A Christian View of War
Douglas Wilson summarizes "Just War" theory quite nicely. My favorite part:
Nevertheless, a Christian must go to war understanding that he remains a moral agent while in battle. While he may not be competent to decide whether the war itself is justified--someone else will answer to God for that--he still may know himself to be justified in going to war. His duty is to know what God’s Word expects of him in bello--and if he is commanded to do what is contrary to the Scriptures, he must be fully prepared to refuse. C.S. Lewis put it well: "I feel certain that one Christian airman shot for refusing to bomb enemy civilians would be a more effective martyr . . . than a hundred Christians in jail for refusing to join the army." [C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 327.]
If there is wickedness in high places which engineered the war (and there frequently is), their plans will be more quickly frustrated by a consistent Christian soldiery than by squads of amateur cabinent ministers second guessing whether the cause of the war was Swiss bankers, oil interests, or the Iluminati.
Nevertheless, a Christian must go to war understanding that he remains a moral agent while in battle. While he may not be competent to decide whether the war itself is justified--someone else will answer to God for that--he still may know himself to be justified in going to war. His duty is to know what God’s Word expects of him in bello--and if he is commanded to do what is contrary to the Scriptures, he must be fully prepared to refuse. C.S. Lewis put it well: "I feel certain that one Christian airman shot for refusing to bomb enemy civilians would be a more effective martyr . . . than a hundred Christians in jail for refusing to join the army." [C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 327.]
If there is wickedness in high places which engineered the war (and there frequently is), their plans will be more quickly frustrated by a consistent Christian soldiery than by squads of amateur cabinent ministers second guessing whether the cause of the war was Swiss bankers, oil interests, or the Iluminati.
posted by Unknown at 12:14 PM
4 Comments:
As I understand the laws of the USA, strict pacifists may be granted conscientious objector status, but not Christians who, by just war criteria, judge a particular war to be unjust. Luther was one who advocated that soldiers who were convinced that a particular war was unjust should refuse to fight. How would our military courts deal with that?
By the way, I agree with the C.S. Lewis quote. I have great respect for strict pacifists such as the Amish. (I spent a couple days on an Amish farm, and I am no expert on them.) But it seems that a group like the Amish can only thrive in a society where the rule of law and military defense is upheld by someone else. Justly or unjustly (probably the latter), who cleared the American Indians off the lands the Amish settled in America? All of us are part of the web of sin and virtue that is our nation, and share in the benefits of defense and the rule of law (enforced by force), as well in the responsibility for our nation's actions in the world.
On the first comment:
In a freer society - one in which there is not even the possibility of the draft, the conscientious objector status for strict pacifists would be moot.
If a non-pacifist Christian joins the military, but then is convinced that the war is unjust, he should refuse to fight and then face the consequences, which could be anything from dishonorable discharge to, I suppose, death in extreme cases.
As to the second point:
The Amish's pacificism may on one hand seem to be an avoidance of responsibility for the public affairs of their country. On the other hand, however, they don't bother anybody. If our government had the philosophy of "don't bother anybody" there'd be far fewer wars.
Jim - I agree. I also have a great respect for the Amish - their so-called 'primitive' agricultural practices actually make sense. They do not rely on agri-business pesticides or heavy equipment, they are good stewards - caretakers of the land, and they seem to be thriving in the modern world.
My point was this: I remember in Lancaster, PA, how the Amish remembered the martyrs who did not resist when the Indians attacked. I just couldn't help but think, however, that they did not give the land back - there was no awareness that the Indians had a reason to be angry. Their non-violent homesteading of the land (which many of my ancestors did as well) is a part of the conquest of North America for which, right or wrong, we all share a burden of responsibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home