Demers 1

War is hell!1 Macarthurs words encapsulate, with both concision and clarity, the insufferable nature of war. War contrasts Gods creative purposes with humanitys devastation. War has fueled the fires of greed, oppressed the weak, subjugated the defenseless, cheapened the value of life, and dismembered the essence of peace. War embodies the worst of mankind; it is the masterpiece of humanitys distorted nature, the cornerstone of sinful depravity, the finished product of actualized sin. If the consummate human achievement is to love God and others,2 war clearly and diametrically opposes the very purpose of human existence. In the words of Franklin, there never was a good war, or a bad peace. Thus, to advocate a positive rationale favoring war requires a certain resolution of the mind and soberness of the spirit. Followers of Christ must carefully consider the integral beliefs of human sanctity and the theology of imago dei before even considering such propositions. Yet, the inevitability of war should not paralyze the concerned Christian. Through the vigilant examination of key biblical texts, one can find clear guidelines which justify the necessary and proper administration of war. Before approaching the complex issue of justifying war, one must identify three fundamental principles. These clarifications are necessary to undergird any proper analysis of war by avoiding common misconceptions of evil, the nature of violence, and the inevitability of war. First, one must recognize the all-pervasive nature of evil. Immorality is not simply a matter of choice, the result of lacking discipline, or eroded perseverance; it is a pervasive condition that riddles the political and social reality with which [Christians] are forced to contend.3 Scripture diagnoses sin as a universal deformity of human nature, found at every point in every person.4 On the individual level, persons are not sinners because they

Demers 2

perform sin, but rather sin because they are intrinsically sinful. To understand total depravity, then, is to recognize the inescapable presence of evil in the lives of any human. Sin taints every decision with the smear of imperfection and complicates every deliberation of right and wrong. In the words of J.I. Packer, sin signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree (for no one is as bad as he or she might be) but in extent.5 Even the most pious of intentions are contaminated with traces of evil. Second, one must recognize that violence is not intrinsically evil. A common mistake is to assume that violence is, in all aspects, an inherently sinful deed. This line of thinking follows a simple logical progression: if violence is the product of the original sin, and sin the primary byproduct of the fall, then violence would logically be fundamentally sinful. However, such thinking fails to distinguish between acts of sin and the products of a fallen world. It is inaccurate to assume that all consequences of the Fall are essentially sinful; tears and crying emotional outpourings which will cease to exist in the reconciled Kingdom do not necessarily maintain an immoral status. In fact, there are proper as well as improper manifestations of mourning, such as in the case of Davids mourning,6 the shared grief of fellowship,7 and even Christs blessing to those that mourn.8 Such is the case with violence, where death and violence will too cease to exist. Until that point, violence can be used properly, such as through divine acts of applied lethal force, 9 and improperly. The promise of the redeemed world has yet to pass, and until that time comes, Christians must seek out the proper usages of the various byproducts of humanitys Fall while continuing to live out the Kingdom agenda. Third, one must recognize the inevitability of warfare. Inter-human violence, a direct consequence of original sin,10 has continued to progress since the second generation

Demers 3

of humankind. It is only natural for war to branch from humankinds depravity in its purpose to destroy the hallmark of Gods creation. Violence has continued in its startling progress, both in frequency and intensity, throughout the course of human history. Despite the best efforts of the well-intentioned, there is little reason to believe such a pattern will discontinue wars tragic effects, particularly in light of technological advancements and growing international tensions. Truly the dead alone have seen wars end,11 as Plato declared from the war-torn Balkans. Jesus himself declared that wars and rumors of wars would increase up until the final days.12 However, inevitability on its own does not inherently justify any particular course of action. This begs the question as to whether killing can be justified on any level. A proper understanding of the aforementioned conditions leads directly into the first of three major principles which effectively justify certain implementations of war. Although murder is clearly a biblical malfeasance, and war the all-encompassing manifestation of violence, all forms of killing are not inherently sinful. War and murder must remain distinct. In the eighth commandment, Moses declares murder fundamentally sinful.13 In the Hebrew, the word for murder, ratsach, literally means the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice. [CITATION] The specificity of the term lays out the groundwork for a precise differentiation between murder and killing throughout the remainder of the law. For instance, the law distinguishes an unintentional death from premeditated murder.14 The law also calls for capital punishment institutional murder in several cases.15 In the New Testament, the text clearly allows for certain forms of institutional violence directed by justice. Pauls famous reference to the sword in his epistle to the

Demers 4

Roman church pertains directly to matters of criminal and civil punishment, which may at times involve overt violence as a form of discipline.16 Peter, is his first letter, reinforces with great similarity the right of governments to exact the punishment of evildoers.17 While the boundaries of such implementations are unclear, it is important to note the context of both passages. Pauls passage on government directly precedes his call for beliers to live at peace with one another if it be at all possible.18 Peters direction also follows a call to perseverance in bearing with one another.19 Though hardly ideal and cautioned at every point, the biblical text indisputably justifies institutional violence under the proper, narrowly-constructed conditions. One must also recognize that these principles of institutional violence do in fact coincide with, rather than conflict with, the later teachings of Christ. His instructions are intended for individual application, and appropriately discourage violence on at the level of the individual. Certainly, isolated persons have no inherent right or authority to enact violence against another individual on their own accord. Christ commanded Peter to sheath his sword in Gethsemane,20 and urged his disciples to resist, rather than combat, evil.21 Yet, the privilege of exacting proper retributive and distributive violence is entrusted to the civil authorities alone, and their necessary responsibilities to implement corporate justice. Rather than attempting to erect an unintended conflict, believers must recognize the law of love in both the Old and New Testament Law. This leads to the second major principle. Individuals cannot measure governments, which serve as the authentic proprietor of war and disciplinary violence, by the standards set specifically for individuals. They derive a separate authority the lawful right to enforce obedience which necessitates the availability of lethal force. While authority can

Demers 5

never be taken, and rather must be submitted to or surrendered, force plays an important role in coercing that submission. This authority was never intended to eradicate all forms of sin, yet God clearly means for this corrupted world to be properly governed by divinely instituted authorities over man, and that Christ followers should properly submit to those authorities. Individuals who seek to hold civil authorities to the standards placated by Christ unknowingly neglect a broad range of biblical texts and logical deductions which clearly allow for the use of institutional force. Gods use of the Syrian nation to conquer Israel was the result of divine direction,22 and exemplifies the divine use of war as a tool of justice and correction. God intentionally instituted this conflict to draw the Hebrew people back to him.23 Gods use of war to judge the nations and recalibrate the international spectrum is also evident in his dealings with the Hebrew people, and some would suggest a similar divine role in conflicts such as the World Wars.24 Other supplementary examples include references to Roman military men, many of whom are acknowledged or even commended for their character by both John the Baptist and Christ. Neither attempt to deter the officer from any sort of vocational sin, as in the case of Christs confrontation with the nearly-stoned prostitute.25 Furthermore, Paul pointedly depicts the Christian walk with analogies of warfare,26 military obedience,27 and even individual pieces of armor.28 Though these are hardly resounding affirmations of institutional violence, one may certainly deduce that other inherently sinful occupations have not and would never be chosen to illustrate fundamental Christian principles. Still, there are many who would seek to apply the individualistic principles of Christs teachings to the broader institution of civil authority. Though some select Christians may chose to go the extra mile29 in their approach to violence, they cannot

Demers 6

assume these principles are applicable to both citizen and state. As mentioned previously, both Paul and Peter explicitly detail the responsibilities of government, which clearly include the use of lethal force to deter evil. It is wholly impractical and unrealistic to assume that the civil authorities must turn the other cheek30 in the cases of injustice, and can in no way implement distributive or retributive justice. Certainly, the government can and must respond with veracity toward instances of civil and criminal disobedience with the necessary deterrents. War may be a plague, but it is one such plague which, in the words of Luther, necessarily prevents an even greater pandemic.31 Finally, citizens serving in government-instituted violence, having been assimilated into the authoritarian role of the civil institution, are justified in their involvement in warfare. This evidence is essential for the individual Christian; it justifies the active participation in local government. Paul speaks of a Christians responsibilities to government in the well-worn texts of Romans as well as Philippians.32 Here, Paul establishes the theology of dual citizenship: Christians have responsibilities to both their worldly authority and the coming Kingdom, with the formers interests superseding the latters. The life of Daniel is an excellent manifestation of this principle; the young politician embodied the concept of dual citizenship more effectively than any other biblical anecdote. Surrounded by institutional depravity, Daniel maintained outstanding character. Eventually, a combination of his conduct, wisdom, and holistic excellence led to an elevated position of political authority in the subsequent Persian kingdoms. However, the refugee politician was quick to forsake his vocation if his required responsibilities compromised the standards of Gods character. Daniel chose death over loyalty because he recognized his dual citizenship, particularly his primary citizenship to the Kingdom.

Demers 7

The rationale for government service is also a simple deduction from the previous position of institutional violence. Some would suggest that government services, such as strategic defense, are necessary and pragmatic evils, but should not be pursued by Christian citizens. This suggestion assumes a dualistic model of morality in violence, rather than a universal moral law which God applies to all people. However, there is no doublestandard for Christians and non-Christians. Both can properly participate in efforts of institutional force. Justified violence is a principle that has equal, universal application for all; individuals are bound to the biblical principles of a civil institutions authority regardless of their moral, philosophical, or religious beliefs. Regardless of the justification of war waged by divinely-appointed governments, war remains at best, barbarism.33 Humanitys existence rests on the precarious balance of deceptive international executives, clandestine terrorist operations, and mutually assured destruction. This universal perversion34 will almost assuredly continue its disgraceful existence, to which Christians must respond with a proper biblical perspective constructed with sound scriptural principles. If the sword were not on guard to preserve peace, Luther states, everything in the world would be ruined due to of lack of peace.35 A fearful, lethargic attitude toward this vital issue will only result in a lackadaisical church handicapped by an unwillingness to fully and more capably combat the vast evils of a thoroughly depraved world.

Demers 8

ENDNOTES
1 John T. Rourke. International Politics on the World Stage. (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education), 306. 2 Scot McKnight. The Jesus Creed: Loving God, Loving Others. (Boston: Paraclete Press, 2004), 4. 3 Robert Clouse (ed). War: Four Christian Views. (Winona: BMH Book, 1986), 118. 4 1 Kings 8:46; Rom. 3:9-23; 7:18; 1 John 1:8-10 5 J.I Packer. Concise Theology: a Guide to Christian Beliefs. (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2002), 80. 6 Psalm 30 7 Romans 12:15 8 Matthew 5:4 9 1 Samuel 6:19, Revelation 6:4 10 Romans 3: 10-18 11 R. Daniel Watkins. An Encyclopedia of Compelling Quotations. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 763. 12 Matthew 24:6-7 13 Exodus 20:13 14 Numbers 35:15 15 Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11 16 Romans 13:1-7 17 1 Peter 2:13-14 18 Romans 12:18 19 1 Peter 2:11-12 20 John 18:1-11 21 Matthew 5:38-48 22 Isaiah 36:1-22 23 Amos 4:10 24 Darren Cole. When God Says War Is Right. (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 2002), 126. 25 John 8:11 26 2 Timothy 4:7 27 Philippians 2:19-20 28 Ephesians 6:10-17 29 Matthew 5:$1 30 Matthew 5:39 31 Martin Luther. Luthers Works (American Edition). (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967) 96. 32 Philippians 3:18-20 33 R. Daniel Watkins. An Encyclopedia of Compelling Quotations. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 764. 34 Ibid. 35 Martin Luther. Luthers Works (American Edition). (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967) 75.