CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH  OF CHRIST

February 12, 2006

KEEP PRAYING FOR THE FOLLOWING:

Our congregation                                                                 James and Leon in the Army

Various friends, relatives and co-workers                        Susan Oller traveling

Our nation, military and leaders                                         Our students

CONGRATULATION to the Cruthirds at the birth of their daughter on Tuesday!

HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY!

(Tuesday)

WAR AND PEACE

“A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).

You might ask, why would I want us to read about this subject?  If we want to be more like Jesus, following His principles and examples, especially as seen on the Sermon on the Mount, then this little article might be helpful.  That sermon is often appealed to in a discussion of war and peace.

Leaven magazine has an issue called “Nationalism and the American Church” (vol. 13, no. 4, Fourth Quarter 2005, published by Pepperdine University).  Among the articles is one entitled “What do we mean by the Just War Theory” by Shaun Casey.  The Just War Theory was developed by Constantine and refined over the years.  It centered on the idea of reasons for nations to go or not to go to war in a time when churches had much control or influence on government.  The idea was to prevent wars from occurring between nations who had Christian influences.  To be a little cynical about it, it really hasn’t accomplished that particular task. 

The Just War Theory is one of three ideas about war from a Christian perspective, the other two being pacifism and the opposite, crusade.  Throughout two thousand years of church history, each of these have been advocated at one time or another.  Since 9/11, pacifism and the Just War Theory have been raised concerning the War in Iraq.  Brother Casey has a good overview of this theory.  What is involved in the Just War Theory?  One, war can be justified in defense of the innocent.  Two, war might be justified in a pre-emptive sense, though this is hotly debated.  If a nation chooses to go to war, then the following need apply.  One, there must be the right intention, pursuing justice and peace, not revenge and hate.  Two, a nation needs to look at the good being done verses the harm, the consequences of such actions.  Three, there has to be legitimate authority, not the whim of a leader or individual.  In the United States, the President consults with Congress, though there is debate in this area as well.  Four, last resort, that is, every other means has been tried.  Five, there must be a reasonable hope of success, something that Jesus mentions in Luke 14.  Once a nation goes to war, then the following apply, only enough force be used to achieve tactical goals.  Two, there will be no direct targeting of innocent civilians.

All of the above have been debated concerning the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism.  Some will argue that all the criteria have been met, others that only one or two.  Others will argue that innocent civilians have been murdered and that the war is immoral.  They will look at the abuses at the prison in Iraq and see torture.  Mistakes are made in war and our military has a system to correct the mistakes and punish the wrongdoers.  In the current situation, the U.S. military has made a great effort to avoid civilians causalities at the risk of our own people. 

Looking at the above points on the Just War Theory, it doesn’t take long to see that as war goes on, the theory can fall apart.  We look at World War II and see that.  Does that mean that it was wrong to fight?  Some would argue so.  However, war doesn’t follow theories.  One of the arguments made today is that we need to understand why the terrorists are angry with us.  Historians have looked at the situation between the World Wars and have found that the peace that followed the first was more for revenge that led to the second.  After the second, the U.S. being dominant, rebuilt both Germany and Japan. 

What does scripture have to say about all of this?  From the pacifist point of view, they will look at such texts as being peacemakers, turning the other cheek, and loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5).  We must practice what Jesus practice toward His enemies, and the reason it isn’t working is because we have not tried it (Lee Camp argues this in his book Mere Discipleship).  Brother Casey doesn’t appeal to scripture but concludes that the War in Iraq is wrong, and that we in churches of Christ have not made the effort necessary to understand the theological and moral framework involved because we do not agree with him.  He says it is a “type of moral sloth” and that we are too influenced by the “conservative political ethos.”  We have been assimilated in the secular conservative age.  The arguments he makes appear to come from the liberal political ethos and seems rather elitist in his presentation.  There are others who have looked at the Just War Theory and have drawn different conclusions concerning the War in Iraq, including several articles in the magazine First Things (1/05), Charles Colson in Breakpoint columns on his web site, and the book The Virtue of War by A. Webster and D. Cole.

I have more questions than answers to the subject of war.  First and foremost, how do we deal with evil?  Is there evil in this world, and are there evil people?  No one in Leaven addresses this, nor for that matter do many who look at war as wrong.  Joseph Loconte has written a book, The End of Illusions, looking at the sermons preached by some of the peacemakers and some of the prophets before World War II.  Europe had had enough of war after the horrors of The Great War and many just wanted peace.  That led Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler, then pronouncing “peace in our time.”  Winston Churchill saw the foolishness of this but was in the minority.  About a year later, Europe had a war it did not want because Hitler was evil.  Turning the other cheek did not work.  One of the weaknesses of the pacifist position and those who conclude that the current situation does not fit the Just War Theory is what to do about evil.  Evil is an evil world.  Another is looking at humans as being basically good.  Our current multicultural, existential, postmodern positions just do not allow calling anything or anyone evil.  There is evil out there, we need to recognize it as such, and then make difficult decisions confronting it.

Another subject not appealed to in the writings is Romans 13:1-7.  Paul wrote that when Nero was Emperor, no righteous man he.  Yet God gave government, in that case a dictatorship, to govern in a proper way.  Paul and Peter both told us to pray for and honor those in power.  Nowhere are we told to rebel against government.  What happens when a particular government turns evil or is overthrown by evil?  Francis Schaeffer argued in his book, A Christian Manifesto, that Christians might have to resist bad decisions by opposing them even if it means breaking the law and facing the consequences.  He wrote that concerning the abortion issue, but it could apply to any number of moral issues, including war.

When I read through material in opposition to war, I do not see the wars of the Old Testament discuss.  The God of those wars is also our Father.  He sent nations against Israel in judgment, punished others, and ordered the elimination of all in those nations.  Of course, God is the Judge and He can do that; we must never, ever presume to known that this is what is in mind today.  Yet it is something I’ve not seen discussed very well; for the most part pacifists state that that was the Old Testament and we need not bother with it because we are under the New Testament.  This view comes across denominational lines.

How does the Sermon on the Mount apply today?  In my mind, is it for a nation or an individual?  R.J. Rummel might help us here.  He has written a couple of important books, Death by Government and Power Kills.  He is opposed to the War in Iraq by the way.  In it he says that democratic governments do not go to war against each other, they work things out.  Whether they have a Biblical foundation or not, in this sense the Sermon on the Mount can work between those types of nations.  He has also found that totalitarian nations rarely make peace, abuse their citizens to the extent that some 175 million died at the hands of their own government in times of peace.  It seems clear that these nations are evil, not because of their form of government but because of the corruption that comes from power.  You might remember the picture of the Chinese man standing in front of a tank back in 1991.  What isn’t shown is that the tank ran over him.  These nations have no standards by which to work with; anything goes.  I personally think that the Sermon on the Mount is for the individual and that we can and must practice what Jesus taught.

What about Christians in the military?  We have seen pictures of men and women in prayer and have read and heard the stories of their influence in helping the Iraqi people.  Nowhere in the New Testament does anyone tell any soldier that they must leave the military to be a Christian.  Now they might have, based on personal convictions, but we just do not know, so we must be careful making such claims.  I  had a teacher , Richard Baggett, who fought in the Pacific during World War II, and then became a missionary to Japan.  He said that World War II opened the eyes of the church to the world, and the need to preach beyond our borders.  Out of something horrible can come much good. 

Should we understand our enemies?  Yes.  We need to see that militant Islam seeks the destruction of freedom, the subjection of all peoples to Islam, the virtual slavery of women, and will do anything to accomplish this.  The suicide bombers seek not only military targets but any targets, the innocent civilians that the Just War Theory seeks to protect.  9/11 shows this.  It might be a corruption of Islam but it is their theology.  Islam teaches hate of Israel and of us.  The Iraqi people are seeing another side that they have not been taught; hopefully that will bring positive results. 

There are good people on both sides of the issue of war and peace.  Rather than labeling them one thing or another, we need to recognize that, while we disagree, we are one in Christ.  Our enemies we need to pray for, though reading through the Psalms brings other questions about how David and others saw enemies.  We should be praying that the good news is presented and hearts are opened, so that peace in Christ can be found.  We also need to understand that we have enemies who seek our destruction, that the world is not one, and according to Genesis 11, God might not want it to be that way outside of Christ.  That might say something about the United Nations.

I appreciate the articles in Leaven.  I have my biases on this issue and they have theirs.  We must recognize them as we study the situation.  Since we do not live in an ideal world, it makes it difficult and we must wrestle with scripture and draw conclusions, if we can, that we are comfortable with. 

                                                                                                                                George B. Mearns