord. In doing so, we realize the importance of not just our own relationship with Jesus, but that of others as well. The Bible says that angels rejoice in heaven whenever a person accepts Jesus as their Savior, yet those who do not accept Jesus will suffer by being in the absence of God's presence. The Bible describes this place as complete darkness with great weeping and gnashing of teeth. This is a punishment that no Christian would wish on anyone, even the most violent offenders.

Many people justify capital punishment by using the Old Testament "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth" verses. To those Christians who use that as a basis for supporting that argument, then I would expect that they also refrain from eating pork, observe the Sabbath on Saturdays, and celebrate all the Feasts of the Jewish tradition. Many don't understand that those rules and laws were apart of a covenant that God had with Abraham in order to keep Israel righteous in a world that lacked it. It wasn't until Jesus came and died for all the sins of the world that the new covenant was formed and we achieve righteousness through Faith. By accepting him, we are forgiven, yet we are required to forgive those who trespass against us as well.

Forgiving is not an easy thing to do. But as Christians, it is important to understand that the atrocities that were done to Jesus were excruciating and he was the most innocent human that ever lived. Yet, as he was nailed to a cross, slowly dying, he still cared for the people who administered his punishment. He said "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do." Even with his last words, he knew the importance of the sacrifice he was making in order to save those who were killing him. It is also important to note that the disciples did not seek revenge against the Jews or the Romans. They were too busy fulfilling the Great Commission and bringing people to Christ, even those who condemned him.

As a child I remember being freightened by the news of the Milwakee Murderer; a serial killer who was killing his victims and then eating them. His name was Jeffrey Dahmer and he was captured and imprisoned for life. While in prison he was baptized and accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/11/Saving-Jeffrey-Dahmer.aspx). When I first read this, I couldn't help but wonder if he could truly be saved after the attrocities he committed against his fellow man. I think this is a natural reaction when these types of conversions happen because we don't like to see evil things we fear mixed with the Holy things we revere. But to say that Christ's sacrifice was enough to forgive the sins of the world and then say that Dahmer couldn't be saved would make me a hypocrite; worse, it would be doubting the promise that Jesus made to those that believe in him.

So rather than condemn people to death, even murderers, war criminals, and serial killers, we should leave the door for hope open while they serve life in prison. I am not professing that criminals who accept Jesus should be released or given better treatment, but I am advocating that their lives be spared in the hope that they may find Christ in this world and the next.