Originally posted by Gina L:
What I'd like to see on this thread is more solid biblical evidence of why, as Baptists, we should stand behind this war.
What are the directives for going to war?
What is the purpose and the goal?
How does this idea of war not conflict with being peaceful?
Hello Gina,
I think what you are experiencing is the tension between the ideas of Christian Pacifism and Christian Just War Theory. The following material comes from my notes in Dr. Mark Liederbach’s Christian Ethics class (and is used by permission). Let’s look at what the Bible has to say about the ideas of strict Christian Pacifism and Christian Just War Theory.
Christian pacifists generally hold tightly to the English translation (such as in the KJV)
“Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13, KJV). However, the Hebrew language in that text and other OT passages does not bear out a strict interpretation meaning “no killing” (consider Deut. 7:1-6). Thus, the passage in Ex. 20:13 is better understood and more rightly translated as “You shall not murder” as in the NASB.
Second, Christian pacifists appeal to Jesus’ example of non-violent resistance. However, Jesus’ specific teachings on the subject indicate elements of both sides (pacifism and Just War).
a. Matt. 5:9—blessed are the peacemakers
b. Matt. 5:21-22a—anger and murder
c. Matt. 5:38-39—turn the other cheek
d. Matt. 10:34—“I did not come to bring peace… but the sword.”
e. Matt. 26:50-56—He had the ability to wage war, but did not resort to war.
Clearly Jesus’ teaching has a very pacifistic streak. However, we must consider the whole counsel of God’s Word on the subject. Consider, Rom. 13:1-7 where we understand that the state is given responsibility to “bear the sword.” This passage is generally understood to mean that God has granted the state the authority to bear the sword for the purpose of capital punishment and to make war (under certain specific circumstances). Finally, we must not forget about the rest of the story found in Rev. 19. Here we clearly see that Jesus wages war.
The problem with a strict Christian pacifist prohibition against all killing and war is that it conflicts with the fact that God commanded war (the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land and that Jesus will return as a Warrior King and wage war). Thus, a strict Christian pacifist position which claims that all war is simply wrong actually impugns God because He commanded war. The Scriptures depict three types of warfare commanded by God.
a. Unlimited Holy War (Josh. 6:21-24, 8:24-25, 10:2-40, 11:11-23)
b. Limited Warfare (Deut. 20:19-20)
c. Zealous Rebellion (Judges 6:11-7:25, 13:1-16:31)
Clearly Christians must avoid the Crusader mentality. Problems and characteristics of Crusades:
a. Crusades treat war as an unconditional effort of good vs. evil—no gray areas
b. Crusades treat war as a matter of religion
c. Crusades have little or no place for moral restraint in actions taken against enemies
d. Because good cannot compromise with evil, and because it requires “total war,” crusade has little or no place for surrender of any kind
e. Wars of crusade are fought for the purpose of imposing, achieving, or expanding ideals usually conceived on an universal or cosmological scale
f. Crusades oppose the whole social order and value system of an enemy, not just a few leading individuals, or a few narrow interests. In a war of crusade, no one can be exempted
g. In crusade, soldiers participate with zeal (i.e. suicide bombers & 9/11 terrorists, etc)
h. Crusades require no declaration of war. Anyone with zeal for righteousness, anyone who loves God, anyone willing to give their all for the “true ideal” may strike a blow for good against evil without waiting for approval from some human authority.
i. Crusade tends to extend the state of war into a permanent condition
So we see that we cannot be outright Christian pacifists and we cannot be Christian Crusaders either. So what option is left? We must look to the idea of Christian Just War Criteria, which includes both
jus ad bellum (Latin meaning Law to War) and
jus in bello (Latin meaning Justice in War).
Just War Criteria—
Jus ad Bellum (Justify Going to War)
A. The criteria or requirements ensuring that the reasons for going to war is (are) just:
1. Must have right or legitimate authority—for Christians, in addition to civil authority, we must ask if the Scriptures bear out what we are about to do?
2. Just Cause
3. Right Intention—Trying to ultimately restore peace
4. Last Resort
5. Proportionality—Do only what is necessary to obtain the stated goals or ends
6. Reasonable Chance of Success
a. Counting the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:31). However, are there times when you are just willing to die for what is right?
7. Minimizing Negative Effects—Help rebuild when war is over
B. Moral Traces:
1. For Just Warriors—Even though I must go to war, I do not want or seek to do so.
2. For Pacifists—Sanctity of Human Life, Jesus’ turn the other cheek and peacemaker teachings etc.
C. Why Pacifists and Just Warriors need each other:
1. Both start from a presumption against violence and killing
2. Just Warriors need Pacifists to keep them in check—preventing them from becoming unlimited warriors or developing the Crusader mentality
3. Pacifists need Just Warriors to protect them and their right to be pacifists
Just War Criteria:
Jus in Bello (Just behavior in War)
A. Legitimate Authority—Same as in
jus ad bellum above
B. Discrimination—Asks the questions, Who may be attacked, how may they be attacked, and when may they be attacked?
1. Who: Non-combatant Immunity
a. Prohibition on the
direct and intentional killing of non-combatants (Micah 6:8)
b. Who is to count as a non-combatant?
c. 4 Classifications and their status
i. Combatants—uniformed (armed) soldiers
ii. Non-combatants—civilians (unarmed)
iii. Ex-combatants—POW, sick or wounded soldiers, medics, Chaplains
iv. Unprivileged belligerents—Spies, saboteurs, command and control structures etc.
2. How and When: Rules of Engagement, Double Effect, and Perfidy
a. Rules of Engagement—Moral principles that bind conduct in war
b. Collateral Damage and the “Rule of Double Effect”—The attempt to deal with situations in which an agent foresees, but does not intend, an evil effect that will result from pursuing a good effect
i. The act must itself be either good or indifferent, or at least not forbidden with a view to preventing just the particular effect
ii. The evil effect cannot be a means to the good, but must be equally immediate or at least must result from the good effect
iii. The foreseen evil effect must not be intended or approved, merely permitted—for even a good act is vitiated if accompanied by an evil attempt
iv. There must be a proportionately serious reason for exercising the cause and allowing the evil effect.
c. Perfidy (treachery)—Dealing forthrightly with the enemy. A code of conduct. Raises the question: “On what basis should one try to limit treachery such as signing a treaty and then blowing it off when the other side disarms?”
C. Proportionality
1. The probable benefits of any particular course of action within war must outweigh the probable costs.
[ May 23, 2006, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
