I just read an article about the historical anti-war leanings of the leaders and founders of America's evangelical and restoration movements--which is markedly different from the almost jingoistic neo-conservatism that so many of these churches have adopted since WWII. After reading Alexander Campbell's thoughts on the subject, which I have pulled from the much larger article, which can be found at http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance327.html , I wonder what can ever be the moral justification for Christians to ever involve themselves in the bloody business of war? Here is the relevant part: "Campbell on War I first turn to Alexander Campbell. Although he waited until the end of the Mexican War to speak out against it, Campbell says he often reflected with intense interest "on the desolations and horrors of war, as indicated in the sacrifice of human life, the agonies of surviving relatives, the immense expenditures of a people’s wealth, and the inevitable deterioration of public morals." Campbell builds his case against Christian participation in war slowly and punctuates it by a series of questions. He begins by asking: "Has one Christian nation a right to wage war against another Christian nation?" But after concluding that "in strict logical and grammatical truth, there is not, of all the nations of the earth, one properly called a Christian nation," he rephrases the question as: "Can Christ’s kingdom or church in one nation wage war against his own kingdom or church in another nation?" Campbell answers his question with another question: "Where is the man so ignorant of the letter and spirit of Christianity as to answer this question in the affirmative?" But in reply to those who have some difficulty with the question and might hypothetically tell him that the form of his question "meets not the exact state of the case," Campbell posits another question: "What, then, says the Bible on the subject of war?" After briefly surveying the Jewish wars of the Old Testament, Campbell concludes that "what the God of Abraham did by Abraham, by Jacob, or by any of his sons, . . . is of no binding authority now" because of the "new administration of the universe" whereby "Jesus Christ is now the Lord and King of both earth and heaven." Having established this fact, Campbell shifts his focus to the participation of the Christian individual in war. Again, he begins with a question: "Can an individual, not a public functionary, morally do that in obedience to his government which he cannot do in his own case?" He concludes that "we cannot of right, as Christian men, obey the POWERS THAT BE in any thing not in itself lawful and right according to the written law" of Jesus Christ. Campbell then advances a step further and affirms: A Christian man can never, of right be compelled to do that for the state, in defence of state rights, which he cannot of right do for himself in defence of his own personal rights. No Christian man is commanded to love or serve his neighbor, his king, or sovereign more than he loves or serves himself. This conceded, and, unless a Christian man can go to war for himself, he cannot for the state. Christians have no commandment as respects the works peculiar to a soldier or the prosecution of a political war. They are to "live peaceably with all men to the full extent of their power" because "the spirit of Christianity is essentially pacific." But it’s not just war, for, says Campbell, "a Christian man cannot conscientiously enter upon any business, nor lend his energies to any cause which he does not approve; and, in order to approve, he must understand the nature and object of the undertaking." He then skillfully applies this dictum to war: Nothing, it is alleged, more tends to weaken the courage of a conscientious soldier, than to reflect upon the originating causes of wars and the objects for which they are prosecuted. These, indeed, are not always easily comprehended. Many wars have been long prosecuted, and some have been terminated after many and long protracted efforts, before the great majority of the soldiers themselves, on either side, distinctly understood what they were fighting for. To Campbell, "the most convincing argument against a Christian becoming a soldier may be drawn from the fact that he fights against an innocent person." If soldiers from warring sides meet in public out of uniform "they would, most probably, have not only inquired after the welfare of each other, but would have tendered to each other their assistance if called for." But if a uniform is their only introduction to each other, it serves as "the signal that they must kill or be killed." How could a Christian man, says Campbell, "thus volunteer his services, or hire himself out for so paltry a sum, or far any sum, to kill to order his own brother man who never offended him in word or deed.""
Though not directly "Christian" (as the New Covenant had not yet been sealed), John the Baptist says, in Luke's Gospel: Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise commanded of John, saying, "And what shall we do?" And he said unto them: "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." "Do violence to no man" sounds like pacifism; but were John teaching that, he would not have told soldiers to be "content with your wages". Wages are only given in the army to those who actually carry out orders. John was referring to ravaging, looting, pillaging, and destroying lives after a battle was over. He never condemns soldiery - and the Lord Jesus commends John in all things.
Great point, but as Campbell points out, there is a marked difference in the militaristic tone of the old covenant, and the pacific themes of the new covenant. After all, our Lord said to resist not evil, turn the other cheek, to love our neighbors as ourselves, and love our enemies, pray for them, and do good to them. We are called to walk on love and, insofar as we ate able, to live at peace with all men. That does not seem to lend itself to militarism. After all, when asked to define what a neighbor is, for the purposes of fulfilling his command to love them, he used by of example a Samaritan rather than the expected Israelite, which was the hated enemy of the Jews at that time. So what would be the moral calculus under the new covenant of Christ, with his law of love and grace?
Great topic Layman. Let me answer by altering the question a bit. I was confronted many years ago by a professing Christian who said I could not be a Police Officer and a Christian. They mentioned my weapons, restraints, and physical ability to render injury, and claimed that was not of God. I mentioned that every part of our criminal code was a complex re-statement of God's Ten Commandments and pointed out the verse from Romans 13 which shows how He works through human hands, both in the church and in the Government (military and law enforcement.) I wonder if Campbell/Stone would sit idly by and let North Korea destroy North America with nuclear weapons? BTW, Romans 13 makes a very clear statement that if you do wrong, to be very afraid because they do not posses the sword in vain. The KJV translates vs 4 as "They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer". Jeff
Good point Jeff. Ok, so what are the limits to waging war for a Christian? What if you were the guy that pushed the button on behalf of the president and he ordered you to fire nuclear weapons on a nation that had not done anything? Would you follow your civil authority's orders and kill millions based on Paul's admonition in Romans 13? Can Paul's words be read independent of the words of Christ?
I think we must see a clear demarcation between "declaring war" and responding to it. North Korea is the one you mentioned ready to push the button for no logical reason, but we, like in previous conflicts would respond to the aggression inflicted upon us.
Christians, and all people of common sense, should avoid war since that's a terrible business and a fertile ground for heinous sins, much suffering and all kinds of atrocities. Nevertheless, sometimes war is inevitable and even imperative. Were Christians sinning when they fought the Nazi onslaught with arms? These thigns must be judged on a case by case basis.
I know of at least one American president who launched a preemptive strike....and he grew up a good episcopalian boy and was quite possibly the most ouvertly religious president in modern times.
I appreciate your observation and I do acknowledge that opinions vary, but in our country a single man does not declare war. It's a long arduous process that involves the totality of government. Long before "Shock & Awe", Bill Clinton had made several small targeted strikes in the same region for the same reasons, so I would struggle to call them pre-emptive. I think Hitler best fits the political figure of your original question. Jeff