Should Christians always oppose war?

Here is a sermon delivered last Sunday to about 100 teenagers from across New England, including 25 from Cape Cod

Pope John Paul II recently sent a special envoy to Baghdad to support peace. Some Lutheran and Methodist bishops have spoken out against the possible war. Christians around the world have marched with others against it.

These sentiments were also expressed 10 years ago in the first Gulf War. But if the United States and her allies had not liberated Kuwait, we wonder what the Middle East would be like today?

My purpose today is to look at moral issues related to a possible war with Iraq.

First, the pacifist position has always been a respected minority position among Christians. A classic pacifist is one who opposes and will not participate in any violence. Many Christians have been pacifists over the last 2,000 years, but the majority of Christians have not held that view.

In the classic sense, Jesus was not a pacifist. If you had asked the moneychangers in the temple if Jesus was a pacifist, they would have replied,"Are you kidding? He drove us out with a whip!"

Swords for self-defense Jesus allowed his disciples to carry swords, and the swords were not for killing snakes. They were for self-defense.

At one point, Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

At least one of Jesus' disciples was a Zealot. He was part of a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Roman Empire.

Blessed are peacemakers While Jesus was not a pacifist, a primary thrust of his life and ministry was against violence and war. After all, he said,"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).

Second, the New Testament ethic for individuals differs from the mandate for national leaders. Jesus' famous Sermon on the Mount is directed primarily at individual Christians.

Jesus said,"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

We Christians, acting as individuals, are not supposed to retaliate. Indeed, we are supposed to return good for evil.

A different responsibility But our president, as a head of state, has a different responsibility, spelled out in Romans 13:1-5: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.

"Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience."

As head of state, the president's job, the job of government, is to"execute wrath on the wrongdoer." The Bible recognizes that if there were no enforcers of justice, chaos would prevail. The national ruler is clearly authorized to use force. The Bible says,"for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!"

Delivering justice As an .individual Christian, I am supposed to relate to other individuals with kindness rather than force. But if I am in the U.S. armed forces, acting under the command of the president, I become his means of delivering justice to the evildoer.

"But pastor,"you might ask,"aren't Jesus' standards for individual behavior contradictory to the tasks of the national leader in Romans 13?"

The two exist in tension, always reminding us that even when the national leader has to use lethal force, this is not God's ideal plan. It is like the tension between the 4th and 5th commandments. The 4th tells us to honor authorities and the 5th not to kill.

The tragedy of war Third, war is always a tragedy. One of the contributions of Stephen Spielberg's classic World War II movie, "Saving Private Ryan," was to remind us of the horrors of war. Our veterans know that truth all too well. Because of the awful suffering brought about by any war, church doctrine notes that "We deplore war and urge the peaceful settlement of all disputes among nations."

Isaiah, the prophet, revealed God's plan for a world in which "nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4b).

The Psalmist saw God working toward the same goal."He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear, he burns the shields with fire" (Ps. 46:9).

About 20 years ago, a member of my church was dying of cancer. Shortly before his death, he said to me: "I was a bombardier on a B-29 during World War II. I killed lots of people. If I had to do it over, I would. It was essential that we win that war. But that still does not make it right. I want to confess and ask forgiveness for the necessity of killing all those people."

We prayed together. I was so deeply impressed by this man who understood that just because something is necessary does not make it good or right. There is no place in Christianity for a "jihad," a holy war. We never baptize a war. Even when war is necessary, it is still a tragedy.

Unchecked tyranny Fourth, on rare occasions, the alternatives to war are worse than war. Listen to a statement from a denominational book of discipline: "We acknowledge that most Christians regretfully realize that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny, or genocide."

William Sloane Coffin declared recently, "War is a cowardly escape from the possibility of peace." Don't try to tell that to the brave men and women who helped defeat Hitler in World War II. Surely no reasonable person believes the world would have been better if Hitler had not been defeated.

Indeed, many historians believe that if the British and French had intervened in 1936 when Hitler illegally occupied the Rhineland, World War II could have been prevented. The League of Nations was unwilling to enforce its own mandate, and the League died.

In 1991, Europeans attempted to solve the problems in Yugoslavia without American help. But when the situation in Kosovo degenerated into genocide, no other nation was willing to act without American leadership. The U.S.-led coalition stopped the genocide and brought war criminals to justice. I don't know of any responsible leader who suggests that our intervention in Yugoslavia was a mistake.

A change of heart The great German Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a pacifist at the beginning of World War II. Yet, before the war ended, he had become part of a failed plot to assassinate Hitler. The Gestapo imprisoned him. He died at age 39 on a Nazi gallows, stripped of clothes and dignity.

His close friend and biographer, Eberhard Bethge, said this about Bonhoeffer's decision to try to kill Hitler: "A Christian should not kill. But there are times you are responsible for human beings around you, and you have to think about all means to stop that man who is killing."

Fifth, thankfully, church tradition assists us in making decisions about war. St. Augustine's guidelines for a just war are still helpful.

Let's look at those guidelines. First, a legitimate authority must declare the war. In other words, wars must not start because of a personal grudge or an accident. A sovereign head of state must make the decision. Second, the war must be carried out with the right intention. The purpose must be to protect or restore peace, not to seize land or oil.

A last resort Third, the war can be approved only as a last resort. Other alternatives must be tried first. Some say that not all the other alternatives have been exhausted in the Iraq situation. Others disagree, saying that 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions are enough.

Fourth, the war must be waged on the basis of the principle of proportionality. The good to be accomplished by the war must outweigh the suffering and killing that will be unleashed by the war.

Sixth, the war must be waged with all the moderation possible. That is, the accepted rules of The Hague and Geneva Conventions must be followed. To the greatest extent possible, civilians and prisoners of war must be protected.

Special considerations Finally, there are some special considerations in this conflict with Iraq. U.N. Resolution 1441 does not just demand the right for inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. It demands that Iraq disarm and prove it has disarmed. Where are the 25,000 liters of anthrax the Iraqis had before 1998? Where are the 30,000 Iraqi munitions capable of delivering chemical or biological weapons? The inspectors have thus far accounted for only 17. Iraq has not produced any.

How long can the international community wait? What is a sensible midpoint between a rush to war, on one hand, and an irresponsible flirtation with disaster, on the other? Do we really believe that Saddam has used the days of February to comply with U.N. guidelines, or is he planning something else?

Jesus urged us to be "as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"(Matthew 10:16). Is President Bush correct when he says that "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not an option"?

If the United States, Britain and the other allies were to bring their troops home tomorrow and trust that economic sanctions alone will cause Saddam Hussein to behave, would that promote peace or simply convince him and other dictators that they can defy the United Nations with impunity?

President Bush and other national leaders must answer these questions. We must pray for them continually.

It's high noon Let me close by asking you to recall one of my favorite movies, "High Noon," starring Gary Cooper. The movie is 50 years old. Cooper was the sheriff of a small western town. Earlier, a gang of four outlaw brothers had terrorized the town. The sheriff had brought them to justice and sent them to prison. In prison they vowed that when they got out they would kill the sheriff.

The movie focuses on one particular day. The sheriff had just married a woman who happens to be a devout Quaker, utterly opposed to all violence. The sheriff resigns from law enforcement and the couple is about to leave town on their honeymoon.

Suddenly, word comes that the outlaw brothers have been released from prison and are due to arrive that day on the noon train. Everybody urges the couple to get out of town quickly. They ride away, but the sheriff is troubled.

Finally, he turns the wagon around and heads back to town, much to the consternation of his bride. He cannot stand to run away from his old enemies. He knows if they are not confronted, they will not just disappear but will follow after him until there is a resolution to the problem. He pins the badge back on his shirt.

Seeking help Quickly, he tries to round up a posse. It's a Sunday morning and lots of folks are at church. The sheriff interrupts the service, explains the emergency, and asks the men of the congregation to help him form a posse.

One of them says, "We'd like to help you, Sheriff, but we're not trained gunmen. That's what we hire sheriffs for."

Another says, "Sheriff, you're a brave man but it would probably have been wiser if you had not come back to town."

The sheriff turns and walks out in disgust. In the background, one hears Tex Ritter Lane singing that unforgettable theme song: "I do not know what fate awaits me; I only know I must be brave, and I must face the man who hates me, or lie a coward, a craven coward, or lie a coward in my grave."

How does the movie relate to the crisis with Iraq? Nations are so interconnected now that the world could be compared to a small western town. The United Nations, through countless resolutions, has declared Saddam Hussein to be an outlaw. The job of sheriff has been thrust on President Bush. We are like those citizens in church. We must prayerfully decide how big a threat the outlaw is, and what we should do about it.

May God grant us wisdom and courage. God bless the United States, and may freedom and justice be God's gifts to the entire world.

The Rev. Edward Voosen is pastor of Bethel Lutheran Church in Auburn, Mass. He delivered the sermon at Calumet Lutheran Conference Center in West Ossipee, N.H. Voosen, a native of New York City, attended New York Theological Seminary and Princeton Seminary.

By "legitimate," I think we are obligated to use the standards articulated in the Declaration of Independence in assessing a regime's legitimacy. By this standard, Saddam falls well short of legitimate.

As to our support for Saddam in the early 1980s, it's frequently been said that the "enemy of our enemy is our friend." Back then, Saddam didn't seem to be the fiend he's turned out to be. But we also supported Iraq as a way to "balance" the Iranian regime. 9/11 seems to have changed a lot of conventional wisdom in regard to diplomatic strategy. Now, "balance" and "stability" are synonomous with "status quo." Why should the US as the leader of the free world decide to accept the "status quo," either in the Middle East, or anywhere else? "Status quo" means more killings, terrorism, more opporession in the Middle East. Saddam encourages and sponsors Palestinian terrorism, which is the greatest destablizing factor in the world.

For those Hollywood and garden variety leftists types who do not think we should take out Saddam, I have to ask, "Why not? What is it about Saddam you particularly like?" The old arguments don't work any more.

"Back then, Saddam didn't seem to be the fiend he's turned out to be."

Not so. The U.S. government knew exactly what Saddam was doing and what kind of weapons he was using against Iran. It wasn't until the late '80s that we officially condemned his use of chemical weapons.

"Now, 'balance' and 'stability' are synonomous with 'status quo.' Why should the US as the leader of the free world decide to accept the 'status quo,' either in the Middle East, or anywhere else?"

From a constitutional standpoint, the U.S. should not be considered the "leader of the free world." Perhaps that term should be further defined. The federal government exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to defend the rights of the people of the United States. "Leader of the free world" seems to suggest the role of global policeman, dabbling in areas where we clearly don't belong (e.g., Bosnia).

The balance and stability of the U.S.--not to mention the world--has on many occasions been disrupted by the notion that we should take on a more global role. World War I is the perfect example of how that disruption can directly lead to even greater and more deadly consequences. Case in point, World War II.

"Saddam encourages and sponsors Palestinian terrorism, which is the greatest destablizing factor in the world."

Even if Saddam does sponsor Palestinian terrorism, one could make the argument that allowing nations like North Korea to continue to develop and test nuclear missiles is a much greater factor in the destabilization of the world.

The biggest issue I have with Bush's war on Iraq is this: it will do NOTHING to prevent the kind of terrorist attacks we saw on 9/11. However, the attacks of 9/11 are exactly why most conservatives are calling for war.

Here are the two main reasons cited for taking out Saddam:

Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction and may soon have the capability to hit the U.S. with a nuclear/chemical/biological weapon.
Saddam is linked to terrorist organizations that have launched or will launch attacks on the U.S.

Here are the problems with those reasons:

Saddam is not a suicidal Islamic fundamentalist. He knows that any attempt to launch a WMD at the U.S. would result in his own immediate destruction. He may be evil, but he isn't stupid.
Terrorist groups like al-Qaida exist all over the world. Taking out Iraq will no more eliminate the threat they pose than if we attacked Iceland.

We will most likely see an increase in terrorist activity if we attack Iraq. Terrorist groups will most certainly use it as an excuse to step up their holy war against the "Great Satan," whether they have any official ties to Hussein or not.

If the federal government really wanted to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, then it would take some real steps toward guarding our borders and repeal the unconstitutional gun laws that only serve to keep law-abiding citizens unarmed and defenseless. I will continue to stand by my belief that one or two armed passengers could have prevented the 9/11 hijackings.

We should be very careful about hanging all our hopes on what our government does on foreign soil. My fear is that a victory in the Middle East might just lull us into a false sense of security.

I don't think that we deserved 9/11. The terrorists are completely responsible for their actions. I do, however, think that it is foolish and short-sighted to think that the direction our foreign policy has taken the last few decades hasn't created more enemies than we otherwise would have.

It's kind of like walking down a dark, deserted street at midnight and getting mugged. You know that you may have been able to avoid the mugger had you chosen a different path, but that does not make the mugger any less guilty of his crime. Learning from such an experience, a normal person would either avoid dark streets in the future, or at least make sure he was able to protect himself from another mugger. I don't see our government learning that lesson.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.